[valentine]

I’m just throwing this out there.  Maybe it’s a good idea.  Maybe it’s a terrible idea.  I think that if a team tanks for a certain number of years in a row, they should forfeit their draft pick for the upcoming draft.  Then, one of the sixteen teams who did make the playoffs that year would win that team’s draft pick in a lottery.  Also, the offending should be assigned dead money to their salary cap figure in a year that is voted upon by the other 29 teams.  I don’t know specifically how this would work, but this is the principle.

[phila9012Participant]

 It is too hard to define tanking. The timberwolves haven’t been tanking for 10 or 11 years now, they have just had crappy management ie Kahn and McHale. It would suck to have them forfeit their draft pick this year when they should have a top 5 pick that should be the final piece to their future. I think the teams should have some money distributed based on where they finish. It doesn’t have to be much maybe 1 or 2 million based on record working like the the worst team/number 30 gets 1 million 29 gets 2 million 28 gets 3 million all the way up to the top team based on record getting 31 million. If you want it to punish teams more do it with 2 million per level with number 30 getting 2 million and number 1 getting 62 million or anywhere in between. It would at least cut into profits of teams that are losing with out hurting them getting better through the draft.

[ph90702]

I would define tanking as not making the playoffs fpor a certain number of years.  Maybe five years.

[username_takenParticipant]

The Timberwolves haven’t made the playoffs for far longer than 5 years, and they haven’t been "tanking" all that time. It is unfair to punish poorly managed teams.

[username_takenParticipant]

The Timberwolves haven’t made the playoffs for far longer than 5 years, and they haven’t been "tanking" all that time. It is unfair to punish poorly managed teams.

[ph90702]

I would define tanking as not making the playoffs fpor a certain number of years.  Maybe five years.

[phila9012Participant]

 It is too hard to define tanking. The timberwolves haven’t been tanking for 10 or 11 years now, they have just had crappy management ie Kahn and McHale. It would suck to have them forfeit their draft pick this year when they should have a top 5 pick that should be the final piece to their future. I think the teams should have some money distributed based on where they finish. It doesn’t have to be much maybe 1 or 2 million based on record working like the the worst team/number 30 gets 1 million 29 gets 2 million 28 gets 3 million all the way up to the top team based on record getting 31 million. If you want it to punish teams more do it with 2 million per level with number 30 getting 2 million and number 1 getting 62 million or anywhere in between. It would at least cut into profits of teams that are losing with out hurting them getting better through the draft.

[HitsterParticipant]

 Interesting idea what about a team who just drafts badly or who doesn’t get the right mix. Look at the number of high picks Utah have had in recent years, same with T-Wolves. Sometimes teams just draft badly and end up in the lottery years on end.

The easiest way to stop it might be to use the lottery system suggested last year whereby every team gets a pick between 1 and 30 on the 30 year cycle.

 

[hbomb3300Participant]

I still love the Wheel idea.  It would make the trading of picks easier since you wouldn’t have to worry about put protections and rules on the traded pick.  Also, it would allow sometimes for quality organizations to get quality prospects near the top of the draft.  Your record would not matter AT ALL when it comes to the draft.  

[hbomb3300Participant]

I still love the Wheel idea.  It would make the trading of picks easier since you wouldn’t have to worry about put protections and rules on the traded pick.  Also, it would allow sometimes for quality organizations to get quality prospects near the top of the draft.  Your record would not matter AT ALL when it comes to the draft.  

[HitsterParticipant]

 Interesting idea what about a team who just drafts badly or who doesn’t get the right mix. Look at the number of high picks Utah have had in recent years, same with T-Wolves. Sometimes teams just draft badly and end up in the lottery years on end.

The easiest way to stop it might be to use the lottery system suggested last year whereby every team gets a pick between 1 and 30 on the 30 year cycle.

 

[nick5354Participant]

I am not sure saying if you’re not in the playoffs for 5 years you’re tanking is good. It doesn’t really take into account how good the league is at the time. For example, what if a team is winning almost at .500 and still missing the playoffs? Would be a bit tough on that.

There is too many complications with doing a 30 year cycle. Firstly, you will need all owners to agree. What if you are the team who gets the #1 pick in like 2045? Would you really agree to have that? Also It would take years to implement as all traded picks would have to be used as it would be unfair to implement the cycle and turn what was probably a late 1st into a top #3 pick. There would also have to be no pick trading for years up to a certain date.

Soccer has the perfect system in regards to tanking with how they use relegation. But this is way to hard to use in the NBA. It would be impossible.

The easiest, mot sensible way to decrease tanking for me is too introduce a games win floor for all teams. Bring in statistics experts to analyse where the optimal level is for the games floor. This could be say 19 games (only an example) so if a team wins any less then 19 games they forfeit their initial first round pick and all teams move up 1 spot in the mock draft ladder and the bottom team then will get the 30th pick in the draft.

[nick5354Participant]

I am not sure saying if you’re not in the playoffs for 5 years you’re tanking is good. It doesn’t really take into account how good the league is at the time. For example, what if a team is winning almost at .500 and still missing the playoffs? Would be a bit tough on that.

There is too many complications with doing a 30 year cycle. Firstly, you will need all owners to agree. What if you are the team who gets the #1 pick in like 2045? Would you really agree to have that? Also It would take years to implement as all traded picks would have to be used as it would be unfair to implement the cycle and turn what was probably a late 1st into a top #3 pick. There would also have to be no pick trading for years up to a certain date.

Soccer has the perfect system in regards to tanking with how they use relegation. But this is way to hard to use in the NBA. It would be impossible.

The easiest, mot sensible way to decrease tanking for me is too introduce a games win floor for all teams. Bring in statistics experts to analyse where the optimal level is for the games floor. This could be say 19 games (only an example) so if a team wins any less then 19 games they forfeit their initial first round pick and all teams move up 1 spot in the mock draft ladder and the bottom team then will get the 30th pick in the draft.

[ChoppyParticipant]

I don’t like the wheel. I could guarantee that if a top prospect could be a 1-and-done in a year that, say Minnesota (I picked on them for bad weather) has the number one pick, might look at the next year and say "Hmm.. Lakers are picking first next year, I’ll go back to college and try and go to them." Too much chance of collusion I think.

I think 5 years out of playoffs is not a good guide for tanking. Look at Detroit. They’ve never tanked, they have just had crappy management.

[King CaluchaParticipant]

I agree. That wheel thing is one of the worst proposals I’ve read about bringing parity to the league. It’ll only create benefit for the big markets only.

[Magic JordanParticipant]

 Yes, and my personal favorite conspiracy about the wheel (which I created)……… is the potential for teams to breed a super basketball baby ala Anthony Davis/ Brittany Griner child to coincide perfectly with their draft year.  This always bring me to another question, what NBA/WNBA duo past or present would make the best super basketball baby??

[Magic JordanParticipant]

 Yes, and my personal favorite conspiracy about the wheel (which I created)……… is the potential for teams to breed a super basketball baby ala Anthony Davis/ Brittany Griner child to coincide perfectly with their draft year.  This always bring me to another question, what NBA/WNBA duo past or present would make the best super basketball baby??

[King CaluchaParticipant]

I agree. That wheel thing is one of the worst proposals I’ve read about bringing parity to the league. It’ll only create benefit for the big markets only.

[ph90702]

That would encourge the owner to make changes.

[ph90702]

That would encourge the owner to make changes.

[hbomb3300Participant]

 So you think a prospect would stay another year in college just for the chance to be picked by the team they want to go to?  Most prospects jump on the opportunity when their stock is highest.  Plenty of prospects have returned to college then had their stock drop dramatically either because of poor play, injuries, or just better prospects in front of them.  The scenerio you’re talking about might happen, but a lot of things need to line up for it to happen.  A nationally popular team or the prospect’s local team (which in your scenario is the Lakers, who I think most people would agree isn’t a great situation right now) gets a top 3 pick, a top 3 prospect coming into the draft loves that team, the player is patient and doesn’t need the money right away, and teams before the popular/local team aren’t going to take the prospect.  I just don’t feel like it would be a common enough scenario to just scrap the whole idea of the wheel.

[hbomb3300Participant]

 So you think a prospect would stay another year in college just for the chance to be picked by the team they want to go to?  Most prospects jump on the opportunity when their stock is highest.  Plenty of prospects have returned to college then had their stock drop dramatically either because of poor play, injuries, or just better prospects in front of them.  The scenerio you’re talking about might happen, but a lot of things need to line up for it to happen.  A nationally popular team or the prospect’s local team (which in your scenario is the Lakers, who I think most people would agree isn’t a great situation right now) gets a top 3 pick, a top 3 prospect coming into the draft loves that team, the player is patient and doesn’t need the money right away, and teams before the popular/local team aren’t going to take the prospect.  I just don’t feel like it would be a common enough scenario to just scrap the whole idea of the wheel.

[ChoppyParticipant]

I don’t like the wheel. I could guarantee that if a top prospect could be a 1-and-done in a year that, say Minnesota (I picked on them for bad weather) has the number one pick, might look at the next year and say "Hmm.. Lakers are picking first next year, I’ll go back to college and try and go to them." Too much chance of collusion I think.

I think 5 years out of playoffs is not a good guide for tanking. Look at Detroit. They’ve never tanked, they have just had crappy management.

[IhateusernamesParticipant]

 You know a team is tanking when 2/3 to 3/4 of their roster is on one year or 10 day contracts. 

Philly would barely win the DLeague with their roster.

 

[IhateusernamesParticipant]

 You know a team is tanking when 2/3 to 3/4 of their roster is on one year or 10 day contracts. 

Philly would barely win the DLeague with their roster.

 

[ChewyParticipant]

 where the bottom 3 teams move down to the "B League" and the top 3 teams from that league move up to the NBA every summer… tanking will not stop. A systems has been created where the best and the worst get rewarded. The middle do not. Until you have a system that punishes the bottom, nothing will change.

Having to play in a lower league for a year and try to requalify for the NBA top league would make teams lose millions. Owners don’t like losing money. Tanking (in the extreme sense) ends.

 

[ChewyParticipant]

 where the bottom 3 teams move down to the "B League" and the top 3 teams from that league move up to the NBA every summer… tanking will not stop. A systems has been created where the best and the worst get rewarded. The middle do not. Until you have a system that punishes the bottom, nothing will change.

Having to play in a lower league for a year and try to requalify for the NBA top league would make teams lose millions. Owners don’t like losing money. Tanking (in the extreme sense) ends.

 

[r377Participant]

I dont’ like the ball odds – it is too unfair.

The worst team gets 250 out of 1000 balls (25% of total balls) while the five teams with the best records get between 5 and 11 balls. (0.5-1% of total balls) This is just too unfair !!

2nd worse teams gets about 199 balls, while the 3rd gets around 150 balls, the 4th and 5th usually get around 100 balls each (10%)

I think they should make it more of a "lottery". How is nearly half the teams having 1% or less chance of winning fair ?

It should be something more even like this:

2.5%,3%,3.5%,4%,4.5%,5%,5.5%,6.5%,8%,9%,10%,11.5%,13%,14% (doesn’t equal 100 but close enough)

[ChoppyParticipant]

Definitely needs a ‘smoothing’ of the odds. Give teams less incentive to deliberately suck.

[ChoppyParticipant]

Definitely needs a ‘smoothing’ of the odds. Give teams less incentive to deliberately suck.

[r377Participant]

I dont’ like the ball odds – it is too unfair.

The worst team gets 250 out of 1000 balls (25% of total balls) while the five teams with the best records get between 5 and 11 balls. (0.5-1% of total balls) This is just too unfair !!

2nd worse teams gets about 199 balls, while the 3rd gets around 150 balls, the 4th and 5th usually get around 100 balls each (10%)

I think they should make it more of a "lottery". How is nearly half the teams having 1% or less chance of winning fair ?

It should be something more even like this:

2.5%,3%,3.5%,4%,4.5%,5%,5.5%,6.5%,8%,9%,10%,11.5%,13%,14% (doesn’t equal 100 but close enough)

[tuck243Participant]

the teams should have at least 2 players under a contract that is/was 3 or more years long.   It can’t be rookie deals either, so they HAVE to trade for veterans or sign guys to longer contracts.  It probably won’t stop the Sixers way of tanking, but it will force them to have some sense good faith to the league.  

I also like your idea of losing the draft pick, but instead I will say.  Let them keep their pick, but vote through the league owners if they should lose their spot in the draft…  Wolves, Kings, Orlando.. cases they tried to get better but made bad moves.  The Sixers case was to be as bad as possible and get a ton of picks without spending money.  Instead put it to a vote of the owners and whatever their pick is EVERYONE in the first round move up one spot to that pick and the last pick of the first round go to the Sixers.   

 

[tuck243Participant]

the teams should have at least 2 players under a contract that is/was 3 or more years long.   It can’t be rookie deals either, so they HAVE to trade for veterans or sign guys to longer contracts.  It probably won’t stop the Sixers way of tanking, but it will force them to have some sense good faith to the league.  

I also like your idea of losing the draft pick, but instead I will say.  Let them keep their pick, but vote through the league owners if they should lose their spot in the draft…  Wolves, Kings, Orlando.. cases they tried to get better but made bad moves.  The Sixers case was to be as bad as possible and get a ton of picks without spending money.  Instead put it to a vote of the owners and whatever their pick is EVERYONE in the first round move up one spot to that pick and the last pick of the first round go to the Sixers.   

 

[Mr. HookShotParticipant]

I believe it would be best to somehow punish teams that finish with a ridiculous low amount of wins, either based on league average, or conference average, or compared to the other teams in the lottery, or a combination of multiple factors (maybe also related to amount of injury days, to roster make-up (veterans yes or no?), etc.). I believe this way the league could force teams to put a competitive team on the field instead of only throtting out D-league type of players.

[Mr. HookShotParticipant]

I believe it would be best to somehow punish teams that finish with a ridiculous low amount of wins, either based on league average, or conference average, or compared to the other teams in the lottery, or a combination of multiple factors (maybe also related to amount of injury days, to roster make-up (veterans yes or no?), etc.). I believe this way the league could force teams to put a competitive team on the field instead of only throtting out D-league type of players.

[sitlbitoParticipant]

This thread is just the proof of why all those propositions won’t be adopted. Besides the fact that 23 owners out of 30 must agree(we often forget about that),there’s 16 posts on here,there must be 20 different propositions. This 5 year thing won’t happen for multiple reasons,what if the 5th year is THE year where a team improves But there’s a Ricky Rubio type injury and they just miss the PO,they won’t forfeit that pick because of that,that’s unfair.
Secondly,if a team is bad for 5 straight years and you make them forfeit their pick,do they also forfeit the pick the 6th year? Then you just ut them in a situation where they’ll be bad forever,what the league doesn’t want. The irony is that you’re doing that to prevent teams from tanking,while this proposition makes bad teams even worse.
Thirdly I’ve said this now in multiple threads,there’s no tanking there’s bad management. Look at Indiana:Paul George 10th pick,Hibbert mid first,Stephenson second round pick,George Hill 25th pick acquired in a trade for a 15th pick,Granger 17th pick(ironically traded for a 2nd overall pick who was not good) and West a veteran picked up in free agency. You don’t need 5 top 5 picks to wn in the nba,you need a good system,a good coach,a good GM ,good assitant coaches specialized in developping players. Just a reminder that this team lost in the conference finals twice. Ok they didn’t win a title but they were one of the best teams in the NBA for 2 years.

[sitlbitoParticipant]

This thread is just the proof of why all those propositions won’t be adopted. Besides the fact that 23 owners out of 30 must agree(we often forget about that),there’s 16 posts on here,there must be 20 different propositions. This 5 year thing won’t happen for multiple reasons,what if the 5th year is THE year where a team improves But there’s a Ricky Rubio type injury and they just miss the PO,they won’t forfeit that pick because of that,that’s unfair.
Secondly,if a team is bad for 5 straight years and you make them forfeit their pick,do they also forfeit the pick the 6th year? Then you just ut them in a situation where they’ll be bad forever,what the league doesn’t want. The irony is that you’re doing that to prevent teams from tanking,while this proposition makes bad teams even worse.
Thirdly I’ve said this now in multiple threads,there’s no tanking there’s bad management. Look at Indiana:Paul George 10th pick,Hibbert mid first,Stephenson second round pick,George Hill 25th pick acquired in a trade for a 15th pick,Granger 17th pick(ironically traded for a 2nd overall pick who was not good) and West a veteran picked up in free agency. You don’t need 5 top 5 picks to wn in the nba,you need a good system,a good coach,a good GM ,good assitant coaches specialized in developping players. Just a reminder that this team lost in the conference finals twice. Ok they didn’t win a title but they were one of the best teams in the NBA for 2 years.

[HitsterParticipant]

The Wheel idea was interesting but which team it starts with would be very hard to determine.

The only way relegation and promotion could work in the NBA would be to have Two Divisons of maybe 8 in each conference including a couple of expansion teams.

Western Conference Divison 1, Western Conference Divison 2

Eastern Conference Division 1, Eastern Conference Divison 2

Teams from 1st Division only play against each other with top 4 from each going into play offs for the NBA Title.

Bottom team in each Divison 1 is relegated, Top team in each Divison 2 is promoted automatically. 2nd bottom in Divison 1 plays off against 2nd top in Divison 2 with winners being promoted or remaining in Divison 1.

Football in Europe is very much built on a League table with far less emphasis on play offs compared to US sports so it would be hard to convince US fans to buy into this sort of structure I think.

 

[HitsterParticipant]

The Wheel idea was interesting but which team it starts with would be very hard to determine.

The only way relegation and promotion could work in the NBA would be to have Two Divisons of maybe 8 in each conference including a couple of expansion teams.

Western Conference Divison 1, Western Conference Divison 2

Eastern Conference Division 1, Eastern Conference Divison 2

Teams from 1st Division only play against each other with top 4 from each going into play offs for the NBA Title.

Bottom team in each Divison 1 is relegated, Top team in each Divison 2 is promoted automatically. 2nd bottom in Divison 1 plays off against 2nd top in Divison 2 with winners being promoted or remaining in Divison 1.

Football in Europe is very much built on a League table with far less emphasis on play offs compared to US sports so it would be hard to convince US fans to buy into this sort of structure I think.

 

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 Playoffs sell more expensive tickets and get more tv ratings.

On the other hand… I find it amusing. Teams have been tanking since… well… always, but it has become a problem just now? Because the 76ers really suck??

If smooth the odd curve too much, you’ll have what happened in the 90’s with the Magic having back to back #1 picks. Probably only the worst 8 teams (just saying a numeer out of my head) should have a lotto.

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 Playoffs sell more expensive tickets and get more tv ratings.

On the other hand… I find it amusing. Teams have been tanking since… well… always, but it has become a problem just now? Because the 76ers really suck??

If smooth the odd curve too much, you’ll have what happened in the 90’s with the Magic having back to back #1 picks. Probably only the worst 8 teams (just saying a numeer out of my head) should have a lotto.

[Andrew1984Participant]

 I don’t understand why everyone thinks tanking is such a problem. If a franchise feels that accumulating high draft picks while compiling a lousy record is the strategy that will help them achieve their long-term goals, that’s their prerogative. 

Of course, everyone will whine, "But the fans are paying top dollar for those tickets, to watch a bunch of D-leaguers!" Nobody put a gun to their head. They chose to buy tickets freely. Even season-ticket holders make their purchase with the undertanding that they have no guarantee of seeing a winner. 

Owners and GMs are smart enough to realize that if they adopt the tanking strategy, there are going to be some risks. Losing a lot of fans while taking it on the chin is something they have consciously decided is worth the risk.

Maybe they’ll be so bad that nobody will buy their merchandise and nobody will buy tickets. That’s a risk they’re willing to take. They’ve crunched the numbers. They know what they’re doing. They know that once the franchise is winning again, they’ll either re-capture the fans that they lost, or gain new ones. 

Requiring teams not to tank would be like banning sacrifice bunts in baseball. Yes, the bunting player is giving up, but it’s for a purpose that his manager believes will ultimately help them win a game and not just an at-bat. 

I hate when people say tanking causes the league to lose its "competitiveness." It is competitiveness that is MOTIVATING the tanking! The tanking is the strategy used to "compete!" 

People need to quit whining, quit being so short-sighted, and learn to appreciate the fact that one of the beauties of pro sports is that you have franchises who are competing against each other, not just in the current season, but for the next several seasons too. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Andrew1984Participant]

 I don’t understand why everyone thinks tanking is such a problem. If a franchise feels that accumulating high draft picks while compiling a lousy record is the strategy that will help them achieve their long-term goals, that’s their prerogative. 

Of course, everyone will whine, "But the fans are paying top dollar for those tickets, to watch a bunch of D-leaguers!" Nobody put a gun to their head. They chose to buy tickets freely. Even season-ticket holders make their purchase with the undertanding that they have no guarantee of seeing a winner. 

Owners and GMs are smart enough to realize that if they adopt the tanking strategy, there are going to be some risks. Losing a lot of fans while taking it on the chin is something they have consciously decided is worth the risk.

Maybe they’ll be so bad that nobody will buy their merchandise and nobody will buy tickets. That’s a risk they’re willing to take. They’ve crunched the numbers. They know what they’re doing. They know that once the franchise is winning again, they’ll either re-capture the fans that they lost, or gain new ones. 

Requiring teams not to tank would be like banning sacrifice bunts in baseball. Yes, the bunting player is giving up, but it’s for a purpose that his manager believes will ultimately help them win a game and not just an at-bat. 

I hate when people say tanking causes the league to lose its "competitiveness." It is competitiveness that is MOTIVATING the tanking! The tanking is the strategy used to "compete!" 

People need to quit whining, quit being so short-sighted, and learn to appreciate the fact that one of the beauties of pro sports is that you have franchises who are competing against each other, not just in the current season, but for the next several seasons too. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Magic JordanParticipant]

 Well you are partly right about the fan thing.  But you are operating under the assumption that the GM and the owner care about fan support, when with the new revenue sharing that doesn’t have to be the case.  If an owner were so inclined he could put out a race/gay/religion bashing music video that was guranteed to alienate every fan (even though in our society it would probably do the opposite and garner 100 million youtube videos and instantly fill up his arena but that’s besides the point) and he would still make money because of revenue sharing.  This is a problem, though not one directly related to tanking.

So yeah, of course teams would be willing to tank when there is absolutely no penalty for doing so.  How about if there is something based off win percentage or some metric associated with how many wins are accumulated, then that team will be removed from revenue sharing.  Owners would get rid of the tanking model right away if it started hitting them in the wallets.  And it wouldn’t affect anything on the court basketball wise, or alter the way the draft is done or anything like that.

Of course owners would never go for it because they have to vote on it, but you definitely wouldn’t be seeing what the 76ers are doing right now under that kind of financial penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

[Magic JordanParticipant]

 Well you are partly right about the fan thing.  But you are operating under the assumption that the GM and the owner care about fan support, when with the new revenue sharing that doesn’t have to be the case.  If an owner were so inclined he could put out a race/gay/religion bashing music video that was guranteed to alienate every fan (even though in our society it would probably do the opposite and garner 100 million youtube videos and instantly fill up his arena but that’s besides the point) and he would still make money because of revenue sharing.  This is a problem, though not one directly related to tanking.

So yeah, of course teams would be willing to tank when there is absolutely no penalty for doing so.  How about if there is something based off win percentage or some metric associated with how many wins are accumulated, then that team will be removed from revenue sharing.  Owners would get rid of the tanking model right away if it started hitting them in the wallets.  And it wouldn’t affect anything on the court basketball wise, or alter the way the draft is done or anything like that.

Of course owners would never go for it because they have to vote on it, but you definitely wouldn’t be seeing what the 76ers are doing right now under that kind of financial penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 Agreed with Andrew…people care about "tanking" waaaay too much.

The league has pushed the small market type teams to the point where the only way they can compete is to land a star player in the draft. They can’t sign anybody, nor can they keep their players because the league doesn’t care about collusion. 

Everyone is so butthurt that the 76ers are tanking…what would you want them to do? They aren’t gonna sign LeBron, Bosh, or Carmelo. They would be forced to sign mid level guys to max level deals…isn’t that what everyone bitches about anyways? Lets say the sixers signed Trevor Ariza for 4 years 50 million (he got 32) and Channing Frye for 4 years and 40 million. How many more wins would they have?

Lets assume they finish the year with 15 wins…how many would they have with those two players or players like them? 20? 25? If you are the owner and you can spend 45 million a year and get 15 wins and a top 3 pick, or spend 65 million and get 25 wins and a pick between 6 and 10 what would you rather do? 

People need to put thought into this instead of letting outside opinions run their thoughts. 

 

 

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 Agreed with Andrew…people care about "tanking" waaaay too much.

The league has pushed the small market type teams to the point where the only way they can compete is to land a star player in the draft. They can’t sign anybody, nor can they keep their players because the league doesn’t care about collusion. 

Everyone is so butthurt that the 76ers are tanking…what would you want them to do? They aren’t gonna sign LeBron, Bosh, or Carmelo. They would be forced to sign mid level guys to max level deals…isn’t that what everyone bitches about anyways? Lets say the sixers signed Trevor Ariza for 4 years 50 million (he got 32) and Channing Frye for 4 years and 40 million. How many more wins would they have?

Lets assume they finish the year with 15 wins…how many would they have with those two players or players like them? 20? 25? If you are the owner and you can spend 45 million a year and get 15 wins and a top 3 pick, or spend 65 million and get 25 wins and a pick between 6 and 10 what would you rather do? 

People need to put thought into this instead of letting outside opinions run their thoughts. 

 

 

[Author]

Posts