The draft and tanking

[Monster]

I feel like the NBA already made things interesting for teams that really lean into tanking. I mean last draft the Mavs got the #1 overall pick. I do think the idea of limiting how many picks you can get in the top 5 or 10 picks like MLB sounds like a good idea too.

Another option would be to limit salary cap to teams that are in the lottery a certain amount of times. I'm not sure teams would want to do this because teams want somewhere to dump their bad contracts.

I think there might be a bit more of a thing in terms of tanking because at the trade deadline etc more teams are in the playoffs than before having the playing games. More teams are wanting worthwhile players so some teams are willing to give them up either in trade or a buyout.

I've often said I don't blame teams for playing young players over vets at some point so they can see what they have in those young players. Does that sometimes seem egregious? Yes.

Ultimately in the NBA the incentive to get a top 5 pick is pretty high it's pretty difficult to keep tes from working to get one. In general other major sports drafts just don't compare except maybe in NFL for teams that need QBs but it feels like the bust factor is high too. To me the way to fight tanking is to continue building up the sport. We are seeing more and more ways to find good players that aren't top draft picks and sometimes even if those players aren't stars themselves they can be traded to get one. Add more developmental spots to rosters and continue to invest in the g-league.

Edit: Also it's interesting to read some of the creative possible solutions in this thread.

[Mnwild1128]

So what happens to teams that just inherently suck? Like the Pistons who lost 28 gmaes in a row a couple years ago? Do they get screwed over more for being actually bad and not being able to win versus a team blatantly tanking that could win 5 more games probably and only had they actually played their players and tried? No matter what is done, there are obvious and objective flaws to every idea.

[Lipoli390]

This concern with tanking is way overblown in my view. First, the play-in format and lottery both dramatically limit the number of teams that might be tempted to tank. Second, not every one of those limited number of teams with a possible incentive to tank actually tanks given that (a) tanking cuts against the natural competitiveness of nearly every NBA player and coach, (b) most low lottery teams who might have incentive to tank have young players who need to develop good habits and improve by competing to win; and (c) tanking is a flawed strategy for success given the lottery system and uncertainty surrounding draft prospects. Third, to the extent there are still a few teams trying to lose games, I say so what. Let the losers compete with one another to lose with no guarantee that their losing will get them a better player in the draft than the other lottery teams who didn’t try to lose. Meanwhile, the vast majority of teams will compete hard to win. And when the smoke clears we’ll have an NBA champion emerge from those teams.

If a tanking team ends up landing a great player in the draft then so be it. If the NBA is worried about the integrity of the game, they should focus on League officiating and the impact of widespread gambling.

[Crazysauce]

How about this.

How it works: Once a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, they begin accumulating "Draft Points" for every win they get.

The Reward: The team with the most points at the end of the season gets the #1 pick.

Why it works: It turns the end of the season into a high-stakes "Loser's Tournament." The worst teams get eliminated earliest, giving them more time to rack up points, but they still have to actually play hard and win to secure the top pick.

[Monster]

This concern with tanking is way overblown in my view. First, the play-in format and lottery both dramatically limit the number of teams that might be tempted to tank. Second, not every one of those limited number of teams with a possible incentive to tank actually tanks given that (a) tanking cuts against the natural competitiveness of nearly every NBA player and coach, (b) most low lottery teams who might have incentive to tank have young players who need to develop good habits and improve by competing to win; and (c) tanking is a flawed strategy for success given the lottery system and uncertainty surrounding draft prospects. Third, to the extent there are still a few teams trying to lose games, I say so what. Let the losers compete with one another to lose with no guarantee that their losing will get them a better player in the draft than the other lottery teams who didn’t try to lose. Meanwhile, the vast majority of teams will compete hard to win. And when the smoke clears we’ll have an NBA champion emerge from those teams.

If a tanking team ends up landing a great player in the draft then so be it. If the NBA is worried about the integrity of the game, they should focus on League officiating and the impact of widespread gambling.

This is pretty much where I land too. I mean if they are really concerned about each game being competitive or whatever then reduce the season by like 20 games. We know that won't happen because...money.

The sixers were the first team to outright look to tank. A couple things came out of that. 1 they ended up with some players that were undrafted that ended up having a nice career and in the case to TJ McConnell he is still going. Holmes career has turned into a journeyman but he is still and NBA player. My point is some of these tanking teams do give opportunities that other teams may not give. It's also sometimes a chance to a vet player to refind themselves.

The other thing like has pointed out what if the franchise just sucks. We have seen that first hand. Sometimes it's pretty much the whole organization is struggling from GM to coach to also maybe a little bad luck. One of the bad teams this season is the Jazz. They made a pretty big move to get better in the future this trade deadline and now he is out for the season. What are we supposed to do with that situation?

[FNG]

Lip and Monster make some good points, but I am far more concerned with tanking than they are. They are correct that finishing last doesn't ensure the top pick, and they are also correct that players are always going to play hard even if their team has made lineup changes in an attempt to lose...just look at Utah beating Miami after resting their 3 best players in the 4th quarter.

So what is my problem with it? Some of it is personal as a Wolves fan. As I did my playoff prediction spreadsheet yesterday, it was apparent that the Wolves have far fewer games remaining against teams trying to lose than our competitors...I'm going to be really pissed on the last day of the regular season when a Lakers team we are trying to finish ahead of beats the Jazz by 60. But more it's just that I find it distasteful and an insult to the fans. It's not fair to the fan who shells out a lot of money to watch an NBA game and instead gets a G League game because one of the teams is resting its stars.

I don't have a solution, but I do think it is huge issue for the NBA.

[Mnwild1128]

I've listened to a few pods discussing these topics and I have been thinking about the idea about eliminating the draft altogether and making players free agents. I have always loved the draft and would hate to see it go but I was thinking there might be a middle ground.

What if the draft was in 7 year cycles in which each team gets 7 first round salary exceptions and 7 second round exceptions? Based on this year's salary slots each team would be given the following salary exceptions:

11.5M, 8.3M, 5.7M, 4.5M, 3.7M, 3M, 2.6M as first round salary slots based on the salaries for the 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th, and 24th picks this year. They could go up or down based on the salary cap but the important part is each team has the same amount. Then they get 7, 2.3M second round slots or some other number.

Teams could use these slots during any draft year in the 7 year cycle to negotiate with draftees. They could offer up their 11.5 slot to someone like AJ Dybantsa and he could choose the team he prefers. So if he chose the Jazz, for instance, they would not have the 11.5M slot to use until the next 7 year cycle. In a year where Zaccarie Risascher is the best player, maybe teams will save their high dollar slot for another year with higher end talent. This year, for example might have 3-5 guys that teams would be willing to pay their best slot for. Salary slots could not be combined. If you know the next Wemby is coming in 4 years, maybe you hold onto that top slot for that.

These slots could be traded like current draft picks are but you could not trade into the next 7 year cycle until the 6th draft in the current cycle had passed.

One key feature is that all 14 original slots you get, per cycle, are salary cap exempt for the life of that rookie deal. So when the Jazz get Dybantsa, he won't count against their cap until his rookie contract is done. For a team that's far into the apron or needing to avoid it they could use an extra draft slot or 2 that year to help mitigate that.

Any slot that you trade for will not be salary cap exempt, however.

What about all currently traded picks, you ask? I imagine a system in which all of those picks will be awarded a salary slot nearest to where that team would pick that year, until they have all been extinguished. So lets say the Wolves finish with the 10th best record in 2030, the pick owed to San Antonio would become a 3M (20th pick) slot for them to use in the remaining years of that cycle. All traded second round picks would be the 2.3M slot.

I would also move draft night to mid to late July, to let most free agents sign and give rookies a better idea of which situation they want to go to.

I'm not sure how draft night would work but maybe it would resemble national signing day where players have a table of hats and announce their choice.

I hate this. Arbitrarily deciding which "1st overall" draft picks under normal years that may or may not be worthy of the same salary as other years. When you will not even know for sure until years down the road. Why would i come out in the draft if i am the best player but word around league is no ome is going to offer me more than 5.7 this year based on random factors around the league. Maybe i will wait till next year and several teams will use their 11.5 slot on them even if they are regarded as the 4th best player by waiting till the next years draft vs this years.

[Mnwild1128]

This is one of my favorite perennial topics.

First, I do think the league made positive steps with the play-in games and the flattened odds.

I do like the ideas of:
1) flattening the odds just a touch more
2) allowing teams to get jumped by more teams in the lottery (you shouldn't be guaranteed a top 4 pick if you have the worst record)
3) limiting consecutive top 5 picks

I think those steps above would be easy and probably be enough.

But I've been advocating another fix. I've proposed this here before, usually most summers, but the tanking is so bad right now I feel like it's worth putting it out there again.

Here it is:

Let's call it a blind loser's window and a blind winner's window. In this system, a somewhat large number of games (say, 25-40 games) from the first 75% of games in the season is randomly selected by computer before the season to be the window when losses increase your lottery odds. Both the number of games (25-40 seems like a fair range) and the specific games themselves would be randomly selected. No one would know which games would be selected, but it would be the same number of games for each team. This would be kept secret by the computer and only revealed after the last game of the season. Then, the computer would also select a smaller random selection of games in the second half of the season (say, 10-15 games), when wins actually help your lottery odds. Again, no one would know which games were which. But overall, this would still give the worse teams a lottery bump for parity because there are more games in the loser's window, while--because you wouldn't know which games were actually in the loser's window--it should disincentivize blatant tanking somewhat. At the same time, knowing that there are some winner's window games in the second half of the season (but again, not knowing which games they are), should incentivize more effort and competitive games down the stretch because there would be a chance that winning could help your lottery odds.

This promotes tanking all 82 games since it is randomized. Teams def know before the season if they are bad, mediocre, good or potentially great. Barring random injuries of course. This is the worst idea i have seen floated.

[Phenom]

This is one of my favorite perennial topics.

First, I do think the league made positive steps with the play-in games and the flattened odds.

I do like the ideas of:
1) flattening the odds just a touch more
2) allowing teams to get jumped by more teams in the lottery (you shouldn't be guaranteed a top 4 pick if you have the worst record)
3) limiting consecutive top 5 picks

I think those steps above would be easy and probably be enough.

But I've been advocating another fix. I've proposed this here before, usually most summers, but the tanking is so bad right now I feel like it's worth putting it out there again.

Here it is:

Let's call it a blind loser's window and a blind winner's window. In this system, a somewhat large number of games (say, 25-40 games) from the first 75% of games in the season is randomly selected by computer before the season to be the window when losses increase your lottery odds. Both the number of games (25-40 seems like a fair range) and the specific games themselves would be randomly selected. No one would know which games would be selected, but it would be the same number of games for each team. This would be kept secret by the computer and only revealed after the last game of the season. Then, the computer would also select a smaller random selection of games in the second half of the season (say, 10-15 games), when wins actually help your lottery odds. Again, no one would know which games were which. But overall, this would still give the worse teams a lottery bump for parity because there are more games in the loser's window, while--because you wouldn't know which games were actually in the loser's window--it should disincentivize blatant tanking somewhat. At the same time, knowing that there are some winner's window games in the second half of the season (but again, not knowing which games they are), should incentivize more effort and competitive games down the stretch because there would be a chance that winning could help your lottery odds.

This promotes tanking all 82 games since it is randomized. Teams def know before the season if they are bad, mediocre, good or potentially great. Barring random injuries of course. This is the worst idea i have seen floated.

Your posts are all very aggressive in tone. That's a fun choice.

[Monster]

Lip and Monster make some good points, but I am far more concerned with tanking than they are. They are correct that finishing last doesn't ensure the top pick, and they are also correct that players are always going to play hard even if their team has made lineup changes in an attempt to lose...just look at Utah beating Miami after resting their 3 best players in the 4th quarter.

So what is my problem with it? Some of it is personal as a Wolves fan. As I did my playoff prediction spreadsheet yesterday, it was apparent that the Wolves have far fewer games remaining against teams trying to lose than our competitors...I'm going to be really pissed on the last day of the regular season when a Lakers team we are trying to finish ahead of beats the Jazz by 60. But more it's just that I find it distasteful and an insult to the fans. It's not fair to the fan who shells out a lot of money to watch an NBA game and instead gets a G League game because one of the teams is resting its stars.

I don't have a solution, but I do think it is huge issue for the NBA.

Over the years I've seen plenty of g-league talent rosters win against full NBA rosters. Meanwhile many sports have the last game or 2 where one team is in the playoffs and they rest guys to keep them from injury etc. What are you gonna do about that?

Should the NBA be worried about tanking etc? Yes. How drastic of measures should they take? Idk it seems like they have done a lot already there just isn't a way to eliminate it.