[GronounoursParticipant]

Hi guys,

As a European, I’ve always been puzzled by the draft system. I just don’t understand why bad teams as so disproportionately rewarded with top picks. I agree it’s nice to give weak team a little help, but what’s happening in the NBA is awful.

At the heart, sport is not about winning. Sport is mainly about *trying* to win. There is no shame in losing; otherwise, why would so many people practice a sport? After all, losing is the norm for most of us.

That’s why I dislike today’s drafts so much. It’s not that some teams don’t give their best, it’s worse than that: they do their best to loose! To me, trying to loose is just as bad as cheating. It’s the opposite of what sport is all about, and I don’t understand how the NBA can tolerate this. ‘You’re bad, but you try? Too bad. You’re bad and you try to be terrible? First pick!’

On a side note, as I wrote some time ago, I find it quite surprising that such a ‘socialist’ (reward the weak) arrangement would strive in the US, of all countries. But then Bill Maher is probably right: Americans hate ‘socialism’ in theory, but they actually love it in practice 😉

Anyway, what would you guys think of a ‘division’ system? I don’t know whether you have that for other sports in the US, but here is how it works: if a team finishes in the bottom 2 (or 3) of the ‘first division’, it is relegated in the ‘2nd division’. Conversely, the best of the 2nd division would reach the first division, and maybe get a little help by having a higher probability (not much higher) to get a better pic.

Instead of having most teams trying to get into the playoffs, and the rest sabotaging themselves, you’d have fierce competition each night, all over the country.

In a few years, maybe Philadelphia will start winning titles, because they’ve been willing to trash the spirt of sport more than anyone else and play worse than anyone else. That’s just sad. That’s not supposed to be the way to victory.

[MachettiParticipant]

 I’m not fond of tanking either. So what do you say to your fans guys were not committed to becoming competitve this year so hopefully you understand. Fans pay good money for season tickets so basically if I was a fan I’d say then let’s watch the games for free and not pay for a ticket. As a team you should try and put your best product out there and compete. I hate the concept of a rebuild. Boston is kinda doing it right because they have Brooklyn’s high picks. So they can compete and know that they still get a high lotto pick. Not sure I’ve seen a team like Philly tank so obviously in awhile though. Most teams play hard up until they are out of playoff contention then you see the last month and a half gm’s rooting for loses 

[MachettiParticipant]

 I’m not fond of tanking either. So what do you say to your fans guys were not committed to becoming competitve this year so hopefully you understand. Fans pay good money for season tickets so basically if I was a fan I’d say then let’s watch the games for free and not pay for a ticket. As a team you should try and put your best product out there and compete. I hate the concept of a rebuild. Boston is kinda doing it right because they have Brooklyn’s high picks. So they can compete and know that they still get a high lotto pick. Not sure I’ve seen a team like Philly tank so obviously in awhile though. Most teams play hard up until they are out of playoff contention then you see the last month and a half gm’s rooting for loses 

[Andrew1984Participant]

At the heart, sport is not about winning. Sport is mainly about *trying* to win.

Tanking is a phase of trying to win. Nobody is tanking in the hopes of staying bad for as long as possible. They’re doing it in order to win, because they believe a temporary sacrifice is worth a long-term, sustainable reward. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. Fans can whine all they want, but owners and GMs know that even if a team is awful for 10 years, the fans will come crawling back if and when the franchise finally has a winning season.

[GronounoursParticipant]

‘Tanking is a phase of trying to win.’

That’s precisely what I hate. It’s like saying to a student: ‘You’re not very clever? Well don’t work harder. Be as dumb as you can. If you manage to be even more stupid than you really are, we’ll help you’.

[Andrew1984Participant]

 That is a false analogy; franchises tank because there is a payoff. Not working hard in school has no payoff. 

[GronounoursParticipant]

 Not working hard in school has no payoff because you’re not rewarded just for being as dumb as you can.

[GronounoursParticipant]

 Not working hard in school has no payoff because you’re not rewarded just for being as dumb as you can.

[Andrew1984Participant]

 That is a false analogy; franchises tank because there is a payoff. Not working hard in school has no payoff. 

[GronounoursParticipant]

‘Tanking is a phase of trying to win.’

That’s precisely what I hate. It’s like saying to a student: ‘You’re not very clever? Well don’t work harder. Be as dumb as you can. If you manage to be even more stupid than you really are, we’ll help you’.

[Andrew1984Participant]

At the heart, sport is not about winning. Sport is mainly about *trying* to win.

Tanking is a phase of trying to win. Nobody is tanking in the hopes of staying bad for as long as possible. They’re doing it in order to win, because they believe a temporary sacrifice is worth a long-term, sustainable reward. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. Fans can whine all they want, but owners and GMs know that even if a team is awful for 10 years, the fans will come crawling back if and when the franchise finally has a winning season.

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

I will never understand the "reward teams for losing" notion. The teams that pick at the top of the draft are terrible. They just spent an entire season losing. They need the most help in order to restore some semblence of competitve balance. 

The 76ers are the new team everyone picks on in this whole war on tanking because they took it to an extreme. They were the definition of stuck in the middle for years. They "went for it" when they traded for Bynum. That backfired and rather than bandaid their roster, win 35 games and continue the cycle of stuck in the middle, they bottomed out. 

Rather than sign average guys to way above market level deals, they signed rookies to below market level deals with the hope that they could find a few pieces that could develop, while also bottoming out for that franchise-changing pick. 

Maybe if they would’ve actually just gotten the pick from the start, they’d be done tanking by now. But no, the NBA has to have the idiotic lottery. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GronounoursParticipant]

 For the record, I don’t blame the Sixers. They are just responding to incentives. I blame the ones who give such awful incentives.

In an ideal system, bad teams would get some help, but that help would not encourage them to be worse than they actually are. That’s insane.

[Andrew1984Participant]

 This post makes more sense because you’ve clarified what you’re complaining about. If it’s the system that allows a payoff for tanking that you’re complaining about, then you’d have to direct your grumbling at Adam Silver, the owners, and anyone else involved in establishing and enforcing NBA rules, not at the teams.

You can’t complain about the franchises that are operating under the conditions in which they find themselves and doing what they have determined maximizes their chances of sustainable success within those conditions. If the league changes the rules, the franchises will change their strategies, but until that happens, they’re free to tank all they want.

 

 

[GronounoursParticipant]

 I think I said quite clearly in my initial post that I don’t like the ‘draft system’.

[GronounoursParticipant]

 I think I said quite clearly in my initial post that I don’t like the ‘draft system’.

[Andrew1984Participant]

 This post makes more sense because you’ve clarified what you’re complaining about. If it’s the system that allows a payoff for tanking that you’re complaining about, then you’d have to direct your grumbling at Adam Silver, the owners, and anyone else involved in establishing and enforcing NBA rules, not at the teams.

You can’t complain about the franchises that are operating under the conditions in which they find themselves and doing what they have determined maximizes their chances of sustainable success within those conditions. If the league changes the rules, the franchises will change their strategies, but until that happens, they’re free to tank all they want.

 

 

[GronounoursParticipant]

 For the record, I don’t blame the Sixers. They are just responding to incentives. I blame the ones who give such awful incentives.

In an ideal system, bad teams would get some help, but that help would not encourage them to be worse than they actually are. That’s insane.

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

I will never understand the "reward teams for losing" notion. The teams that pick at the top of the draft are terrible. They just spent an entire season losing. They need the most help in order to restore some semblence of competitve balance. 

The 76ers are the new team everyone picks on in this whole war on tanking because they took it to an extreme. They were the definition of stuck in the middle for years. They "went for it" when they traded for Bynum. That backfired and rather than bandaid their roster, win 35 games and continue the cycle of stuck in the middle, they bottomed out. 

Rather than sign average guys to way above market level deals, they signed rookies to below market level deals with the hope that they could find a few pieces that could develop, while also bottoming out for that franchise-changing pick. 

Maybe if they would’ve actually just gotten the pick from the start, they’d be done tanking by now. But no, the NBA has to have the idiotic lottery. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BiggaveliiiParticipant]

So tell me how else do you expect tanking teams/low market teams to get talent. (Lebron was never going to Philly anyways, if Durant was drafted by anybody else other than OKC he would never sign there). Theres nothing wrong with tanking, Just ask Cleveland when they tanked for James you think the city of Cleveland had a problem with that, I think it gives low market teams a fighting chance to land talent to compete with big markets like LA, Miami, etc. Nobody wants to sign in Toronto because of Tax and weather, so their best alternative is in the draft, just like OKC and Minnesota. If this league was like Soccer many of these teams would’ve folded years ago.  

[GronounoursParticipant]

 Giving weak teams higher odds to land good players is fine with me. You just have to find the right balance, so as not to encourage tanking. That’s not rocket science IMO.

If small markets have a tougher time, so be it. You Americans are suddenly so egalitarian 😉 This year, Leicester won the English soccer title. It shouldn’t have happened, because it’s a tiny market, but it happened anyway, which makes it all the more exciting.

[220Participant]

"Giving weak teams higher odds to land good players is fine with me. You just have to find the right balance, so as not to encourage tanking. That’s not rocket science IMO."

That’s exactly what the lottery is about. The 76ers for their 3 years of tanking got the 3rd pick twice and the 1st pick once. They messed themselves up so badly that I don’t imagine any team will attempt to tank like that perhaps ever again. I’ve seen a bunch of the recent proposals to change the draft and all the options are far worse than the lottery. I don’t see a better option at this point.

 

[GronounoursParticipant]

 You don’t know what the Sixers will do in a few years. Maybe they’ll win the title, who knows? If that happens, tanking will suddenly seem awesome.

[220Participant]

 That’s possible but highly unlikely. The 76ers would need to win the championship within a few seasons for anyone to contemplate tanking as a viable option. I just don’t see the 76ers really competing within 5 years. A lot of teams have tanked for years or just been in the lottery for years without even getting back into the playoffs like Minnesota, Sacramento, and Orlando. Hell the Clippers got top picks for years and it wasn’t until Blake Griffin and Chris Paul got there until they became competitive. Before Griffin and Paul the Clippers made the playoffs twice in a 15+ year stretch and won one playoff series in that time period.

[220Participant]

 That’s possible but highly unlikely. The 76ers would need to win the championship within a few seasons for anyone to contemplate tanking as a viable option. I just don’t see the 76ers really competing within 5 years. A lot of teams have tanked for years or just been in the lottery for years without even getting back into the playoffs like Minnesota, Sacramento, and Orlando. Hell the Clippers got top picks for years and it wasn’t until Blake Griffin and Chris Paul got there until they became competitive. Before Griffin and Paul the Clippers made the playoffs twice in a 15+ year stretch and won one playoff series in that time period.

[GronounoursParticipant]

 You don’t know what the Sixers will do in a few years. Maybe they’ll win the title, who knows? If that happens, tanking will suddenly seem awesome.

[220Participant]

"Giving weak teams higher odds to land good players is fine with me. You just have to find the right balance, so as not to encourage tanking. That’s not rocket science IMO."

That’s exactly what the lottery is about. The 76ers for their 3 years of tanking got the 3rd pick twice and the 1st pick once. They messed themselves up so badly that I don’t imagine any team will attempt to tank like that perhaps ever again. I’ve seen a bunch of the recent proposals to change the draft and all the options are far worse than the lottery. I don’t see a better option at this point.

 

[GronounoursParticipant]

 Giving weak teams higher odds to land good players is fine with me. You just have to find the right balance, so as not to encourage tanking. That’s not rocket science IMO.

If small markets have a tougher time, so be it. You Americans are suddenly so egalitarian 😉 This year, Leicester won the English soccer title. It shouldn’t have happened, because it’s a tiny market, but it happened anyway, which makes it all the more exciting.

[BiggaveliiiParticipant]

So tell me how else do you expect tanking teams/low market teams to get talent. (Lebron was never going to Philly anyways, if Durant was drafted by anybody else other than OKC he would never sign there). Theres nothing wrong with tanking, Just ask Cleveland when they tanked for James you think the city of Cleveland had a problem with that, I think it gives low market teams a fighting chance to land talent to compete with big markets like LA, Miami, etc. Nobody wants to sign in Toronto because of Tax and weather, so their best alternative is in the draft, just like OKC and Minnesota. If this league was like Soccer many of these teams would’ve folded years ago.  

[circumlocution75Participant]

 for the FIRST time in 150 years a small club won the Barclays Premier League……….

For American fans who do Not follow European Soccer / Football……. there are 5 Main Leagues: Spanish, English, German, Italian &French…….

In EACH League the SAME 2 or 3 Rich teams win the League EVERY single year…….. there is NO Draft…… When the smaller teams land a Great young player the Rich Clubs simpy BUY the player……

No Trades, No Draft – No Nothing……… Bayern Munich has won the German League 7 or 8 years in a row…….. PSG has won the French League 5 years in a row……

In the Spanish League, Barcelona (Messi’s team) & Real Madrid (Ronaldo’s team) takes turns winning the League EVERY year for 50 years……..

I can go on & on & on………. But it’s basically the Dark ages compared to American Football, Baseball & especially Football……. where Parity Rules……

The Leagues Truly reflect the different Continents…….. In America we believe that the team that is Smartest in Scouting & Player Development should be Rewarded…..

In Europe they believe that a Handful of Teams are Kings & the rest are Subjects who are just there to feed those Rich clubs young talent……….

 In Europe teams like Golden State, OKC, Cleveland, the Clippers who were Terrible just a few years ago would be Terrible FOREVER…….

The teams that where great in the 60’s: Celtics, Lakers & Sixers would STILL be the ONLY Great teams 50 years later under their system…….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GronounoursParticipant]

 I do agree. That’s why I’m not against draft in general, just against drafts that encourage tanking.

What you say is not quite right, though. Some ‘small’ clubs are sometimes bought by rich Russians or Arabs, and suddenly become big teams (Chelsea, Manchester City, PSG…). Not that this is a good thing.

[GronounoursParticipant]

 I do agree. That’s why I’m not against draft in general, just against drafts that encourage tanking.

What you say is not quite right, though. Some ‘small’ clubs are sometimes bought by rich Russians or Arabs, and suddenly become big teams (Chelsea, Manchester City, PSG…). Not that this is a good thing.

[circumlocution75Participant]

 for the FIRST time in 150 years a small club won the Barclays Premier League……….

For American fans who do Not follow European Soccer / Football……. there are 5 Main Leagues: Spanish, English, German, Italian &French…….

In EACH League the SAME 2 or 3 Rich teams win the League EVERY single year…….. there is NO Draft…… When the smaller teams land a Great young player the Rich Clubs simpy BUY the player……

No Trades, No Draft – No Nothing……… Bayern Munich has won the German League 7 or 8 years in a row…….. PSG has won the French League 5 years in a row……

In the Spanish League, Barcelona (Messi’s team) & Real Madrid (Ronaldo’s team) takes turns winning the League EVERY year for 50 years……..

I can go on & on & on………. But it’s basically the Dark ages compared to American Football, Baseball & especially Football……. where Parity Rules……

The Leagues Truly reflect the different Continents…….. In America we believe that the team that is Smartest in Scouting & Player Development should be Rewarded…..

In Europe they believe that a Handful of Teams are Kings & the rest are Subjects who are just there to feed those Rich clubs young talent……….

 In Europe teams like Golden State, OKC, Cleveland, the Clippers who were Terrible just a few years ago would be Terrible FOREVER…….

The teams that where great in the 60’s: Celtics, Lakers & Sixers would STILL be the ONLY Great teams 50 years later under their system…….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dmo21Participant]

I agree that it is a problem, but a hard one to get rid of. Here was my idea of trying to get rid of it: http://www.nbadraft.net/forum/my-unique-draft-idea. Still gives teams that lose better odds of winning the lottery, but the main change is, the more you win the more you screw over another team. So it promotes winning.

[dmo21Participant]

I agree that it is a problem, but a hard one to get rid of. Here was my idea of trying to get rid of it: http://www.nbadraft.net/forum/my-unique-draft-idea. Still gives teams that lose better odds of winning the lottery, but the main change is, the more you win the more you screw over another team. So it promotes winning.

[MachettiParticipant]

 What if the non playoff teams play a tournament to decide there draft positioning. The team has to win the tourney to obtain the first pick, the runner up gets the 2nd and so on

[MachettiParticipant]

 What if the non playoff teams play a tournament to decide there draft positioning. The team has to win the tourney to obtain the first pick, the runner up gets the 2nd and so on

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 Yeah but then the teams just on the outside of hte playoffs likely get franchise changing players at the top of the draft and we only strengthen the middle. That would create an even larger talent gap between good and bad. 

The worst teams are the worst for a reason. Tanking has been taken to an extreme because the league is structured now in a way that stars control everything. They are de facto recruiters and the only way to get one if you aren’t in LA (though that’s debatable at this point) or Miami or *insert big market* is to acquire them in the draft. 

Then there’s the lottery. Teams tank so that they have a better chance in the lottery. If there wasn’t a lottery, you wouldn’t have teams tanking. The 76ers would’ve been awful for a year or two, gotten the top pick and they’d be on their way at this point. The lottery as elongated that process because they keep not getting good picks. 

How ridiculous is it that the worst team in the league has a 75% chance of NOT getting the top pick? That’s ass backwards. 

 

 

 

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 Yeah but then the teams just on the outside of hte playoffs likely get franchise changing players at the top of the draft and we only strengthen the middle. That would create an even larger talent gap between good and bad. 

The worst teams are the worst for a reason. Tanking has been taken to an extreme because the league is structured now in a way that stars control everything. They are de facto recruiters and the only way to get one if you aren’t in LA (though that’s debatable at this point) or Miami or *insert big market* is to acquire them in the draft. 

Then there’s the lottery. Teams tank so that they have a better chance in the lottery. If there wasn’t a lottery, you wouldn’t have teams tanking. The 76ers would’ve been awful for a year or two, gotten the top pick and they’d be on their way at this point. The lottery as elongated that process because they keep not getting good picks. 

How ridiculous is it that the worst team in the league has a 75% chance of NOT getting the top pick? That’s ass backwards. 

 

 

 

[goldie92689Participant]

 The European system is much worse IMO. The biggest problem I have with it is teams at the top of the standings stay there…forever!! Because of their success they make the most money, so they have the best development systems and they get first crack at every great prospect. The top 5-10 clubs boast 2nd and 3rd strings that are better than the bottom teams 1st unit. 

Professional sports in the US is first about the market. You cannot have a 1st division team in a market that cannot support it. So that’s a resounding no thanks to Promotion/Relegation. 

 

[goldie92689Participant]

 The European system is much worse IMO. The biggest problem I have with it is teams at the top of the standings stay there…forever!! Because of their success they make the most money, so they have the best development systems and they get first crack at every great prospect. The top 5-10 clubs boast 2nd and 3rd strings that are better than the bottom teams 1st unit. 

Professional sports in the US is first about the market. You cannot have a 1st division team in a market that cannot support it. So that’s a resounding no thanks to Promotion/Relegation. 

 

[dudo670Participant]

That in professional sports you should try to win, but in terms of people who complain about teams tanking because they get high draft picks, name one team that has done what the Sixers are doing and has one a title or at least competed for a title for awhile? Its not a proven strategy to build a team, yet the sixers fans (especially libertyballers, man that place is a joke) act like its a tried and true method to building a team and everyone else can suck it. 

[dudo670Participant]

That in professional sports you should try to win, but in terms of people who complain about teams tanking because they get high draft picks, name one team that has done what the Sixers are doing and has one a title or at least competed for a title for awhile? Its not a proven strategy to build a team, yet the sixers fans (especially libertyballers, man that place is a joke) act like its a tried and true method to building a team and everyone else can suck it. 

[goldie92689Participant]

 I would prefer a simpler lottery system. Lottery team with best record gets 1 ball, 2nd gets 2 balls, etc, etc

 

 

[GronounoursParticipant]

I’d rather have 10 balls for the best team, then 11 balls, 12, 13, etc. That would already be a massive advantage for bad teams. The most important thing, IMO, would be *not to guarantee* a top pic for the worst teams. Today, if you’re terrible enough, you’re sure to get a good prospect. That shouldn’t happen, because there is not enough risk in tanking.

[GronounoursParticipant]

I’d rather have 10 balls for the best team, then 11 balls, 12, 13, etc. That would already be a massive advantage for bad teams. The most important thing, IMO, would be *not to guarantee* a top pic for the worst teams. Today, if you’re terrible enough, you’re sure to get a good prospect. That shouldn’t happen, because there is not enough risk in tanking.

[goldie92689Participant]

 I would prefer a simpler lottery system. Lottery team with best record gets 1 ball, 2nd gets 2 balls, etc, etc

 

 

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 I would prefer no lottery system. It works just fine in the NFL. That league is set up so that there’s at least an illusion of parity. The NBA won’t ever have that kind of parity because one player can impact the game so much more in basketball than in football, but a little more parity certainly wouldn’t hurt. 

Then again, even with all the crappy basketball we’ve seen in the playoffs, ratings are still killing it. So why the hell would they want it to change. 

 

[BasterdInABasketParticipant]

 Agreed..this roblem is pretty exclusive to basketball though mainly because the size of the team. MLB you play with 9-10 guys a game plus bench players and you don’t see even top prospects for years. NFL the schedule is so short you almost don’t have time to tank and roster sizes are so big that one superstar player doesn’t always equal success unless it’s a QB, look at Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peteson, two all time greats and the best at thief positions the last decade and zero postseason success. I honestly can’t speak to how it works in NHL if tanking is even an issue

[BasterdInABasketParticipant]

 Agreed..this roblem is pretty exclusive to basketball though mainly because the size of the team. MLB you play with 9-10 guys a game plus bench players and you don’t see even top prospects for years. NFL the schedule is so short you almost don’t have time to tank and roster sizes are so big that one superstar player doesn’t always equal success unless it’s a QB, look at Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peteson, two all time greats and the best at thief positions the last decade and zero postseason success. I honestly can’t speak to how it works in NHL if tanking is even an issue

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 I would prefer no lottery system. It works just fine in the NFL. That league is set up so that there’s at least an illusion of parity. The NBA won’t ever have that kind of parity because one player can impact the game so much more in basketball than in football, but a little more parity certainly wouldn’t hurt. 

Then again, even with all the crappy basketball we’ve seen in the playoffs, ratings are still killing it. So why the hell would they want it to change. 

 

[BasterdInABasketParticipant]

 How the system is set up you can’t blame teams for tanking. The ultimate goal for (all?) NBA teams is to win a championship. And with the NBA being such a superstar driven league what’s typically the best way to get a star? Picking at the top of the lottery. That’s obviously not always the case (look at these Warriors, Mavs with Dirk, even Kobe wasn’t a top 5 pick) but it either takes tanking, smart drafting or sometimes just luck.

I do like the idea of just evening the odds for lottery teams a little bit. Not saying even odds for all teams since that might influence some fringe playoff teams from going for the playoffs since as much as owners love having the an extra guaranteed 4 games worth of profits, the lack of parity lately has pretty much made the first round for an 8 seed a 4/5 game walk through to the second round. 

A full lottery might help too not just the top 3 teams so the worst team isn’t  guaranteed a top 3 pick necessarily. Oh and televise the actual lottery too of course but that’s another story.

[BasterdInABasketParticipant]

 How the system is set up you can’t blame teams for tanking. The ultimate goal for (all?) NBA teams is to win a championship. And with the NBA being such a superstar driven league what’s typically the best way to get a star? Picking at the top of the lottery. That’s obviously not always the case (look at these Warriors, Mavs with Dirk, even Kobe wasn’t a top 5 pick) but it either takes tanking, smart drafting or sometimes just luck.

I do like the idea of just evening the odds for lottery teams a little bit. Not saying even odds for all teams since that might influence some fringe playoff teams from going for the playoffs since as much as owners love having the an extra guaranteed 4 games worth of profits, the lack of parity lately has pretty much made the first round for an 8 seed a 4/5 game walk through to the second round. 

A full lottery might help too not just the top 3 teams so the worst team isn’t  guaranteed a top 3 pick necessarily. Oh and televise the actual lottery too of course but that’s another story.

[antiwork3000Participant]

but instead of top 3 decided by lottery, make it top 5.

[antiwork3000Participant]

but instead of top 3 decided by lottery, make it top 5.

[dobbins66Participant]

 I have a bigger issue with the so called Salary Cap system.  If there was a hard cap then players would truly have to choose between $$$ and creating their super team in an effort to win a title.  Teams have no option to hold onto players they develop. 100% guaranteed contracts, No true salary cap and free agency.   Player greed created the current atmosphere and Sixers management tried a new approach to combatting it.  Tired of the "Can’t win it on my own so create a super team" approach.  I have no issue with free agency but the system is broke.  Any change to the current draft process would need a "Further you are over the Cap the worse you pick" clause.

[dobbins66Participant]

 I have a bigger issue with the so called Salary Cap system.  If there was a hard cap then players would truly have to choose between $$$ and creating their super team in an effort to win a title.  Teams have no option to hold onto players they develop. 100% guaranteed contracts, No true salary cap and free agency.   Player greed created the current atmosphere and Sixers management tried a new approach to combatting it.  Tired of the "Can’t win it on my own so create a super team" approach.  I have no issue with free agency but the system is broke.  Any change to the current draft process would need a "Further you are over the Cap the worse you pick" clause.

[Ahkasi ClayParticipant]

 I hate what the 76ers and the Lakers have done the last 3 years, i think it is disrespectful to the game, but there is a reason those 2 teams are the biggest jokes in the nba at this time.

[Ahkasi ClayParticipant]

 I hate what the 76ers and the Lakers have done the last 3 years, i think it is disrespectful to the game, but there is a reason those 2 teams are the biggest jokes in the nba at this time.

[220Participant]

 The Lakers didn’t tank they couldn’t convince anyone good to play for them. I have to disagree and say the two biggest joke franchises at this time are the Sixers and Kings.

[220Participant]

 The Lakers didn’t tank they couldn’t convince anyone good to play for them. I have to disagree and say the two biggest joke franchises at this time are the Sixers and Kings.

[Ahkasi ClayParticipant]

 so the Lakers didn’t tank for years? they were really that bad?

[220Participant]

The Lakers sucked, but it wasn’t for a lack of trying to improve. The Lakers actively went out trying to bring in promising free agents and were repeatedly spurned by the top players. It’s not like the 76ers who for years didn’t even attempt to sign anyone except their draft picks, undrafted players, and unwanted free agents to team friendly deals.

 On top of that the Lakers had a 50% chance of losing their pick so putting everything into losing on purpose when you may not even keep your pick is lunacy. Jim Buss also promised to make the team competitive in a few years or he’d resign. I think this may be his last chance this year. He certainly didn’t want to have the second worst record, but his team sucks and no one important wanted to play with old injury prone Kobe. The Lakers tried to trade for DeMarcus Cousins prior to last years draft, but the offer was turned down.

The Lakers to me weren’t tanking they just sucked and didn’t realize that just being the Lakers wasn’t enough to draw top free agents or even second tier free agents.

 

 

[220Participant]

The Lakers sucked, but it wasn’t for a lack of trying to improve. The Lakers actively went out trying to bring in promising free agents and were repeatedly spurned by the top players. It’s not like the 76ers who for years didn’t even attempt to sign anyone except their draft picks, undrafted players, and unwanted free agents to team friendly deals.

 On top of that the Lakers had a 50% chance of losing their pick so putting everything into losing on purpose when you may not even keep your pick is lunacy. Jim Buss also promised to make the team competitive in a few years or he’d resign. I think this may be his last chance this year. He certainly didn’t want to have the second worst record, but his team sucks and no one important wanted to play with old injury prone Kobe. The Lakers tried to trade for DeMarcus Cousins prior to last years draft, but the offer was turned down.

The Lakers to me weren’t tanking they just sucked and didn’t realize that just being the Lakers wasn’t enough to draw top free agents or even second tier free agents.

 

 

[Ahkasi ClayParticipant]

 so the Lakers didn’t tank for years? they were really that bad?

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 Well who were the 76ers going to convince to play for them that would’ve made it not tanking then? 

Thats the whole point of this. 

These teams are "tanking" because rather than sign random mid-level players to huge contracts and maybe win a few more games, they go with the unknown guys that could emerge as a diamond in the rough. It mostly doesnt work but thats the general plan and its hard not to agree with it to an extent. 

If you are a fan/GM/Owner, would you rather: 

sign Jodie Meeks for 3 years and 30 mil and Channing Frye for 4 years 45 mil so that you can win 25 games or would you rather take chances on guys like Robert Covington, K.J. McDaniels, Hollis Thompson, Henry Sims and the rest of the young guys Philly has trotted out there for minimum salaries? 

I’d rather see what those unkown guys can do than sign average vets to way above market-level deals to give you meh perfomance. That’s basically what people want them to do though. 

But people hear the 76ers are tanking and just go with it. Rather than form their own opinion, they pile on. It’s kinda sad. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 Well who were the 76ers going to convince to play for them that would’ve made it not tanking then? 

Thats the whole point of this. 

These teams are "tanking" because rather than sign random mid-level players to huge contracts and maybe win a few more games, they go with the unknown guys that could emerge as a diamond in the rough. It mostly doesnt work but thats the general plan and its hard not to agree with it to an extent. 

If you are a fan/GM/Owner, would you rather: 

sign Jodie Meeks for 3 years and 30 mil and Channing Frye for 4 years 45 mil so that you can win 25 games or would you rather take chances on guys like Robert Covington, K.J. McDaniels, Hollis Thompson, Henry Sims and the rest of the young guys Philly has trotted out there for minimum salaries? 

I’d rather see what those unkown guys can do than sign average vets to way above market-level deals to give you meh perfomance. That’s basically what people want them to do though. 

But people hear the 76ers are tanking and just go with it. Rather than form their own opinion, they pile on. It’s kinda sad. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hype Machine]

Theres only 1 way to win in the NBA. Have the most marketable player. And at any point in time that is 1 or 2 guys in the entire league. 

The biggest disaster in the NBA is a league and finals without popular players. It’s a celebrity culture thing. 

No-one gets paid if Toronto and OKC make the Finals. Ratings would plummet, and everyone in the sport suffers. Players get paid less, Referees get paid less, sponsors get less exposure form their investment, team values go down. Who wants that? Put Curry and Lebron in the Finals and watch the $$$ $$$

At least Toronto and OKC had the Drake, Durant and Westbrook combo which generates interest. Imagine if it was Atlanta vs San Antonio. Booorrrinngggggg. 

Same logic behind why no-one ever busts Usain Bolt or Lance Armstrong for Steroids (until it’s too late). It’s bad for everyone in the entire sport cos more profitable to come last place in a race with Usain Bolt than it is to come first in a race without him. 

(and if you think a clean guy like Usain Bolt is that much better than all those steroid cheats he’s competing against, you’re naive). 

 

 

[Hype Machine]

Theres only 1 way to win in the NBA. Have the most marketable player. And at any point in time that is 1 or 2 guys in the entire league. 

The biggest disaster in the NBA is a league and finals without popular players. It’s a celebrity culture thing. 

No-one gets paid if Toronto and OKC make the Finals. Ratings would plummet, and everyone in the sport suffers. Players get paid less, Referees get paid less, sponsors get less exposure form their investment, team values go down. Who wants that? Put Curry and Lebron in the Finals and watch the $$$ $$$

At least Toronto and OKC had the Drake, Durant and Westbrook combo which generates interest. Imagine if it was Atlanta vs San Antonio. Booorrrinngggggg. 

Same logic behind why no-one ever busts Usain Bolt or Lance Armstrong for Steroids (until it’s too late). It’s bad for everyone in the entire sport cos more profitable to come last place in a race with Usain Bolt than it is to come first in a race without him. 

(and if you think a clean guy like Usain Bolt is that much better than all those steroid cheats he’s competing against, you’re naive). 

 

 

[Tune SquadParticipant]

Okay just of note; every major sports has "tanking". In baseball it happens (Nationals, Devil Rays and Astros have been some of the teams that have had success doing this in recent years). The Cavs got Lebron, Kyrie and Love (Wiggins) and how many finals have they been to in the last 10 years? Even the best franchises have done it (Knicks with Ewing, Celtics with Bird, Lakers with Magic) and know when there is a generational talent worth doing it for. If Shaq had stayed with the Magic it would have really paid off for them. In hockey the Penguins and Caps have had a great ten year run on a few top picks they made withing ten years (although the Oilers have totally botched their 76ers impression so far). The Colts knew when Luck was coming out that that was their year to have a down season and so on. It happens and it can be a real useful tool

 

I am not a Sixers fan but I wish the Raps had done this even with their decent run this year just because as a true fan I want a title not just a playoff ticket and I want a transcendant talent that we can take pride in and storied banners hanging from the rafters. Sure it takes more than just blue chip talent to win a trophy but it gives you are huge boost when you are a small market. 

 

With that said I agree the system is a little "off" but we don’t need drastic ground breaking steps. I think the lottery is a unique basketball idea/ tradition that basketball fans should be proud of (not many of us are old enough to have not had a lottery) and embrace with a few tweaks. Why not just make a couple easy *rules that deter the level of tanking that has occured recently by saying you can only have a top 3 pick twice in a 3 year span and a top 7 pick 3 in a four year span. That would force teams to make that dip/ turn towards the bottom quick, less painful for fans and do better scouting to make the most out of later picks (a la Spurs etc ..and Redwings in hockey).

 

**And for the record I think Oilers (hockey) have been even more awful and inexcuseable in their blatant actions. They have had 4 of the last 6 first overall picks. 

[Tune SquadParticipant]

Okay just of note; every major sports has "tanking". In baseball it happens (Nationals, Devil Rays and Astros have been some of the teams that have had success doing this in recent years). The Cavs got Lebron, Kyrie and Love (Wiggins) and how many finals have they been to in the last 10 years? Even the best franchises have done it (Knicks with Ewing, Celtics with Bird, Lakers with Magic) and know when there is a generational talent worth doing it for. If Shaq had stayed with the Magic it would have really paid off for them. In hockey the Penguins and Caps have had a great ten year run on a few top picks they made withing ten years (although the Oilers have totally botched their 76ers impression so far). The Colts knew when Luck was coming out that that was their year to have a down season and so on. It happens and it can be a real useful tool

 

I am not a Sixers fan but I wish the Raps had done this even with their decent run this year just because as a true fan I want a title not just a playoff ticket and I want a transcendant talent that we can take pride in and storied banners hanging from the rafters. Sure it takes more than just blue chip talent to win a trophy but it gives you are huge boost when you are a small market. 

 

With that said I agree the system is a little "off" but we don’t need drastic ground breaking steps. I think the lottery is a unique basketball idea/ tradition that basketball fans should be proud of (not many of us are old enough to have not had a lottery) and embrace with a few tweaks. Why not just make a couple easy *rules that deter the level of tanking that has occured recently by saying you can only have a top 3 pick twice in a 3 year span and a top 7 pick 3 in a four year span. That would force teams to make that dip/ turn towards the bottom quick, less painful for fans and do better scouting to make the most out of later picks (a la Spurs etc ..and Redwings in hockey).

 

**And for the record I think Oilers (hockey) have been even more awful and inexcuseable in their blatant actions. They have had 4 of the last 6 first overall picks. 

[OhCanada-Participant]

 For the record I’m perfectly fine with the current system and have no problems whatsoever with tanking. Just to satisfy Grononours irk how about this system. It’s fun to think about.

Simply reverse the lottery odds. 14th worst team gets best odds, 13th worst team gets 2nd best odds and 12th worst team gets 3rd beat odds. Then the 4th, 5th, 6th etc. goes to the worst team in the league, 2nd worst etc.

So for example in this draft this years lottery odds (not factoring in protected picks because I’m too lazy) would be.

1st-Bulls

2nd-Suns

3rd-Jazz

4th-76ers

5th-Lakers

6th-Celtics

And so on.

 This would hypothetically force teams that are terrible to try to compete for a playoff spot and if they came up shirt they could still land a top 5 pick. If they make the playoffs the season is somewhat a success.

Yet ultimately it seems teams would end up just tanking out of the playoffs to get the 9th overall spot rather than an 8th road team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[benny15Participant]

 i believe thats been raised somewhere in this thread and in the past and the argument against it is that it wont be promoting parity in the league, in fact it’ll go against it. itll make it so the mid tier teams have a stronger chance on getting better but the small market teams with bad recrods will have their rebuilds be pushed back much longer unless they hit some huge luck in the late lotto. 

i get it that a lot of people are okay with tanking for a single season but what the sixers did of doing it for 3 seasons in a row is such a slap in the face of the game to them. so how about setting up a win-floor simillar to the salary cap floor. a team must get a certain number of wins, it can be a fixed number like 20, or percentage based like 1/3rd of the league;s best standing. and if a team doesnt meet the win floor, they get to keep that years draft pick but forfeit the following seasons.

of course there has to be other clauses such as, if the pick has been traded already, then itll carry over to the following season. this will actually make the whole thing of future picks as a trade asset loose more value due to their uncertainty, but i dont have much problems with that to be honest. if its percentage based and we use this past season as an example, the win-floor would be set at 24. if it was last season it would be 22, etc. the advantage of this is that late season games still have meaning to non play-off teams since they wont be sure if theyll be over the win-floor if they were just hovering around it all season. 

 

 

[benny15Participant]

 i believe thats been raised somewhere in this thread and in the past and the argument against it is that it wont be promoting parity in the league, in fact it’ll go against it. itll make it so the mid tier teams have a stronger chance on getting better but the small market teams with bad recrods will have their rebuilds be pushed back much longer unless they hit some huge luck in the late lotto. 

i get it that a lot of people are okay with tanking for a single season but what the sixers did of doing it for 3 seasons in a row is such a slap in the face of the game to them. so how about setting up a win-floor simillar to the salary cap floor. a team must get a certain number of wins, it can be a fixed number like 20, or percentage based like 1/3rd of the league;s best standing. and if a team doesnt meet the win floor, they get to keep that years draft pick but forfeit the following seasons.

of course there has to be other clauses such as, if the pick has been traded already, then itll carry over to the following season. this will actually make the whole thing of future picks as a trade asset loose more value due to their uncertainty, but i dont have much problems with that to be honest. if its percentage based and we use this past season as an example, the win-floor would be set at 24. if it was last season it would be 22, etc. the advantage of this is that late season games still have meaning to non play-off teams since they wont be sure if theyll be over the win-floor if they were just hovering around it all season. 

 

 

[OhCanada-Participant]

 For the record I’m perfectly fine with the current system and have no problems whatsoever with tanking. Just to satisfy Grononours irk how about this system. It’s fun to think about.

Simply reverse the lottery odds. 14th worst team gets best odds, 13th worst team gets 2nd best odds and 12th worst team gets 3rd beat odds. Then the 4th, 5th, 6th etc. goes to the worst team in the league, 2nd worst etc.

So for example in this draft this years lottery odds (not factoring in protected picks because I’m too lazy) would be.

1st-Bulls

2nd-Suns

3rd-Jazz

4th-76ers

5th-Lakers

6th-Celtics

And so on.

 This would hypothetically force teams that are terrible to try to compete for a playoff spot and if they came up shirt they could still land a top 5 pick. If they make the playoffs the season is somewhat a success.

Yet ultimately it seems teams would end up just tanking out of the playoffs to get the 9th overall spot rather than an 8th road team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 @OhCanada – Dude how are you not getting that by doing that, you’d create an even larger competitive imbalance. The worst teams are the worst becasue they are the worst. Not because they "tank"

Very rarely do teams totally bottom out and win 12-17 games because they are tanking or injured. It’s because they are God awful. So yeah, lets keep those teams at the bottom forever while rewarding the teams that barely miss the playoffs.

Then instead of 4 good teams, 18 average ones and 8 crappy ones, we can have 6 good teams, 14 average and 10 crappy ones. Awesome. 

 

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 @OhCanada – Dude how are you not getting that by doing that, you’d create an even larger competitive imbalance. The worst teams are the worst becasue they are the worst. Not because they "tank"

Very rarely do teams totally bottom out and win 12-17 games because they are tanking or injured. It’s because they are God awful. So yeah, lets keep those teams at the bottom forever while rewarding the teams that barely miss the playoffs.

Then instead of 4 good teams, 18 average ones and 8 crappy ones, we can have 6 good teams, 14 average and 10 crappy ones. Awesome. 

 

[Author]

Posts