NBA about to implement anti-tanking measure?

[redsahx]

(This almost belongs in the 76ers discussion thread, as the team is apparently fighting to delay this proposal. However, it also applies to the Celtics and the league as a whole so I've started it separately)

According to ESPN the NBA is looking to overhaul the draft lottery system, and the 76ers are trying to fight it.

Currently, the team with the worst record has a 25 percent chance of landing the top pick and the team with the fifth-worst record has an 8.8 percent chance of winning it. In a new format, the bottom five or six teams could have an equal chance.

Grantland's Zach Lowe reported earlier this month on the NBA's proposed changes, which are essentially an attempt to squeeze the lottery odds at either extreme toward a more balanced system in which all 14 teams have a relatively similar chance at the no. 1 pick.

snip

The rough draft of this plan was met with opposition by 76ers management, which is in the midst of a multiseason rebuilding project that is dependent on a high pick next year. The 76ers, sources said, are hoping to get the NBA to delay the plan's implementation for at least a year because it would act as a de facto punishment while just playing by the rules that have been in place.

I like the idea of balancing things out this way so there is little incentive to fall all the way to the bottom. While the 76ers may have a valid concern that they are being targeted for a rebuilding plan that was set up based on the old system, and that the NBA should put this off for a year (every team's draft and offseason moves thus far were made with the old system in mind), I can't actually sympathize with them. If they are again one of the worst teams in the league, they'll still have the highest odds of the top pick, the odds just won't be as good. If their plan is dependent on them having increased odds of a top 3 pick over say the #4 or 6 pick, then it is a pretty shaky plan anyways.

I also don't think this screws Philly either. They bottomed out this year and added two more high-end prospects in the draft. They still are in a position to do well in the future. An interesting question would be whether this would have actually detered them from taking Saric on top of Embiid, though it probably shouldn't.

 

[gryoung]

How sad is this?   A "professional" sport needs to enact rules to discourage losing games. But not entirely unexpected from this league.

 

[ifmanis5]

Just make it a game show and they spin a wheel and that's your pick. Hosted of course by...
 
 

 

[4 6 3 DP]

A little unfair to criticize the NBA for acknowledging a problem with its product.
 
Basketball is the one game where a top pick can turn a team from the cellar to a champion.
 
Not at all in baseball, most of the time not in hockey (though sometimes), and only in the case of a legit franchise QB, and that's once every 10 years or so (Luck, Manning).
 
The NBA is just different in that regard and I give them credit for trying to figure it out.

 

[ALiveH]

i'm sympathetic to philadelphia's perspective on this, but can't really argue it should be delayed anymore than one year.
 
Btw, this will cause a different type of tanking where no one wants to be a 7th or 8th seed.  They will try to lose at the end of the season to barely squeeze into the lottery cause they'll have a decent shot at the top pick.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

It's funny because they specifically changed the lottery when Orlando won the pick in the Webber draft so they made it more likely the worst teams would win.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

How sad is this?   A "professional" sport needs to enact rules to discourage losing games. But not entirely unexpected from this league.

 
He says on a board consumed by the Red Sox fire sale.

 

[redsahx]

 

Just make it a game show and they spin a wheel and that's your pick. Hosted of course by...

Whatever the format, she needs to be there every year. I don't care if Milwaukee is in the lottery or not. 

 

[AbbyNoho]

 
He says on a board consumed by the Red Sox fire sale.

 
All of us would prefer they were at least in the play-off hunt. You can't say the same for basketball teams. 

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
All of us would prefer they were at least in the play-off hunt. You can't say the same for basketball teams. 

 
That's missing the point though.
 
Because they're not in the playoff hunt, they're not trying to put the best team on the field anymore this year, or even next year. They're prioritizing gathering future assets. just like the Sixers.

 

[redsahx]

 

He says on a board consumed by the Red Sox fire sale.

 
Not to mention the fact that MLBs recent rule changes regarding draft pick compensation for free agent signings has created incentive for some teams to let up during the final weeks to make sure they finish in the bottom 10.

 

[gryoung]

Poor comparisons with any other league drafts.  20% of a lineup in the game at any one time skews the importance and impact of a single player so greatly that the other professional league drafts enhancements are purely tweaks ......with minimal impact to the actual games the following season.  I must admit to an anti-NBA bias however ......stopped watching/following the NBA 15 years ago when, in my opinion, the game started moving away from basketball to some other form .....where it now exists in a semi-athletic event/theatre scenario.  Oh well ........to each their own.  I do miss the Bird/McHale/Parrish/Walton days ......

 

[Devizier]

Loving the comic sans.

 

[TroyOLeary]

i'm sympathetic to philadelphia's perspective on this, but can't really argue it should be delayed anymore than one year.
 
Btw, this will cause a different type of tanking where no one wants to be a 7th or 8th seed.  They will try to lose at the end of the season to barely squeeze into the lottery cause they'll have a decent shot at the top pick.

 
Zach Lowe's initial column reported the non-playoff team with the best record will have a 2% chance (up from .5%) of landing the top pick.  I find it hard to believe any team would tank out of the playoffs for what would still be a pretty big longshot.

 

[Blacken]

Poor comparisons with any other league drafts.  20% of a lineup in the game at any one time skews the importance and impact of a single player so greatly that the other professional league drafts enhancements are purely tweaks ......with minimal impact to the actual games the following season.  I must admit to an anti-NBA bias however ......stopped watching/following the NBA 15 years ago when, in my opinion, the game started moving away from basketball to some other form .....where it now exists in a semi-athletic event/theatre scenario.  Oh well ........to each their own.  I do miss the Bird/McHale/Parrish/Walton days ......

1. Be literate.
1a. 'Parish'.
2. Fuck off with the Comic Sans.

Thanks.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Poor comparisons with any other league drafts.  20% of a lineup in the game at any one time skews the importance and impact of a single player so greatly that the other professional league drafts enhancements are purely tweaks ......with minimal impact to the actual games the following season.  I must admit to an anti-NBA bias however ......stopped watching/following the NBA 15 years ago when, in my opinion, the game started moving away from basketball to some other form .....where it now exists in a semi-athletic event/theatre scenario.  Oh well ........to each their own.  I do miss the Bird/McHale/Parrish/Walton days ......

 
Well, in that case, thanks for stopping in.

 

[zenter]

(broken record) Tanking is not the problem, it's at best a small symptom. The core problems in the NBA in this arena stem from efforts to hamstring player mobility in the CBA.
 
This generational ping-pong-ing between weighted and unweighted draft lottery (and gradations between) is evidence that the draft will always be seen as a high-value source of cheap controlled talent. In other words: the problem is that draft picks are valued far too high, relative to their cost.
 
Therefore: the best way to prevent tanking is to reduce disparate benefit top picks convey, not to find new ways to break a broken formula.
 
1) Standard rookie scale contract should be more talent-friendly. Something like 2 + 1 (team) + 1 (player)/RFA -> UFA.
2) Rookies have the ability to negotiate for more (up to 6 total) or fewer (down to 2 total) years.
3) Teams can pay rookies a signing bonus up to 50% of first-year salary.
4) As I've said elsewhere, make the lux tax less punitive, kill the apron, and have it apply over a newly-redefined soft cap.
 
Financial flexibility + player mobility = lower incentive to overvalue draft picks, and thus lower incentive to play to lose.
 
The big complaint is that nobody will go to smaller markets, etc. I disagree. Teams can "make known" willingness to pay bonus for certain players, etc., or poach a guy after as little as 3 with a blow-them-away offer.

 

[Remagellan]

As I've written and ranted before, this is all bullshit.  I'm a Sixers fan, so I obviously have a stake in this, but the NBA would do better to abolish the lottery than to modify it as they're proposing.  if you really want to encourage teams to put together a competitive product than ALLOW them to bottom out if it comes to it, because then a fair draft would put them in a position to acquire players that would push them back into competition faster. 
 
As I wrote before, the Sixers were forced into the multi-year program back to competing for championships BY THE GODDAMN LOTTERY!  Take away the lottery, and the Sixers' picks this year might have been Wiggins (definitely) and McDermott (pure speculation), and those two with Noel and MCW would have given them a team that might not win that many more games this season than they won last year, but at least would be a year or two closer to being competitive than the path they're on now.
 
In hockey, I'm a Devils fan, and for those who can't recall, our franchises hold Mario Lemieux stolen away from us by a tanktacular finish by the Penguins the year before the 1984 draft, and no one questioned the integrity of the NHL over that. 
 
The other thing to consider is that the LeBron and Lemieux type of franchise saviors are few and far between.  So the idea that a number of teams would be running to the bottom is overstated, because their mileage per "tank" will vary wildly fro year to year. 

 

[Infield Infidel]

This sounds kinda simple, but how about the teams in the lottery top 3 (or 5) from one year cannot get top 3 picks the next year? That would at least stop three (or 5) teams from tanking, since they could only get the #4 (or #6) pick at most. 

 

[ifmanis5]

Game show. Edens. Let's do this already.

 

[redsahx]

 

As I wrote before, the Sixers were forced into the multi-year program back to competing for championships BY THE GODDAMN LOTTERY!  Take away the lottery, and the Sixers' picks this year might have been Wiggins (definitely) and McDermott (pure speculation), and those two with Noel and MCW would have given them a team that might not win that many more games this season than they won last year, but at least would be a year or two closer to being competitive than the path they're on now.

How does dropping the Sixers from pick 2 to pick 3 suddenly turn this into a multi-year plan? Also, were there reports that stated they definitely would have taken Wiggins over Embiid at #2? (Agree Milwaukee would have taken Parker #1). In any case, they also could have still taken Embiid and Saric with those two hypothetical picks with the idea that they then do nothing to improve the product the following year and are in great position to have another crappy season with a "fair" draft rewarding them with another high pick. It is also known that Philly planned to be a high lottery team this coming year anyways, so I'm not sure I follow the argument that they wouldn't need to tank again next year without the lottery.

Also, it's not much of a "fair draft" if teams are intentionally underachieving or setting up their roster to ensure a bad season. In such cases you are not rewarding the teams that are organically lacking in talent. You tend to reward the teams that set themselves up to be bad when it is most convenient.

 

[zenter]

Also, it's not much of a "fair draft" if teams are intentionally underachieving or setting up their roster to ensure a bad season. In such cases you are not rewarding the teams that are organically lacking in talent. You tend to reward the teams that set themselves up to be bad when it is most convenient.

 
.... So?
 
Teams that suck should get picks. Whether that's strategic or accidental is basically irrelevant.

 

[redsahx]

 

Financial flexibility + player mobility = lower incentive to overvalue draft picks, and thus lower incentive to play to lose.
 
The big complaint is that nobody will go to smaller markets, etc. I disagree. Teams can "make known" willingness to pay bonus for certain players, etc., or poach a guy after as little as 3 with a blow-them-away offer.

 
Well draft picks in general should be valuable, not just the top picks. You build a good organization by drafting smartly. In your system, you will basically get agents insisting that their players sign for minimal years with certain franchises to minimize the time there. This gives less opportunity for those teams to develop players and build a core around them for any period of time. 9 times out of 10 it is going to be a team like the Lakers or Mavs swooping in and poaching an emerging talent from a team, not the TWolves or Cavs or Nuggets etc. etc. OKC would almost never be able to keep a player like Durant more than 2-3 years, therefore never developing a contending core which in turn makes them more viable for attracting or keeping players in the future.

 

[redsahx]

 

.... So?
 
Teams that suck should get picks. Whether that's strategic or accidental is basically irrelevant.

 
If that's your position, then you don't really need to add anything else. Teams can do whatever they want to ensure they are as bad as possible at the right time, period.

Of course some of us feel that this is in general not good for business. Furthermore, I think it is way too simplistic to state that there is no difference between "strategic" and "accidental" sucking. The Spurs were not one of the worst franchises in 1997. They were a perennial playoff team that decided to tank once David Robinson went down, and ended up getting Tim Duncan and going right back to contender the following year.

Anyways, certain tweaks can be made such that the struggling teams still will be near the top of the draft. If they draft well, eventually they will have enough assets to change their fortunes around. They might even land a high pick during the right year. Yet you greatly reduce the incentive to turn your team into the Washington Generals for a season or two.

 

[zenter]

9 times out of 10 it is going to be a team like the Lakers or Mavs swooping in and poaching an emerging talent from a team, not the TWolves or Cavs or Nuggets etc. etc. OKC would almost never be able to keep a player like Durant more than 2-3 years, therefore never developing a contending core which in turn makes them more viable for attracting or keeping players in the future.

 
In a world with max salary and other player mobility restrictions, you may be right. I think you dramatically underestimate the impact of a real talent marketplace with a lot of sellers and a lot of buyers. The Yankees and Red Sox are attractive not because they're in New York and Boston, but because they spend money on top talent. But the MLB has also been trying to slowly kill free agency, so this is going to change...
 
In the NBA, where the contracts are basically fixed in value (ie, max contracts, max annual raises, the trade-balance need to have players in different salary tiers), basically the only key differentiator for teams is existing talent and emphasis on winning. Indeed, your inclusion of the Mavs in this argument is basically proof - Dallas isn't an inherently more attractive city than a other NBA cities. Heck, the Mavs were an unattractive laughingstock for ages. The difference makers were 1) Dirk, and 2) Cuban.
 
And to that the dearth of buyers and sellers in the market, and you cannot have dark horse teams come out of nowhere. In other words, what if Portland decided to blow LeBron away with a 4/160M offer? Would others match? Would he be willing to take it? What if Miami responded with a 2/100M? Who knows. But the math is completely different when the market is open.
 
Unleash the marketplace with more buyers AND more sellers, and you'll actually see OKC and Memphis (and Boston) willing and able to overpay for elite talent. Sure, talent attracts talent. But that's not the only lever.

 

[Bergs]

I'm all about changing the lottery rules, but it is patently unfair to do it between the end of a season and the following draft.

 

[Brickowski]

Not to mention the fact that MLBs recent rule changes regarding draft pick compensation for free agent signings has created incentive for some teams to let up during the final weeks to make sure they finish in the bottom 10.

But the baseball draft isn't nearly as important and the NBA draft, and won't be until players from the DR, Panama, Venezuela and other Carribean countries become subject to it.

 

[moly99]

It's funny because they specifically changed the lottery when Orlando won the pick in the Webber draft so they made it more likely the worst teams would win.

 
This is precisely the issue people are ignoring. People are taking a moral stand on the issue of tanking without thinking through why the NBA created the extant system.
 
What's particularly infuriating is that the very same articles arguing in favor of getting rid of the lottery will point out that there's no evidence tanking actually works. A few will even note the reason the NBA has a tanking problem: it's almost impossible for "undesireable" teams to improve through free agency, so the draft is the only option available to them. As long as the Rudy Gays and Joe Johnsons of the world are making as much money as Lebron bottoming out is going to be the logical path to take even if they get rid of the lottery.

 

[bowiac]

We should have two lotteries. One to determine the lottery system, and another to determine the draft order. If nobody even knows for sure what they're tanking for, then nobody will do it.
 
Boom.

 

[Devizier]

Rather than punishing teams on the roster level, why not tie some non-negligible portion of their TV proceeds to their performance?

 

[Kull]

Every team that misses the playoffs is in the lottery, same odds. After the first five picks, every team slots in based on record. You're in the playoffs or you're in the lottery. Everybody wins.
 
Your system is a laughingstock when the owner of a 19-win team makes a statement like this at the end of the season:
 

"I think the season has been a huge success for us," 76ers owner Josh Harris said in April. "All these pieces are in place to make this an elite team that will compete consistently for the NBA championship. There are no shortcuts to it. Unfortunately, it takes a long time. I'm really happy with the progress."

 

[moly99]

EDIT: Deleted my own comment for being an ass.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Every team that misses the playoffs is in the lottery, same odds. After the first five picks, every team slots in based on record. You're in the playoffs or you're in the lottery. Everybody wins.
 
Your system is a laughingstock when the owner of a 19-win team makes a statement like this at the end of the season:
 

What's wrong with that comment? It seems to me that the Sixers' biggest crime here is openly acknowledging what everybody knows to be the case already. They're rebuilding. They understand what that entails. I dont see the issue.

 

[Kull]

 
 

What's wrong with that comment? It seems to me that the Sixers' biggest crime here is openly acknowledging what everybody knows to be the case already. They're rebuilding. They understand what that entails. I dont see the issue.

 

I agree, he's saying what everybody knows to be true. But that doesn't change the fact that a system which encourages extreme losing is a bad system. When a team owner is PROUD of a 19-63 record - and says so in public - it shows just how bad it really is.

 

[redsahx]

In a world with max salary and other player mobility restrictions, you may be right. I think you dramatically underestimate the impact of a real talent marketplace with a lot of sellers and a lot of buyers. The Yankees and Red Sox are attractive not because they're in New York and Boston, but because they spend money on top talent. But the MLB has also been trying to slowly kill free agency, so this is going to change...
 
In the NBA, where the contracts are basically fixed in value (ie, max contracts, max annual raises, the trade-balance need to have players in different salary tiers), basically the only key differentiator for teams is existing talent and emphasis on winning. Indeed, your inclusion of the Mavs in this argument is basically proof - Dallas isn't an inherently more attractive city than a other NBA cities. Heck, the Mavs were an unattractive laughingstock for ages. The difference makers were 1) Dirk, and 2) Cuban.
 

I am with you on this part. I also hate the NBA salary structure. Based on some of the other responses, apparently I need to specify that I don't consider tanking the worst problem facing the league, nor is it one that will be very pronounced and obvious every year. Still, even with changes to contracts and free agency, given the nature of basketball I would still expect teams to be motivated to bottom out when there is a Duncan, LeBron, Oden/Durant draft class coming out.

 

[redsahx]

But the baseball draft isn't nearly as important and the NBA draft, and won't be until players from the DR, Panama, Venezuela and other Carribean countries become subject to it.

  
I wasn't saying it is, but MLB teams certainly would prefer not to have to give up their first round pick in order to sign a decent free agent.

I agree, he's saying what everybody knows to be true. But that doesn't change the fact that a system which encourages extreme losing is a bad system. When a team owner is PROUD of a 19-63 record - and says so in public - it shows just how bad it really is.

Yes. I consider myself a die-hard Celtics fan, yet I couldn't watch most of the past season. The last stretch where I was regularly tuned in was when they went on a hot streak some time around the end of November to early December I believe, and there were rumors they might trade for Asik. The idea that they would still be willing to play competitive basketball kept me watching. When it became clear again that they were better served losing, I stopped watching and settled for the box scores.

At least with the Red Sox and the Patriots (yeah I know it's been a while) even when they are out of it you can still tune in and feel good about a win and feel like it's building towards something the following year, or at least keeping some pride. With the Celtics, I couldn't even root for them to beat the Heat down the stretch because they couldn't afford to slip too far in the lottery odds. That just sucks, and it is not a desirable thing for the league.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
In a world with max salary and other player mobility restrictions, you may be right. I think you dramatically underestimate the impact of a real talent marketplace with a lot of sellers and a lot of buyers. The Yankees and Red Sox are attractive not because they're in New York and Boston, but because they spend money on top talent. But the MLB has also been trying to slowly kill free agency, so this is going to change...
 
In the NBA, where the contracts are basically fixed in value (ie, max contracts, max annual raises, the trade-balance need to have players in different salary tiers), basically the only key differentiator for teams is existing talent and emphasis on winning. Indeed, your inclusion of the Mavs in this argument is basically proof - Dallas isn't an inherently more attractive city than a other NBA cities. Heck, the Mavs were an unattractive laughingstock for ages. The difference makers were 1) Dirk, and 2) Cuban.
 
And to that the dearth of buyers and sellers in the market, and you cannot have dark horse teams come out of nowhere. In other words, what if Portland decided to blow LeBron away with a 4/160M offer? Would others match? Would he be willing to take it? What if Miami responded with a 2/100M? Who knows. But the math is completely different when the market is open.
 
Unleash the marketplace with more buyers AND more sellers, and you'll actually see OKC and Memphis (and Boston) willing and able to overpay for elite talent. Sure, talent attracts talent. But that's not the only lever.

 
I agree with this concept   I don't know why owners need a max salary when they have a maximum amount of revenue going to players and a luxury tax.  If the league is concerned with keeping stars at home, allow a resigning team to subtract say 5% of the salary from cap considerations..  and devalue draft picks is by making contracts shorter - if a rookie contract was two years and an option, you would think teams would be less attracted to the Gordons and Vonlehs of the world because the team would be hard-pressed to get value before they hit FA.
 
Or do what Charlie Finley (I think) suggested for baseball:  every player is a free agent after every season.   Talk about a 12-montg news cycle.

 

[moly99]

What's wrong with that comment? It seems to me that the Sixers' biggest crime here is openly acknowledging what everybody knows to be the case already. They're rebuilding. They understand what that entails. I dont see the issue.

 
I don't have a problem with what they are doing, but it's important to note that there IS a difference between what they are doing and what teams like the Celtics and Orlando are attempting. The Celtics and Magic don't care about winning games, and have not made moves to get better in the short term. But they have held onto guys like Rondo and Jeff Green rather than trading them away just for the sake of getting rid of guys that could win games. The Sixers on the other hand are deliberately sabotaging their own team for the sake of losing more and improving their draft position.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Wheel!

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
I don't have a problem with what they are doing, but it's important to note that there IS a difference between what they are doing and what teams like the Celtics and Orlando are attempting. The Celtics and Magic don't care about winning games, and have not made moves to get better in the short term. But they have held onto guys like Rondo and Jeff Green rather than trading them away just for the sake of getting rid of guys that could win games. The Sixers on the other hand are deliberately sabotaging their own team for the sake of losing more and improving their draft position.

 
Who of value have the Sixers moved? They traded Jrue Holiday for Nerlens Noel. In summer league, Noel looked like he's going to be an elite defender. Hard to fault them on that. They also moved Spencer Hawes and Evan Turner, neither of whom garnered more in free agency than a portion of the mid-level exception. Which of those moves would be classified as deliberately sabotaging their own team? Neither Hawes nor Turner had much value at the trade deadline, so the Sixers got what they could for them before they lost them for nothing. What's the issue there? Literally the only difference between what the Sixers and Celtics are doing right now is that the Celtics had far more talent at the start of their rebuild than the Sixers did at the start of theirs. The Sixers roster wasn't going anywhere when this FO took over, and they turned their one decent asset into a player who, if healthy, would have gone #1 overall in his draft.

 

[gryoung]

1. Be literate.
1a. 'Parish'.
2. Fuck off with the Comic Sans.

Thanks.

 
1.     I'll try and avoid "stream of consciousness" writing going forward. 
1a.   I think we all know who I'm referring to - not Lance Parrish, but it is a typo.
2.    Sorry about that - it looked different on my screen.  Is your choice of verbs included in the guideline referenced in #1?

 

[moly99]

Yet that same Sixers team beat the Celtics three times down the stretch, right? In several instances, the C's had double digit second half leads that magically evaporated.

 
Three games is the definition of a small sample size. They also beat the Heat 111-110 early in the season in a game that should have been easy to lose if they were really trying to throw games.
 

Tanking can take many different forms; who you have on your roster, and who you are giving minutes to at certain situations. Neither the Sixers or C's cared about winning last year. Most every move was focused on the long term over the short, as it should. Embrace it.

 
I'm not saying I have a problem with it. I am just pointing out that there is a difference.
 
Celtics: Not trying to win.
Sixers: Deliberately trying to lose.
 

 
They also moved Spencer Hawes and Evan Turner, neither of whom garnered more in free agency than a portion of the mid-level exception. Which of those moves would be classified as deliberately sabotaging their own team? Neither Hawes nor Turner had much value at the trade deadline, so the Sixers got what they could for them before they lost them for nothing.

 
I'm not arguing that Hawes and Turner were world beaters. I'm arguing that they made those moves not because they likely the assets they got in return, but because they liked the improved lottery position they would obtain by making the team worse. I don't think picking up Danny Granger's salary is better than letting Turner walk for nothing since they bought out Granger's contract within a week of trading for him. They didn't make that trade because they wanted Granger, but because Turner was going to win them a few extra games.
 
Jeff Green is also pretty mediocre, but the Celtics could have dumped him for almost nothing in order to improve their draft slot and they chose not to.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Three games is the definition of a small sample size. They also beat the Heat 111-110 early in the season in a game that should have been easy to lose if they were really trying to throw games.
 
 
I'm not saying I have a problem with it. I am just pointing out that there is a difference.
 
Celtics: Not trying to win.
Sixers: Deliberately trying to lose.
 
 
I'm not arguing that Hawes and Turner were world beaters. I'm arguing that they made those moves not because they likely the assets they got in return, but because they liked the improved lottery position they would obtain by making the team worse. I don't think picking up Danny Granger's salary is better than letting Turner walk for nothing since they bought out Granger's contract within a week of trading for him. They didn't make that trade because they wanted Granger, but because Turner was going to win them a few extra games.
 
Jeff Green is also pretty mediocre, but the Celtics could have dumped him for almost nothing in order to improve their draft slot and they chose not to.

 
Assets > no assets. If one of those second round picks turns into a productive, cost controlled player like Lance Stephenson or Chandler Parsons, that's a huge value. More than likely, none of those picks will yield much value, but if you're in the Sixers position why not roll the dice on that? Further, you're gonna have to explain to me how Evan Turner is with 2 wins over the final couple of months of the season. I think you're overstating his impact.

 

[Devizier]

The Sixers fucked up by making their intentions publicly known. The Celtics were equally sloppy when they last fielded a full-on tank job, but the league is less tolerant of that shit now.

 

[Brickowski]

I'm with Kull on this one. The proposed changes reported by Zach Lowe would be a small improvement, but IMHO Kull's proposed system would be better at slowing the race to the bottom.

Personally I'm in favor of eliminating the draft entirely but allowing teams with losing records to pay players more, but that's no more likely to happen than Zarren's wheel.

Having said that, would the NBA be proposing any changes at all absent pressure from fans (especially season ticket and corporate luxury box holders) and sponsors? The Sixers may not like the proposed draft plan, but which NBA constituents did?

 

[Remagellan]

 
Three games is the definition of a small sample size. They also beat the Heat 111-110 early in the season in a game that should have been easy to lose if they were really trying to throw games.
 
 
I'm not saying I have a problem with it. I am just pointing out that there is a difference.
 
Celtics: Not trying to win.
Sixers: Deliberately trying to lose.
 
 
I'm not arguing that Hawes and Turner were world beaters. I'm arguing that they made those moves not because they likely the assets they got in return, but because they liked the improved lottery position they would obtain by making the team worse. I don't think picking up Danny Granger's salary is better than letting Turner walk for nothing since they bought out Granger's contract within a week of trading for him. They didn't make that trade because they wanted Granger, but because Turner was going to win them a few extra games.
 
Jeff Green is also pretty mediocre, but the Celtics could have dumped him for almost nothing in order to improve their draft slot and they chose not to.

 
 
This is bullshit.  The reason why the Sixers traded Hawes and Turner was that they had no intention of resigning them (and mind you, Turner at the time was looking for a big payday at the end of the season because he had been the second pick in the draft and thought himself a star), because they had more realistic opinions of their value, and decided to get what they could for them.  And the market has shown that the Sixers were right about their worth, and the players taken with the second round picks have more of a chance of contributing to their future success than Hawes or Turner would have.
 
They released Granger, because Granger, having been traded from a potential championship team to one of the worst in the league, told the Sixers he wanted to be moved to a contender or released.   Unable to do the former they decided to do that latter because no young team is made better by having a vet around grousing about how unfair the league is.
 
If you in any way applauded what the Sox did today you cannot rip the SIxers for what they did last season, because the Sixers did the exact same thing the Sox did today, except the Sixers were not ripping apart a team that had recently won a championship, but one that had already been gutted by their last big gamble on relevancy--the Bynum trade. 

 

[cardiacs]

Poor comparisons with any other league drafts.  20% of a lineup in the game at any one time skews the importance and impact of a single player so greatly that the other professional league drafts enhancements are purely tweaks ......with minimal impact to the actual games the following season.  I must admit to an anti-NBA bias however ......stopped watching/following the NBA 15 years ago when, in my opinion, the game started moving away from basketball to some other form .....where it now exists in a semi-athletic event/theatre scenario.  Oh well ........to each their own.  I do miss the Bird/McHale/Parrish/Walton days ......

Signed, 
Dan Gilbert's press secretary

 

[Skeesix]

This is overly drastic and kinda does screw Philly. Most drafts do not have 5 franchise-changing players. Just make it so that the bottom five teams have an equal chance to grab the top five picks and the rest of the non-playoff teams have progressively worse chances to land in the top 5 picks.

 

[moly99]

If you in any way applauded what the Sox did today you cannot rip the SIxers for what they did last season, because the Sixers did the exact same thing the Sox did today, except the Sixers were not ripping apart a team that had recently won a championship, but one that had already been gutted by their last big gamble on relevancy--the Bynum trade. 

 
I'm not "ripping" them. I personally have no problem with what they have done.
 
I'm saying the Sixers had a fire sale over the past couple of years whereas a lot of the other rebuilding teams have not, and that's why a lot of rival executives are angry about what the Sixers have done. Orlando isn't trying to win either, and yet because they are not making moves to obviously throw in the towel (except for playing Oladipo at point guard) they haven't gotten any heat for it.
 

This is bullshit.  The reason why the Sixers traded Hawes and Turner was that they had no intention of resigning them (and mind you, Turner at the time was looking for a big payday at the end of the season because he had been the second pick in the draft and thought himself a star), because they had more realistic opinions of their value, and decided to get what they could for them.  And the market has shown that the Sixers were right about their worth, and the players taken with the second round picks have more of a chance of contributing to their future success than Hawes or Turner would have.

 
The same thing is almost certainly true of Rondo and the Celtics.
 
As for Granger, teams normally talk to a guy and/or his agent to see if he will be OK with a trade before pulling the trigger. (David Kahn being a notable exception, of course.)

 

[zenter]

The same thing is almost certainly true of Rondo and the Celtics.

 
Point of information #1: Turner (now making a portion of an MLE) thought himself a star, but much of the league thinks Rondo is a star worth at least $15M.
 
Point of Information #2: You're taking the lack of move of Rondo as evidence of effort not to move him. Indeed, there was no point in moving him until now. There was a chance that the C's could do a mid-air rebuild with Love as the second major piece. If that's the case, Rondo is not worth moving, since he can be the cornerstone of the reloaded Celtics. Circumstance didn't work out, and Ainge could very well go into full tank tomorrow.
 
I'm stuck on a much more simple problem - how is it equitable if the worst team in the league has a 90% chance of NOT getting the first pick?
 
Chance of worst record NOT leading to best pick:

• 1985-88: 86%
• 1989: 89%
• 1990-93: 83%
• 1993-now: 75%
• Future? 90%?

Since 1985: How many times has the team with the worst record won the lottery? 3/30
Bottom 2 records? 8/30
Bottom 3 records? 15/30
 
Basically, whatever tanking there may be is already so unlikely to help that it's not worth it. And those who do tank have found one of the only areas of flexibility to exploit in the entire system - draft. The more they lock the system down, the less teams will be able to improve, the worse the league gets.