My Solution to tanking

[HurricaneDij39]

There is no solution to tanking. Changing the system would create more problems than it would solve...Next.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

There is no solution to tanking. Changing the system would create more problems than it would solve...Next.

You should write a blog about this

 

[The Q]

There is no solution to tanking. Changing the system would create more problems than it would solve...Next.

Disagree.

Show me how my proposed plan would cause my problems than it would solve.

Mine solves 2 BIG problems in one shot.

 

[trojanfan12]

There is no solution to tanking. Changing the system would create more problems than it would solve...Next.

Generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree. The lottery was supposed to fix tanking, it didn't.

However, @The Q proposal makes enough sense for it to at least be worth taking a look at, if not giving it a try.

It certainly won't end tanking. But it should hopefully limit it to a handful of truly bad teams. It may also make for a lottery that people won't feel is quite as rigged.

Q's proposal aside, I think the best way to curb tanking is to stop punishing teams that attempt to put together championship rosters through luxury taxes and cap restrictions and start looking at ways to sanction teams that seem content to just make as much money as possible without really trying to improve the product on the floor.

One of the things that Wiggy has posted that he's 100% correct on, imo, is that in the NBA, the worst thing to be is a "good team." You either want to be a championship contender or a really bad team. Because of the salary restrictions, luxury taxes, etc. you end up with 3-5 really good teams, 3-5 really bad teams and a bunch of other teams that aren't good enough to be contenders, aren't bad enough to get a top 5 lottery pick and just end up in limbo with no real way to improve their roster.

 

[The Q]

Generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree. The lottery was supposed to fix tanking, it didn't.

However, @The Q proposal makes enough sense for it to at least be worth taking a look at, if not giving it a try.

It certainly won't end tanking. But it should hopefully limit it to a handful of truly bad teams. It may also make for a lottery that people won't feel is quite as rigged.

Q's proposal aside, I think the best way to curb tanking is to stop punishing teams that attempt to put together championship rosters through luxury taxes and cap restrictions and start looking at ways to sanction teams that seem content to just make as much money as possible without really trying to improve the product on the floor.

One of the things that Wiggy has posted that he's 100% correct on, imo, is that in the NBA, the worst thing to be is a "good team." You either want to be a championship contender or a really bad team. Because of the salary restrictions, luxury taxes, etc. you end up with 3-5 really good teams, 3-5 really bad teams and a bunch of other teams that aren't good enough to be contenders, aren't bad enough to get a top 5 lottery pick and just end up in limbo with no real way to improve their roster.

The other idea I saw that was interesting was that instead of a lotto you give teams their rookie money for their draft picks and you sign the incoming rookies with that money, but in free agency. So bad franchises aren't just handed kids to ruin. They have to do some work to spend their money.

 

[tlance]

The other idea I saw that was interesting was that instead of a lotto you give teams their rookie money for their draft picks and you sign the incoming rookies with that money, but in free agency. So bad franchises aren't just handed kids to ruin. They have to do some work to spend their money.

As long as the money was prorated with the worst teams getting the most, that might not be too bad.

But, rookie contracts are such a tiny percentage of a player's overall earning potential, a stud might still sign with a top team.

 

[wildturkey]

Fuck it. Let's blow it all up! No draft whatsoever. No rookie wage scale. Burn it down baby! You declare for the NBA and teams sign you outright in free agency. Think of all the possibilities! You'd have to plan out your cap sheet every year to bid for top rookies. Hell, you could be a shit team, clean house with your cap, and sign 3 rookies to form a new core (for example, let's say the Suns signed Ball, Tatum, and Issac). That's fun! It's chaos! It's awesome.

FWIW, I actually like this train of thought despite it having a 0.001 percent chance of ever happening. Teams would have to be smart with their money so the market would adjust itself after a couple of seasons so I don't think we'd see like 10 max contracts going to rookies right away. Maybe a couple for like a Lonzo Ball or Fultz, but at some point, teams would be wary about investing too much money on an unknown. Plus, I like this because it would lead to getting rid of all those contract incentives teams have that keeps guys on rookie contracts for almost 10 years (ie offering more money, extension advantages, etc). I hate that shit more than anything else. The less restrictions on player movement, the healthier the league is.

 

[The Q]

As long as the money was prorated with the worst teams getting the most, that might not be too bad.

But, rookie contracts are such a tiny percentage of a player's overall earning potential, a stud might still sign with a top team.

yeah the money would still be doled out based on "slots" like it is now.

but instead of drafting, you'd have to actually do some real work to recruit players to come to your team.

 

[logic]

They should do it like the NBA All-Star game----Global Online Fan Poll. That would work out great.

 

[gordontrue]

Fuck it. Let's blow it all up! No draft whatsoever. No rookie wage scale. Burn it down baby! You declare for the NBA and teams sign you outright in free agency. Think of all the possibilities! You'd have to plan out your cap sheet every year to bid for top rookies. Hell, you could be a shit team, clean house with your cap, and sign 3 rookies to form a new core (for example, let's say the Suns signed Ball, Tatum, and Issac). That's fun! It's chaos! It's awesome.

FWIW, I actually like this train of thought despite it having a 0.001 percent chance of ever happening. Teams would have to be smart with their money so the market would adjust itself after a couple of seasons so I don't think we'd see like 10 max contracts going to rookies right away. Maybe a couple for like a Lonzo Ball or Fultz, but at some point, teams would be wary about investing too much money on an unknown. Plus, I like this because it would lead to getting rid of all those contract incentives teams have that keeps guys on rookie contracts for almost 10 years (ie offering more money, extension advantages, etc). I hate that shit more than anything else. The less restrictions on player movement, the healthier the league is.

Why not keep the rookie wage scale, but lose the draft.

Every team is allowed to sign 1 rookie at a "1st round wage" and 1 rookie at a "2nd round wage".

The suckier teams will have playing time and bigger roles to offer. The better teams will have the spotlight and veteran mentors to offer -- but not a lot of minutes. I actually think that's a pretty level playing field.

Would likely also have a side effect of having more players going to their local team, which is good for the league.

 

[WiggyRuss]

i doubt lottery reform happens.

they tried to pass less drastic measures than what are now being discussed a couple years ago and the small market teams- which are the majority of the league- wanted little or nothing to do with lotto reform.

Nothing has really changed in that regard.

IF IT DOES happen- itll just be a slight revision of the odds but not big fundamental changes.

 

[wildturkey]

Why not keep the rookie wage scale, but lose the draft.

Every team is allowed to sign 1 rookie at a "1st round wage" and 1 rookie at a "2nd round wage".

The suckier teams will have playing time and bigger roles to offer. The better teams will have the spotlight and veteran mentors to offer -- but not a lot of minutes. I actually think that's a pretty level playing field.

Would likely also have a side effect of having more players going to their local team, which is good for the league.

I feel if they all had the same locked in wages, more rookies would be inclined to play for the better teams than you'd think. So despite having playing time the bad teams still wouldn't get the better players and then teams would bitch about the rich getting richer. But if they had no wage scale and everything counted against the cap like every other player, then it opens everything up. Teams like the Cavs/Warriors/Rockets/etc couldn't afford the best rookies at all. But a team like Philly or LA could clean their sheet, sign 2 or 3 in a year and be on their way. A bad team would have access to hope quicker. Instead of drafting a guy and hoping he pans out, they can clear cap space and sign multiple guys which increases the odds of finding their star and turning around the franchise.

Of course for it to work, the entire CBA and salary structure for all players would have to be redone which is why it will never happen. It's too big of a change. Plus, I'm not sure the NBAPA would ever go for it because if rookies can get big money, that means vet players are gonna be taking a pay cut. I don't see them warming up to that idea

 

[trojanfan12]

Plus, I'm not sure the NBAPA would ever go for it because if rookies can get big money, that means vet players are gonna be taking a pay cut. I don't see them warming up to that idea

I think that's the big thing right there. If memory serves, a big part of the reason they have a rookie scale now is to keep guys who haven't accomplished anything from taking money from guys that have.

 

[The Q]

I think that's the big thing right there. If memory serves, a big part of the reason they have a rookie scale now is to keep guys who haven't accomplished anything from taking money from guys that have.

every draft is in place so owners can save money.