This topic contains 28 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by AvatarAvatar ScarTissue98 8 years, 3 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #62208
    AvatarAvatar
    MadDog
    Participant

    Was listening to a recent episode of the Lowe post podcast where Zach proposed the forfeiting of a pick if a team is particularly atrocious for a number of years. I wasn’t opposed to this, but why stop there? Could we potentially not make teams give up their picks but instead have their picks be made by notoriously incompetent GMs? The NBA draft would be 3x more interesting if we could watch the Sixers cross their fingers that Billy King wouldn’t trade Ben Simmons for Joe Johnson and a 2nd round pick.

    What are your serious / novel suggestions to decentivise tanking? 

     

    0
  • #1032217
    AvatarAvatar
    he_gets_buckets
    Participant
     

    In a serious sense, I don’t think taking away a teams pick for sucking multiple years in a row is a viable option- it assumes that teams only suck multiple years in a row from tanking. Teams can just fall on down times, stuff up some draft picks, stuff up some free agent signings, have some key guys go down with injuries in consecutive years and thus be stuck in the lottery for a number of years. That shouldn’t be something that is punished, because if they start having their picks taken away from them, they will stay bad, they can’t just magically be better the next season or the season after, if free agents aren’t interested in going there and now they don’t even have draft picks to hopefully improve the roster. It would be a set up for disaster.

     And then if you go, okay, we’ll make it have a bit of subjectivity to it, so only teams that are deemed to have delibrately tanked by a committee of some type will have their picks taken away, you open up a whole new can of worms of how do you judge that, teams being unfairly treated either in the sense that they have their pick taken when they shouldn’t have, or they keep their pick when it should have been taken. I can definitely see the league favouring their big market teams in situations like that because they know the league makes more money when the Lakers are in business.

    I just don’t think its a viable option, not that I can think of one of the top of my head.

     

    0
  • #1032081
    AvatarAvatar
    he_gets_buckets
    Participant
     

    In a serious sense, I don’t think taking away a teams pick for sucking multiple years in a row is a viable option- it assumes that teams only suck multiple years in a row from tanking. Teams can just fall on down times, stuff up some draft picks, stuff up some free agent signings, have some key guys go down with injuries in consecutive years and thus be stuck in the lottery for a number of years. That shouldn’t be something that is punished, because if they start having their picks taken away from them, they will stay bad, they can’t just magically be better the next season or the season after, if free agents aren’t interested in going there and now they don’t even have draft picks to hopefully improve the roster. It would be a set up for disaster.

     And then if you go, okay, we’ll make it have a bit of subjectivity to it, so only teams that are deemed to have delibrately tanked by a committee of some type will have their picks taken away, you open up a whole new can of worms of how do you judge that, teams being unfairly treated either in the sense that they have their pick taken when they shouldn’t have, or they keep their pick when it should have been taken. I can definitely see the league favouring their big market teams in situations like that because they know the league makes more money when the Lakers are in business.

    I just don’t think its a viable option, not that I can think of one of the top of my head.

     

    0
    • #1032551
      AvatarAvatar
      ScarTissue98
      Participant

      When you get the best player – it’s almost impossible to be AS bad the following year…. Look how getting that top pick has changed the fortunes of different franchises….. I realize it’s not fool proof….. We’ll still have that handful of teams at the bottom laying back each season in the hopes of getting the top pick….. but it will be limited to just that period of time in the spring….

      The ping pong ball system With the guarenteed contracts traps teams into cycles of losing they can’t escape….. Just give the worst team the best pick & they will almost Always begin to head in the right direction…. Look how the NFL & MLB get turn over among ALL the teams…..

      The Ping Pong balls really give credence to conspiracy theorists & since the worst team rarely gets the first pick teams are trapped in cycles of losing……. 

       

       

      0
    • #1032417
      AvatarAvatar
      ScarTissue98
      Participant

      When you get the best player – it’s almost impossible to be AS bad the following year…. Look how getting that top pick has changed the fortunes of different franchises….. I realize it’s not fool proof….. We’ll still have that handful of teams at the bottom laying back each season in the hopes of getting the top pick….. but it will be limited to just that period of time in the spring….

      The ping pong ball system With the guarenteed contracts traps teams into cycles of losing they can’t escape….. Just give the worst team the best pick & they will almost Always begin to head in the right direction…. Look how the NFL & MLB get turn over among ALL the teams…..

      The Ping Pong balls really give credence to conspiracy theorists & since the worst team rarely gets the first pick teams are trapped in cycles of losing……. 

       

       

      0
  • #1032251
    AvatarAvatar
    thetruth87
    Participant

     I never really agreed with being awarded for losing. I also think it sucks that teams that actually try to compete but are mediocre are actually in much worse position than teams who are awful or are tanking. Why shouldn’t a team that is going for it, but is mediocre not have just as good a shot to land a top prospect in the draft than an awful one? 

    My solution is to give all teams in the lottery an equal or very similar odds to land a top 3 pick. Basically every team in the lottery would have a 1/14 shot of landing the #1 pick. I don’t think those odds would make it appealing enough to tank year in and year out. Chances are the worst team would end up with the 4th pick, which isn’t bad, but maybe not appealing enough to tank for. And imagine how exciting the draft lottery would be. A team that just missed the playoffs could land a superstar in the draft and all of a sudden go from middling boarderline playoff team to championship contender just like that. 

    0
  • #1032115
    AvatarAvatar
    thetruth87
    Participant

     I never really agreed with being awarded for losing. I also think it sucks that teams that actually try to compete but are mediocre are actually in much worse position than teams who are awful or are tanking. Why shouldn’t a team that is going for it, but is mediocre not have just as good a shot to land a top prospect in the draft than an awful one? 

    My solution is to give all teams in the lottery an equal or very similar odds to land a top 3 pick. Basically every team in the lottery would have a 1/14 shot of landing the #1 pick. I don’t think those odds would make it appealing enough to tank year in and year out. Chances are the worst team would end up with the 4th pick, which isn’t bad, but maybe not appealing enough to tank for. And imagine how exciting the draft lottery would be. A team that just missed the playoffs could land a superstar in the draft and all of a sudden go from middling boarderline playoff team to championship contender just like that. 

    0
    • #1032255
      AvatarAvatar
      daggers818
      Participant

       TheTruth87 – I like that idea a bit, but having the 14th worst record with the same odds as the worst record doesn’t quite seem fair.  Playing off that idea, perhaps the lottery teams are placed in 3 or 4 tiers?  Bottom 4 teams are equally weighted, then next five, then next five?  Not saying it’s a great idea, but a little better perhaps than equally weighted?

      Also, I’ve always wondered what would be the downside if you could draft anyone at any age, but they couldn’t actually play in the NBA until they were of a certain age (19/20?).  There would be tremendous speculation about young prospects which would create all kinds of excitement and risk to see how these players would pan out vs. drafting, let’s say, a player with proven college ball experience.

      Can you imagine a team being able to draft, for example, Josh Jackson or DeAndre Ayton, this year, but neither would be eligible to play for one to several years?  Or, would you have drafted Lebron when he was 15/16?  As a GM, would you take that chance?

      It’s similar to how the Celtics acquired Larry Bird.  If I recall, he had graduated the year prior or something like that making him draft eligible.  The Celtics had to wait a year so he was a rookie with Magic though they were not in the same draft class.  Clearly Bird was already a great pro prospect by then, but still it was a bit of a gamble.  He was taken 6th so 5 teams passed on him including hometown Indiana who selected the great Rick Robey instead!  The NBA changed the rules after that.  I think it would be fun.  Thoughts?

      0
    • #1032119
      AvatarAvatar
      daggers818
      Participant

       TheTruth87 – I like that idea a bit, but having the 14th worst record with the same odds as the worst record doesn’t quite seem fair.  Playing off that idea, perhaps the lottery teams are placed in 3 or 4 tiers?  Bottom 4 teams are equally weighted, then next five, then next five?  Not saying it’s a great idea, but a little better perhaps than equally weighted?

      Also, I’ve always wondered what would be the downside if you could draft anyone at any age, but they couldn’t actually play in the NBA until they were of a certain age (19/20?).  There would be tremendous speculation about young prospects which would create all kinds of excitement and risk to see how these players would pan out vs. drafting, let’s say, a player with proven college ball experience.

      Can you imagine a team being able to draft, for example, Josh Jackson or DeAndre Ayton, this year, but neither would be eligible to play for one to several years?  Or, would you have drafted Lebron when he was 15/16?  As a GM, would you take that chance?

      It’s similar to how the Celtics acquired Larry Bird.  If I recall, he had graduated the year prior or something like that making him draft eligible.  The Celtics had to wait a year so he was a rookie with Magic though they were not in the same draft class.  Clearly Bird was already a great pro prospect by then, but still it was a bit of a gamble.  He was taken 6th so 5 teams passed on him including hometown Indiana who selected the great Rick Robey instead!  The NBA changed the rules after that.  I think it would be fun.  Thoughts?

      0
  • #1032315
    AvatarAvatar
    Hype Machine

    Since this is a "novel idea’s thread", I’ll go with something crazy.

    Every Player is a free agent. Salary Cap stays in place. There is no draft. Rookies are paid whatever they’re worth, the same as any other player.

    The best teams will be unlikely to have much cap space to sign the next Anthony Davis. Teams like Philly will have plenty. 

    I actually want someone to tell me why it wouldn’t work.

    Common answer is: "Well everyone would go to the Lakers"…but not when Kobe Bryant is chewing up 25m a year. 

    The cynic in me makes me think the NBA uses the draft to predetermine where the best players go. 

     

    0
  • #1032180
    AvatarAvatar
    Hype Machine

    Since this is a "novel idea’s thread", I’ll go with something crazy.

    Every Player is a free agent. Salary Cap stays in place. There is no draft. Rookies are paid whatever they’re worth, the same as any other player.

    The best teams will be unlikely to have much cap space to sign the next Anthony Davis. Teams like Philly will have plenty. 

    I actually want someone to tell me why it wouldn’t work.

    Common answer is: "Well everyone would go to the Lakers"…but not when Kobe Bryant is chewing up 25m a year. 

    The cynic in me makes me think the NBA uses the draft to predetermine where the best players go. 

     

    0
    • #1032198
      AvatarAvatar
      he_gets_buckets
      Participant

      Teams are regularly at or above the cap- just this season half the teams are over the soft cap. No team would be able to sign a big name rookie unless that rookie took a massive pay cut. Meaning only a handful of top picks would get signed. Meaning the NBA would regurlarly have a dearth of young talent.

      0
      • #1032200
        AvatarAvatar
        Hype Machine

        Politely Disagree. 

        Teams would manage the Salary Cap according to the rules in place.  

        • If a team is over the cap and can’t sign incoming talent…then that’s their choice. They have the veterans, and they might do very well with them. But if a team has a bad record, why persist with these veterans once their contracts expire? Sign a few rookies and rebuild.
        • Rookie Salaries are extremely cheap at present so no pay cut is required. Teams only need to save 1m or 2m per season for each Rookie. That won’t get you Ben Simmons, but the worst teams theoretically should have the most cap space, thus need him the most. 
        • I don’t believe that only a "handful" of young players will enter the league. Only 30 Rookies are gauranteed contracts as it currently stands. If no-ones signing young players…who takes the place of veterans who can no longer contribute at NBA level? Teams want the best players that help them win….regardless of age. 
        • When winning teams start seeing teams like Philly use their free cap space to sign Simmons, Murray, Ingram and Labissiere all in one year because they’re the only team with cap space….they’ll soon change their plan. 

        Am I crazy? This idea eliminates tanking.

        I love the draft….but if there was no draft…teams could rebuild much quicker. 

         

         

          

         

         

         

         

         

        0
      • #1032335
        AvatarAvatar
        Hype Machine

        Politely Disagree. 

        Teams would manage the Salary Cap according to the rules in place.  

        • If a team is over the cap and can’t sign incoming talent…then that’s their choice. They have the veterans, and they might do very well with them. But if a team has a bad record, why persist with these veterans once their contracts expire? Sign a few rookies and rebuild.
        • Rookie Salaries are extremely cheap at present so no pay cut is required. Teams only need to save 1m or 2m per season for each Rookie. That won’t get you Ben Simmons, but the worst teams theoretically should have the most cap space, thus need him the most. 
        • I don’t believe that only a "handful" of young players will enter the league. Only 30 Rookies are gauranteed contracts as it currently stands. If no-ones signing young players…who takes the place of veterans who can no longer contribute at NBA level? Teams want the best players that help them win….regardless of age. 
        • When winning teams start seeing teams like Philly use their free cap space to sign Simmons, Murray, Ingram and Labissiere all in one year because they’re the only team with cap space….they’ll soon change their plan. 

        Am I crazy? This idea eliminates tanking.

        I love the draft….but if there was no draft…teams could rebuild much quicker. 

         

         

          

         

         

         

         

         

        0
      • #1032204
        AvatarAvatar
        Hype Machine

        Imagine the Bobcats have 10m in cap space next year.

        They can

        a) sign a free agent worthy of starter minutes…eg JR Smith or Timofey Mozgov (Examples only). 

        b) Throw a 10m offer at someone like Jamal Murray. (A lot for a rookie…but if that’s the market rate…) 

        c) Pick up 3 "late lottery" types like Rodney Hood, Frank Kaminsky, and pay each 3 or 4m.

        All are viable options. A good GM will make the right choice. 

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

        0
        • #1032234
          AvatarAvatar
          ZachAttack
          Participant

           Wait… who are the Bobcats?

          0
          • #1032288
            AvatarAvatar
            Hype Machine

             Lol don’t you have some geography homework to do.

            Id start by studying the main highways out of Utah.

             

            0
          • #1032422
            AvatarAvatar
            Hype Machine

             Lol don’t you have some geography homework to do.

            Id start by studying the main highways out of Utah.

             

            0
        • #1032369
          AvatarAvatar
          ZachAttack
          Participant

           Wait… who are the Bobcats?

          0
      • #1032339
        AvatarAvatar
        Hype Machine

        Imagine the Bobcats have 10m in cap space next year.

        They can

        a) sign a free agent worthy of starter minutes…eg JR Smith or Timofey Mozgov (Examples only). 

        b) Throw a 10m offer at someone like Jamal Murray. (A lot for a rookie…but if that’s the market rate…) 

        c) Pick up 3 "late lottery" types like Rodney Hood, Frank Kaminsky, and pay each 3 or 4m.

        All are viable options. A good GM will make the right choice. 

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

        0
    • #1032333
      AvatarAvatar
      he_gets_buckets
      Participant

      Teams are regularly at or above the cap- just this season half the teams are over the soft cap. No team would be able to sign a big name rookie unless that rookie took a massive pay cut. Meaning only a handful of top picks would get signed. Meaning the NBA would regurlarly have a dearth of young talent.

      0
  • #1032208
    AvatarAvatar
    PulseGlazer
    Participant

     Make the lottery include teams that don’t have first round home court in the playoffs and flatten the odds.

    0
  • #1032343
    AvatarAvatar
    PulseGlazer
    Participant

     Make the lottery include teams that don’t have first round home court in the playoffs and flatten the odds.

    0
  • #1032220
    AvatarAvatar
    holefillers1
    Participant

    &nbspAdam Silver is briefed by all teams in rebuild mode. Hinkie had to explain his plan last year and Silver signed off on it…Embiid gets hurt, Hinkie isn’t prepared for a third tank and Silver intervenes…enter Jerry Colangelo. Also I think there is a difference between teams tanking for a purpose and teams that are poorly run like Bill King or Vlad the Destroyer.

    0
  • #1032355
    AvatarAvatar
    holefillers1
    Participant

    &nbspAdam Silver is briefed by all teams in rebuild mode. Hinkie had to explain his plan last year and Silver signed off on it…Embiid gets hurt, Hinkie isn’t prepared for a third tank and Silver intervenes…enter Jerry Colangelo. Also I think there is a difference between teams tanking for a purpose and teams that are poorly run like Bill King or Vlad the Destroyer.

    0
  • #1032254
    AvatarAvatar
    Memphis Madness
    Participant

     This is a little wild but this would discourage teams a bit more from tanking, reward teams who make the playoffs, and give EVERY team in the league a decent shot at a really good lottery player.

    I would make the first FIVE picks determined by ping pong balls.

    The SIXTH pick would be open to EVERY team in the league.  It would basically come down to every NBA team having a 3.33% shot at the 6th pick.

    Then you start the rest of the lottery at 7.  

    I would have the odds of something like the WORST team in the NBA has a 90% chance at getting a top 5 pick, BUT a SMALL CHANCE that they could fall all the way to 7.  I think this would help discourage tanking.

    So, after every non-playoff team pick, with 15 picks in, I would actually do this:

    I would give EVERY playoff team two picks in a row.

    This would REWARD playoff teams, especially those playoff teams who are non-elite.

    So, barely get in the playoffs and you are rewarded with TWO PICKS.  So instead of picking at 15 you get 16 and 17.

    This would ALSO move the GREAT TEAMS further down the draft.  So the Golden State Warriors would be picking at 46 and 47 instead of 30.

    I would keep the second round as it is.  But, obviously starting it further down the draft.  So, the first pick of the second round would go to the worst team in the league and that pick would be at 48 (instead of 31).  Since the first round has a bonus pick, I would ALSO give a "bonus" 2nd round pick to the team with the league’s worst record, sort of offsetting the lowered chances of getting a top 3 pick…  that would be the ONLY bonus pick in the 2nd round.  So, the worst team in the league gets 48 and 49 along with it’s first round pick.  The OTHER NBA teams only get ONE second round pick (excepting for trades).

    Under this system, you would probably be better off just barely MAKING the playoffs instead of just MISSING it.  Tanking isn’t worth it as much.

    GREAT TEAMS pick lower in the draft, to reward the NON-ELITE teams.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    0
  • #1032389
    AvatarAvatar
    Memphis Madness
    Participant

     This is a little wild but this would discourage teams a bit more from tanking, reward teams who make the playoffs, and give EVERY team in the league a decent shot at a really good lottery player.

    I would make the first FIVE picks determined by ping pong balls.

    The SIXTH pick would be open to EVERY team in the league.  It would basically come down to every NBA team having a 3.33% shot at the 6th pick.

    Then you start the rest of the lottery at 7.  

    I would have the odds of something like the WORST team in the NBA has a 90% chance at getting a top 5 pick, BUT a SMALL CHANCE that they could fall all the way to 7.  I think this would help discourage tanking.

    So, after every non-playoff team pick, with 15 picks in, I would actually do this:

    I would give EVERY playoff team two picks in a row.

    This would REWARD playoff teams, especially those playoff teams who are non-elite.

    So, barely get in the playoffs and you are rewarded with TWO PICKS.  So instead of picking at 15 you get 16 and 17.

    This would ALSO move the GREAT TEAMS further down the draft.  So the Golden State Warriors would be picking at 46 and 47 instead of 30.

    I would keep the second round as it is.  But, obviously starting it further down the draft.  So, the first pick of the second round would go to the worst team in the league and that pick would be at 48 (instead of 31).  Since the first round has a bonus pick, I would ALSO give a "bonus" 2nd round pick to the team with the league’s worst record, sort of offsetting the lowered chances of getting a top 3 pick…  that would be the ONLY bonus pick in the 2nd round.  So, the worst team in the league gets 48 and 49 along with it’s first round pick.  The OTHER NBA teams only get ONE second round pick (excepting for trades).

    Under this system, you would probably be better off just barely MAKING the playoffs instead of just MISSING it.  Tanking isn’t worth it as much.

    GREAT TEAMS pick lower in the draft, to reward the NON-ELITE teams.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    0
  • #1032256
    AvatarAvatar
    Hype Machine

     What happened to ‘the wheel’

    0
  • #1032391
    AvatarAvatar
    Hype Machine

     What happened to ‘the wheel’

    0

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login