NBA about to implement anti-tanking measure?

[Remagellan]

 
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.
 
 
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.)

 
Rondo's contract wasn't up at the end of last season, but Turner's and Hawes' were, which is why the Sixers either had to trade them mid-season or let them go for nothing at the end of the season.  FWIW, the talk was they were seeking first round picks for both, but again, the rest of the league knew they weren't worth that.  
 
The Howard-Bynum deal is the reason why Orlando hasn't been selling off players.  They had their sell-off when they shipped Howard out, and a couple of those young, interesting players on their team now used to be Sixers (Vucevic, Harkless); guys who were shipped out in the disastrous Bynum deal.  The Lakers didn't fare too well in that exchange either but at least Howard suited up for them.  The Sixers sent out Iguodala, Vucevic, Harkless, and a number 1 (which came back in the Payton-Saric deal this draft) for a half-season of Jason Richardson.  
 
That's the hole Hinkie's been trying to dig the franchise out of.  

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Realistically, the league's issues with the Sixers don't have anything to do with the "product," or the fans in Philadelphia. More likely, the agents of remaining free agents are causing a stir because the Sixers currently hold something ridiculous like 75% of the league's remaining cap space, and guys like Bledsoe and Monroe remain unsigned. Nobody in the league office cares if the Sixers win 19 games from here on out, so long as they're spending money on players. That they've held back is the real problem, I suspect. Chances are if they'd gone out and overpaid a couple of mid-tier veterans who wouldn't move the needle at all in terms of wins and losses, the league would be happy to look the other way while they rebuild.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

[/list]
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

not that this changes your point but I think there have actually been four: Clippers in 1988; Nets in 1990; Cavs in 2003 (tied for the worst); and Magic in 2004.

 

[moly99]

Realistically, the league's issues with the Sixers don't have anything to do with the "product," or the fans in Philadelphia. More likely, the agents of remaining free agents are causing a stir because the Sixers currently hold something ridiculous like 75% of the league's remaining cap space, and guys like Bledsoe and Monroe remain unsigned.

 
This is always an interesting situation (when guys who think they are worth big money don't get the offers they expect,) because there's a reason nobody want to pay big bucks to Monroe and Bledsoe. Monroe isn't much of an upgrade over Thaddeus Young anyway, so it's hard to see why the Sixers would be in a rush to sign Moose.
 
EDIT: To clarify, the reason Monroe isn't a big upgrade over Young is how he fits with the young guys the Pistons are trying to develop. Thaddeus Young isn't a great stretch 4, but he can at least fill the role of spacing the floor for MCW and Nerlens Noel, which is what the Sixers need from their power forward.
 
Swapping Young for Monroe would put the Sixers in the position of running the clogged toilet offense that Detroit ran last year with multiple guys all trying to occupy the same floor space at once.

 

[Kliq]

I get why some people are upset with the change, but Philadelphia is making a mockery out of the league. The team only won 19 games this season, and management was PROUD of that. In addition, Philly has about $20 million in cap space that they have to utilize, because the league requires teams to spend at least 90% of their cap space. Is Philadelphia going to spend that extra money on players that could potentially help them win? Of course not, they are just going to redistribute that money to the shitty players already on their team. They don't have the leagues support for being against the modifications, because the league is mad that a team in one of their marquee markets is openly trying to suck.

 

[Blacken]

The league is wrong to be "mad" at people for acting according to the incentives the league itself created.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I get why some people are upset with the change, but Philadelphia is making a mockery out of the league. The team only won 19 games this season, and management was PROUD of that. In addition, Philly has about $20 million in cap space that they have to utilize, because the league requires teams to spend at least 90% of their cap space. Is Philadelphia going to spend that extra money on players that could potentially help them win? Of course not, they are just going to redistribute that money to the shitty players already on their team. They don't have the leagues support for being against the modifications, because the league is mad that a team in one of their marquee markets is openly trying to suck.

Then so are the Celtics. Again, the only difference between the two is that Boston had far more talent on their roster than Philly did when they made the decision to rebuild. In fact, you could make the argument that the C's tank job is more reprehensible because they gave up on playoff teams to bottom out. What were the Sixers supposed to do? Build around Jrue Holiday?

And as far as the cap space goes, which free agents are lining up to play in Philly right now? They'd be forced to overpay some mid-tier guy. How does that get them any closer to where they want to be? Is Orlando suddenly competitive because they overpaid Channing Frye? Are they selling that to their fans? As an organization, the Sixers are in much better shape now then they were before they brought in this new FO. They're making the right decisions, and recognize that losing is a necessary, inevitable part of the process. Enough with the moral grandstanding already. If you hate tanking, so be it. You're entitled to that opinion. But at least be willing to look in the mirror and call a spade a spade.

 

[Kliq]

Then so are the Celtics. Again, the only difference between the two is that Boston had far more talent on their roster than Philly did when they made the decision to rebuild. In fact, you could make the argument that the C's tank job is more reprehensible because they gave up on playoff teams to bottom out. What were the Sixers supposed to do? Build around Jrue Holiday?

And as far as the cap space goes, which free agents are lining up to play in Philly right now? They'd be forced to overpay some mid-tier guy. How does that get them any closer to where they want to be? Is Orlando suddenly competitive because they overpaid Channing Frye? Are they selling that to their fans? As an organization, the Sixers are in much better shape now then they were before they brought in this new FO. They're making the right decisions, and recognize that losing is a necessary, inevitable part of the process. Enough with the moral grandstanding already. If you hate tanking, so be it. You're entitled to that opinion. But at least be willing to look in the mirror and call a spade a spade.

 
The Celtics situation is a little different. They haven't traded Rondo yet, they still are overpaying Jeff Green, hell they gave a TON of cash to Avery Bradley. They didn't keep their #1  pick from playing an entire season, even though he was healthy during the second half of the season and was openly pining to play. The Celtics are not wildly under the cap. Celtics are not like Philly. I agree that there are certain tanking tendencies that they execute, same with other teams like Milwaukee, Orlando, Lakers, but Philly is just such an extreme example of it.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
The Celtics situation is a little different. They haven't traded Rondo yet, they still are overpaying Jeff Green, hell they gave a TON of cash to Avery Bradley. They didn't keep their #1  pick from playing an entire season, even though he was healthy during the second half of the season and was openly pining to play. The Celtics are not wildly under the cap. Celtics are not like Philly. I agree that there are certain tanking tendencies that they execute, same with other teams like Milwaukee, Orlando, Lakers, but Philly is just such an extreme example of it.

Who is Philly 's Rondo? Who did they trade that they shouldn't have? Who didn't they give big money to that they let go instead? The Sixers didnt have talent worth extending. The Celtics did. That 's the only difference.

 

[otiose]

Here's my idea: if you miss the playoffs, you get 100 Lottery Points. Lottery Points get carried over year to year if not spent, and are tradeable.

Each year, the top draft positions are awarded by a televised live auction in which teams bid their Lottery Points. Teams can match or beat bids - ties get randomly selected. Each pick is auctioned off in order until no team wants to bid anymore. At that point the remaining picks go in reverse standings order.

If a generational talent is coming out in a couple years and this year's draft sucks, great, save up your Lottery Points or make some deals to acquire more.

Smart teams would get rewarded, and so would perennial losers. Teams that had just one bad year would have no chance at snagging a Duncan.

There'd be little incentive to tank in any given year, since the elite players would all go to teams that bid for the slot. Maybe a team on the rise might want to tank out of the 8th seed to earn Lottery Points in a few circumstances, but probably not.

Plus the live auction would be riveting TV.

 

[moly99]

Quite frankly, I think Philly is acing their rebuilding test. When it's time to rebuild, you have to go all in.

 
I agree, but the people criticizing them are not impartial observers but rather agents, rival NBA execs and Philly fans who don't want to watch a sucky team. From their perspective what the Sixers are doing is hurting them, so they are going to complain about it. That's pretty understandable, and a separate issue from the lottery changes.

 

[LondonSox]

Teams (not exclusive to philly) have made moves and trades with future draft picks exchanged and various protections in place to limit risks etc etc.
How the hell can you change the draft rules when there are multiple active draft pick trades made under different rules.

That's completely insane.

As for the whole issue it's dumb as shit. The worst teams should get the best players end of. Otherwise why have a draft.
It's not the team that did nearly as badly who deserves better picks.
PPlus explain why a team that has a bad injury and is a bit bad for a year as a result deserves the same chance as the team with no talent.
Teams have tanked for years.

 

[LondonSox]

 
I agree, but the people criticizing them are not impartial observers but rather agents, rival NBA execs and Philly fans who don't want to watch a sucky team. From their perspective what the Sixers are doing is hurting them, so they are going to complain about it. That's pretty understandable, and a separate issue from the lottery changes.

Most philly fans are on board and not complaining. The owners are ok with it.
There is some complaining iin Philly after the draft as no talent for this year was added but the buy in and belief is still high.
So maybe you should not speak for a fan base that is fine with it?

 

[moly99]

Most philly fans are on board and not complaining. The owners are ok with it.
There is some complaining iin Philly after the draft as no talent for this year was added but the buy in and belief is still high.
So maybe you should not speak for a fan base that is fine with it?

 
I have heard many fans complain about not going after Stephenson and Bledsoe and instead drafting another big man who won't play and "wasting" their cap room. The attendance numbers speak for themselves: only the Bucks had lower attendance last year.
 
I know that the majority of the die hard fans are buying into it, but the casual fans who want to be entertained are always going to find it hard to watch a terrible team.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

Who is Philly 's Rondo? Who did they trade that they shouldn't have? Who didn't they give big money to that they let go instead? The Sixers didnt have talent worth extending. The Celtics did. That 's the only difference.

What's more, I'm pretty sure the C's would have happily made the draft night trade with NO last year if Rondo were healthy.

 

[LondonSox]

 
I have heard many fans complain about not going after Stephenson and Bledsoe and instead drafting another big man who won't play and "wasting" their cap room. The attendance numbers speak for themselves: only the Bucks had lower attendance last year.
 
I know that the majority of the die hard fans are buying into it, but the casual fans who want to be entertained are always going to find it hard to watch a terrible team.

Maybe but casual fans will be there in droves if the plan works.
The reason for the clear communication of the plan is so the fans understand and can accept it. The fact that this communication is costing them vs staying quiet.... Is dumb.

How dare you share your plan with the fan base.

Bottom line philly has Noel to get some positive vibes this year, and some interesting second round guys.
Next year embiid and whoever they draft, and the year after presumably saric plus another pick.
Last year was a known disaster, this year was supposed to be more of a step forward and it won't be. Which is annoying to some. But from next year I'd be surprised if people weren't coming again.

I could easily see them signing a Thompson (a much needed shooter) and they would have embiid Noel Thompson and mcw plus a high pick. It's not like they are far away from being relevant (injury risks aside).

I also agree with a previous comment if they had got Wiggins, I am unclear they would have still gone for saric and if not they would have had 4 good starters and this whole multiple years of tanking thing is dead.

What stopped this? Cleveland winning the lottery for the 3rd time in 4 years. If there is a problem with the draft it's not philly getting the 3rd pick it's Cleveland getting it by incompetence and luck

 

[Remagellan]

FWIW, Philly gave a guaranteed contract to Pierre Jackson, a guy they like as a possible second team scorer and fireplug, after he ruptured his achilles in a summer league game for them to do right by him and retain his rights.  One could look at that at the team spending more money on another guy who won't play for them this season, or them identifying a guy who fits a role on the team they're building and giving him a no risk contract (since they would have to spend up to the cap floor anyway) to keep his rights in the hopes he can come back from the injury next year.  
 
As for not playing Noel when he wanted to come back in the middle of last season, the kid hadn't even made it through a full season of college basketball, and had so much to learn that it's not clear him running around on just rehabbed knees would have helped the team much.    Letting him take a few more months to fully heal and work with a coach tutoring him on post moves was the much wiser course.   If you were paying attention to their summer league teams you'd know  they were careful about playing Noel in back to back games.  This is a franchise that has been burned a couple times by injuries to big men soon after they acquired them (Jeff Ruland, Andrew Bynum) so they're being extremely cautious with the kid. 
 
As for the owner labeling last season a success, what else could he say?  They've told the fans they have a long-term plan that is going to involve some dealing with some pain now for a big payoff down the road.  After one season, is he supposed to come out and say, "We were terrible last season, so we've decided that we've waited long enough, and now we're going to throw money at any free agent who'll come here and take our chances on grabbing the eighth seed"?   If that's the case, the first thing he'd have to do is fire Hinkie and Brown, because those guys were pitched to the fan base as the architects of this multi-year rebuilding process.  
 
But I guess they could just bring back Billy King (shudder), and he could throw a bunch of big contracts at overpriced, overaged veterans, because that plan worked so well for the Nets last season.  

 

[oumbi]

not that this changes your point but I think there have actually been four: Clippers in 1988; Nets in 1990; Cavs in 2003 (tied for the worst); and Magic in 2004.

Here is an interested article from SBNation. Evidently, it has paid off more to have the 3rd or 5th worse record than to have the worst record, in terms of how many times a position has won the top pick. The article was published in 2013.
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/5/21/4348616/nba-draft-lottery-history-derrick-rose-lebron-james
  The history of the lottery

• The worst team has won the NBA Draft Lottery three times in 23 tries.
• The third-worst and fifth-worst teams have won the lottery the most times (five) in the lottery era. The Cavaliers select third and the Pelicans pick fifth this year.
• The team with the least likely odds to win the NBA Draft Lottery was the 1993 Orlando Magic, who had the 11th-best chance to win. The seventh-, eighth- and ninth-worst teams have all won the lottery once since 1990.

Team by record - # of wins (since 1990)
Worst - 3 times won top pick
2nd-worst - 4
3rd-worst - 5
4th-worst - 0
5th-worst - 5
6th-worst - 2
7th-worst - 1
8th-worst - 1
9th-worst - 1
10th-worst - 0
11th-worst - 1
12th-worst - 0
13th-worst - 0
14th-worst - 0
 

 

[TomRicardo]

Here's my idea: if you miss the playoffs, you get 100 Lottery Points. Lottery Points get carried over year to year if not spent, and are tradeable.

Each year, the top draft positions are awarded by a televised live auction in which teams bid their Lottery Points. Teams can match or beat bids - ties get randomly selected. Each pick is auctioned off in order until no team wants to bid anymore. At that point the remaining picks go in reverse standings order.

If a generational talent is coming out in a couple years and this year's draft sucks, great, save up your Lottery Points or make some deals to acquire more.

Smart teams would get rewarded, and so would perennial losers. Teams that had just one bad year would have no chance at snagging a Duncan.

There'd be little incentive to tank in any given year, since the elite players would all go to teams that bid for the slot. Maybe a team on the rise might want to tank out of the 8th seed to earn Lottery Points in a few circumstances, but probably not.

Plus the live auction would be riveting TV.

 
Upon finishing reading this proposal, Dolan had already traded his future lottery points until 2024.

 

[LondonSox]

I guess I just don't get the issue.
You have had a draft forever, the lottery made it worse not better (and more dubious).
 
I guess the concern is that if the Sixers do it and succeed everyone else will too?
 
The NBA is the least balanced league, with the most concentrated set of titles of any major sport. Their issue is they are worried about the teams on the outside having an unfair advantage?
I mean WHAT?
 
The MLB and NFL in particular have last to first stories regularly. Let's find a non Spurs and Duncan type example, or a Cleveland gets Lebron due to lottery luck for that matter.
 
If the Thunder had created a dynasty due to the draft and the tanking around the Seattle move etc then maybe there would be a case, but I think I missed that when they traded a star for next to nothing as they couldn't keep all the talent they drafted.
 
Even IF the sixers plan works, they are going to have to pick who to keep and who to move, you tank for multiple years and get top talent, you can't really keep it all anyway.
 
This is the dumbest thing ever. Where the draft fits in the list of NBA issues is up for debate but it's not even remotely close to the top 10 for me (The top would be the pace of the game and time outs in crunch time for me)

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

I guess I just don't get the issue.
You have had a draft forever, the lottery made it worse not better (and more dubious).
 
I guess the concern is that if the Sixers do it and succeed everyone else will too?
 
The NBA is the least balanced league, with the most concentrated set of titles of any major sport. Their issue is they are worried about the teams on the outside having an unfair advantage?
I mean WHAT?
 
The MLB and NFL in particular have last to first stories regularly. Let's find a non Spurs and Duncan type example, or a Cleveland gets Lebron due to lottery luck for that matter.
 
If the Thunder had created a dynasty due to the draft and the tanking around the Seattle move etc then maybe there would be a case, but I think I missed that when they traded a star for next to nothing as they couldn't keep all the talent they drafted.
 
Even IF the sixers plan works, they are going to have to pick who to keep and who to move, you tank for multiple years and get top talent, you can't really keep it all anyway.
 
This is the dumbest thing ever. Where the draft fits in the list of NBA issues is up for debate but it's not even remotely close to the top 10 for me (The top would be the pace of the game and time outs in crunch time for me)

 
Part of the problem has to be the max player contract. Only being able to spend X on Lebron when the market would surely give him more artificially allows teams to build superior rosters by getting the very best players for less than they're worth. We saw it with Kobe and the same is happening with Lebron right now.

 

[LondonSox]

Bumping this as I was just reading this
http://www.libertyballers.com/the-liberty-beat/2014/10/20/7009899/the-new-nba-lottery-odds-and-you
 
Which contains this handy table
 
Finger's crossed on the formatting: edit bugger it looks fine but posts like ass. Well it's all in the link

 

#1 pick

Top 3 pick

Top 5 pick

Seed

Old

New

Diff

Old

New

Diff

Old

New

Diff

1st

25%

12%

-13%

64.3%

35%

-29.3%

100%

56.3%

-43.7%

2nd

19.9%

12%

-7.9%

55.8%

35%

-20.8%

100%

56.3%

-43.7%

3rd

15.6%

12%

-3.6%

46.9%

35%

-11.9%

95.9%

56.3%

-39.6%

4th

11.9%

12%

+0.1%

37.8%

35%

-2.8%

82.8%

56.3%

-26.5%

5th

8.8%

11.5%

+2.7%

29.2%

33.8%

+4.6%

55.3%

54.8%

-0.5%


6th

6.3%

10%

+3.7%

21.5%

30%

+8.5%

21.5%

49.7%

+28.2%

7th

4.3%

8.5%

+4.2%

15%

26%

+11%

15%

44.1%

+29.1%

8th

2.8%

7%

+4.2%

10%

21.7%

+11.7%

10%

37.7%

+27.7%

9th

1.7%

5.5%

+3.8%

6.1%

17.4%

+11.3%

6.1%

30.9%

+24.8%

10th

1.1%

4%

+2.9%

4%

12.9%

+8.9%

4%

23.4%

+19.4%

11th

0.8%

2.5%

+1.7%

2.9%

8.2%

+5.3%

2.9%

15.2%

+12.3%

12th

0.7%

1.5%

+0.8%

2.5%

4.9%

+2.4%

2.5%

9.2%

+6.7%

13th

0.6%

1%

+0.4%

2.2%

3.3%

+1.1%

2.2%

6.3%

+4.1%

14th

0.5%

0.5%

0%

1.8%

1.7%

-0.1%

1.8%

3.2%

+1.4%

 
I think it's borderline ridiculous for the team with the worst record has only a 56% chance to get a top 5 (!!!!) pick 35% of top 3 pick and 12% the number 1.
 
As already stated I hate the whole concept but I'm surprised to see just how big the odds changes are.
 
P.S. the article states (and I agree) while this hurts the Sixers this summer (I'd laugh if they get it I'll be honest) it probably is fine for them going forward. It's unlikely they jump straight to the playoffs but with Embiid Noel and MCW in 2015 plus whoever they draft plus probably some free agents (With Saric maybe as a long shot and if not likely the year after) they are more likely in the area of teams that benefit from the new rule.
 
I will laugh my ass off if in 2015 they finish 10th and get a top 3 pick.

 

[ALiveH]

The League seems to think the problem is tanking.  Zach Lowe seems to think the problem is that free agents don't want to go to certain cities & the draft is the only way for those cities to acquire a superstar.
 
The new system clearly seems to mostly fix the tanking problem.  This improves the product on the floor.  I have a hard time coming up with an argument for why that's a bad thing.
 
I'm not sure what a possible fix could be to the latter problem, but they seem diametrically opposed.
 
In the new world, a team that is clearly not a contender could tank the end of the season to miss the playoffs in order to get a shot at a high pick.  But, all the terrible teams that are comfortably out of the playoffs (like the Celtics & Sixers) could actually try to win games in order to develop chemistry.  There would almost be no difference in lottery odds between 1st and 7th, for example.
 
It could also be good for all those future picks we own.  Instead of rooting for Brooklyn or Clippers to be really atrocious (even worse than teams intentionally trying to tank), we just need them to be bad enough to comfortably miss the playoffs & then get lucky in the lottery.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Owners voted against the measure, as it only garnered 17 votes: http://deadspin.com/nba-shockingly-votes-against-anti-tanking-measures-1649329410. 
 
Sounds like small market teams got nervous about unintended consequences. Can't say I blame them. With this system in place, their chances of landing a superstar would have decreased.

 

[mauf]

Here's my idea: if you miss the playoffs, you get 100 Lottery Points. Lottery Points get carried over year to year if not spent, and are tradeable.

Each year, the top draft positions are awarded by a televised live auction in which teams bid their Lottery Points. Teams can match or beat bids - ties get randomly selected. Each pick is auctioned off in order until no team wants to bid anymore. At that point the remaining picks go in reverse standings order.

If a generational talent is coming out in a couple years and this year's draft sucks, great, save up your Lottery Points or make some deals to acquire more.

Smart teams would get rewarded, and so would perennial losers. Teams that had just one bad year would have no chance at snagging a Duncan.

There'd be little incentive to tank in any given year, since the elite players would all go to teams that bid for the slot. Maybe a team on the rise might want to tank out of the 8th seed to earn Lottery Points in a few circumstances, but probably not.

Plus the live auction would be riveting TV.

 
 
I hadn't seen this before. I love this idea.
 
Tanking is a problem unique to basketball. The baseball draft is too much of a crapshoot to provide the necessary reward for tanking. Tanking is anathema to the sort of culture-building that is crucial to success in football. Hockey is somewhere in between on both fronts -- the draft isn't as unpredictable as baseball (but it's pretty unpredictable), and culture-building isn't as important as in football (but it's pretty important) -- so we've seen tanking on occasion when a player perceived as a generational talent (Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby) is available, but it hasn't been the persistent problem it has been in the NBA.
 
The single most important thing for any sports commissioner to do is to make sure the competition is on the level, so kudos for Silver for moving to solve this perceived problem. I have no sympathy for the Sixers or for anyone else whose tanking plans are disrupted by an unexpected rule change.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Owners voted against the measure, as it only garnered 17 votes: http://deadspin.com/nba-shockingly-votes-against-anti-tanking-measures-1649329410. 
 
Sounds like small market teams got nervous about unintended consequences. Can't say I blame them. With this system in place, their chances of landing a superstar would have decreased.

The media/blogs created the tanking issue last year which made it a real issue. This really hurts the Milwaukees, Minnesotas and other places that can't attract Tier 1 or Tier 2 FA without dramatically overpaying for the 2nd and 3rd tiers.....I'd include Boston in that category of the 10 least likely destinations a FA would want to play/live in the winter.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Owners voted against the measure, as it only garnered 17 votes: http://deadspin.com/nba-shockingly-votes-against-anti-tanking-measures-1649329410. 
 
Sounds like small market teams got nervous about unintended consequences. Can't say I blame them. With this system in place, their chances of landing a superstar would have decreased.

 
Looking at the list of the votes, I'm not sure that's its really a market size/destination division.  You have teams like Miami, Chicago, and San Antonio voting No and teams like Sacramento, Cleveland, and Toronto voting Yes.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Looking at the list of the votes, I'm not sure that's its really a market size/destination division.  You have teams like Miami, Chicago, and San Antonio voting No and teams like Sacramento, Cleveland, and Toronto voting Yes.

 
Ah, interesting. Didn't see the list of how each franchise voted.

 

[Remagellan]

FUCK YOU HATERS! - A Sixers fan
 
They should scrap the lottery and let the worst teams get the first picks.  That will allow them to climb back into contention.  They've had the lottery since 1985 and clearly that is not working to help the dregs of the league improve themselves, so maybe they should pull a Costanza and try the opposite for a while and see if that works.  

 

[HomeRunBaker]

FUCK YOU HATERS! - A Sixers fan
 
They should scrap the lottery and let the worst teams get the first picks.  That will allow them to climb back into contention.  They've had the lottery since 1985 and clearly that is not working to help the dregs of the league improve themselves, so maybe they should pull a Costanza and try the opposite for a while and see if that works.  

San Antonio - Robinson
Orlando - Shaq
Milwaukee - Bogut (pre injuries)
Cleveland - LeBron
Clippers - Griffin
Orlando - Howard
Washington - Wall
Cleveland - Irving
New Orleans - Anthony Davis


I'd argue that it helped the dregs quite a bit for these either small market teams and/or undesirable destinations to acquire franchise players. The problems arise when teams game the system like the Spurs for Duncan and the blatant scheme of Philadelphia currently.


Edit: nevermind I misunderstood your point.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Actually, after seeing the no votes, I stand by my earlier post. Of the NOs, only Miami and Chicago have any history of attracting free agents. Everybody else (Cha, Phx, Phi, OKC, NO, DET, MIL, SA, UT, Wash, and ATL) know that the best way for them to acquire a superstar is through the draft.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Actually, after seeing the no votes, I stand by my earlier post. Of the NOs, only Miami and Chicago have any history of attracting free agents. Everybody else (Cha, Phx, Phi, OKC, NO, DET, MIL, SA, UT, Wash, and ATL) know that the best way for them to acquire a superstar is through the draft.

 
But what about all the teams that voted yes that also aren't marquee destinations: TOR, CLE, IND, ORL, POR, SAC, MIN, MEM, GS, DEN, DAL, etc?
 
I can definitely buy that the majority of the big market/marquee destination franchises voted YES but, ultimately, the number of those teams is so small that it really can't be the decisive factor in a vote like this.  The vast majority of the teams in the league don't fall into that category.  They probably voted for a variety of other reasons such as short term consideration of where they're likely to finish in the near future, personal loyalties and agreements between owners, different assessments of whether tanking is actually a problem, etc.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
But what about all the teams that voted yes that also aren't marquee destinations: TOR, CLE, IND, ORL, POR, SAC, MIN, MEM, GS, DEN, DAL, etc?
 
I can definitely buy that the majority of the big market/marquee destination franchises voted YES but, ultimately, the number of those teams is so small that it really can't be the decisive factor in a vote like this.  The vast majority of the teams in the league don't fall into that category.  They probably voted for a variety of other reasons such as short term consideration of where they're likely to finish in the near future, personal loyalties and agreements between owners, different assessments of whether tanking is actually a problem, etc.

 
First, I'd argue that Golden State is a marquee destination now and that that will only increase as they move to downtown San Francisco. The others, like you said, likely voted with short term interests in mind--or in the case of franchises like Indiana and Dallas--with their organizational philosophies in mind. Neither Dallas or Indiana seems to believe in tanking, and both have managed to build contenders without tearing down their core or relying on high draft picks (with the exception being Dirk, all that time ago). Cleveland is now a top 3 team, easily, and figured the new system is their best shot--albeit an unlikely one--to add cheap, cost controlled talent to their current core. As for Portland, Minnesota, Orlando, Memphis and Denver, I think they voted against their own self interest here. Not sure what their thought process is, unless it's as simple as not wanting to participate in a system that risks alienating their fans. Lastly, Toronto could very well be operating under the belief that they can become a large market team or they could be voting for short term interests first. Not really sure.

 

[zenter]

The list of "nos" is almost a who's who of owners that have great unwillingness to pay luxury tax - people who actively and publicly loathe the union and free agency, like Jordan, and the owner of his former team.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I'm not sure a more balanced lottery wouldn't be better for small market teams. The problem with tanking is often even if you get a star your roster is so bad that by the time it is good enough to contend your star wants out. A more balanced lottery would increase your chances of getting a star on a roster that already has talent.

 

[zenter]

If the problem is the link between this seasons' record and the draft immediately following, why not directly manipulate that relationship?
 
2 ideas -
 
1) Draft placement is based on a 3-year average record, with a heavily-weighted lottery. Not a huge fan, but it makes tanking this year less effective.
2) Draft placement is based on your record 2 year's ago, with a heavily weighted lottery conducted last year. So, if I'm last in the season ending 2014, I have a strong chance of having the top pick in the 2016 draft.
 
Maybe this will satisfy the anti-tanking hawks. I don't know. As I've said, fix the cap and you may solve this issue - the market is responding to financial pressures.

 

[moly99]

 
Tanking is a problem unique to basketball.

 
It's not the problem, though. It's a symptom of a disease: a league completely dominated by superstars. The league has taken a bunch of steps in the past decade that make things worse and ignored possible solutions to it. The max contract size, the hand checking rule, superstar treatment from the refs, etc.
 
If they really want to fix this they have to go back to the rules of the KG era, where teams could actually overspend on the superstars and had to make thoughtful decisions about where to spend money. So long as guys like Durant and Lebron are making half to a third of the money they would get in an open market, the teams that don't have those guys are screwed.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

1) Draft placement is based on a 3-year average record, with a heavily-weighted lottery. Not a huge fan, but it makes tanking this year less effective.

I actually really like this idea. You still allow the worst and/or small market teams the opportunity to turn their fortunes around with a superstar while eliminating a Tim Duncan-like injury tank year that Indiana could choose to do this year. It wouldn't stop the Sixers strategy as much since they are clearly on a mission but we aren't necessarily looking for a perfect system (as that isn't likely to be accomplished) only an improved one.

 

[Marbleheader]

You run the risk of even more excessive tanking to tip the averages in your team's favor. I can envision multiple sub-10 win teams.

 

[Cellar-Door]

3 year averages would be atrocious. It would encourage long term tanks like the 76ers which is what they want to kill off. 1 year injury tanks concern them less.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

You run the risk of even more excessive tanking to tip the averages in your team's favor. I can envision multiple sub-10 win teams.

How so? If each game now carries a weighted avg of .0122 (1/82) under zenter's proposal each game is weighted .0041 (1/246).

Edit: Who in their right mind would tank 3 years for 1 top pick? Maybe Philly but they clearly are out of their mind.

 

[moly99]

How so? If each game now carries a weighted avg of .0122 (1/82) under zenter's proposal each game is weighted .0041 (1/246).

Edit: Who in their right mind would tank 3 years for 1 top pick? Maybe Philly but they clearly are out of their mind.

 
If tanking for 3+ years is your only realistic means of building a contender, then you should tank for 3+ years.

 

[DavidTai]

What if you set things up so that only one player can be designated "Franchise player" and be paid the most, like an extra year and 10 million more than the next highest, in return for a higher salary cap?

Would that force you to swallow long and hard about drafting well and building a good team around _one_ franchise player and not a "superteam"?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The list of "nos" is almost a who's who of owners that have great unwillingness to pay luxury tax - people who actively and publicly loathe the union and free agency, like Jordan, and the owner of his former team.

The list is almost exclusively small market teams who aren't equipped to pay the new luxury tax as the larger market teams are with their massive local broadcast contracts. We already know where the No votes would come from.

 

[Brickowski]

Well there were 13 no votes, so the proposed change is dead.
 
Let me add that the "Lottery Point" system proposed by otiose above is one of the most original and interesting proposals I've seen for reforming the NBA lottery.  I really like it.

 

[Devizier]

How about no player max, no rookie scale? That would put the kibosh on tanking. Might make some NBA vets pretty unhappy when this generation's Steph Marbury gets $100M out of college.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

How about no player max, no rookie scale? That would put the kibosh on tanking. Might make some NBA vets pretty unhappy when this generation's Steph Marbury gets $100M out of college.

This is how it used to be when Chris Webber and Glen Robinson were signing for $70m out of college. IIRC it was Jordan, Barkley and Malone who pressured the Players Association to institute a rookie salary scale in the next CBA which they did. Zero chance of the players agreeing to that again.

 

[crystalline]

I still like the Simmons proposal: the first pick goes to the team that piles up the most wins after being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. Terrible teams get eliminated first and have a longer time to accumulate post-elim wins. Near-miss playoff teams have only a handful of games.
At the same time you give advantage to bad teams while incentivizing wins.

 

[Sprowl]

I still like the Simmons proposal: the first pick goes to the team that piles up the most wins after being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. Terrible teams get eliminated first and have a longer time to accumulate post-elim wins. Near-miss playoff teams have only a handful of games.
At the same time you give advantage to bad teams while incentivizing wins.

Would this create an incentive to tank early, in order to maximize the number of opportunities to win afterwards? The system needs to incentivize staying in the playoff race too.

 

[Kliq]

The teams with the worst three records are not able to get one of the top three picks. I don't think this is a complicated problem to fix in theory, but it is going to be incredibly difficult to get over because organizations are going to cry foul no matter what the NBA does, so they are pretty much stuck with what they have now. Maybe trying to implement the reform THIS YEAR was a little bit of a reach, perhaps it could pass if they could implement it starting in 2018 or something.