Anonymous NBA general manager admits to tanking

[RunDogGun]

Sure, just as much luck as not drafting a Kwame with the first pick. That's why I call it a crapshoot.

Hardly - There's a reason they're called "busts"; it's because the end result wasn't expected. Conversely nobody drafting 15 - 30 is surprised if their player never makes an All Star team.

I agree that it's a much more comfortable position to draft around a core set of skillsets and an established team, but from a pure talent acquisition perspective there is much more opportunity / room for error when selecting from the lottery.

Many guys are drafted for potential, due to limited time in college. The product you think you may be getting isn't always what you get. So I stand with good scouting can still find guys later in the draft. It's a crapshoot, and you need a little luck. You could end up drafting Oden instead of KD, which the skills are there, yet the unlucky injury turned that pick into a bust for Portland. You could draft guys later, who in a well established system can do much better than one drafted early into a poor system.

Could it be tough so some younger guys to live up to expectations of being drafted high? Who knows?

There seems to be a lot of busts out there, tons of which went second, third, fourth, or fifth. Even in the special draft with LeBron, there is still is a bust right there at number two.

I

[mybloodisorange]

Everybody knows that tanking happens every year. It is one of the best way to rebuild and everyone knows it. The manager was being honest but retained him anonymity because that is something your players like to hear even if they know it to be true. Tanking isnt a big deal for rebuilding teams IMO, its just considered to be a dont ask-dont tell type situation for the sake of the players' pride.

If I had to guess who made the quote (obviously not the 76ers!) I would say it was most likely us or maybe Utah. But the quote does seem like it details McDonoughs plan to a tee!

[Frank Lee]

I apt to agree more with Cutter.

And furthermore, the lottery draft system was created to offset tanking aspirations. Prior to that adjustment, it was common place to 'tank' over the last 5-10 games to better your selection. Thats not to say it has eliminated that practice, but it has created a risk factor to blatantly toss games, especially with the 'Dark Hand' of stern plucking the pingpongs.

I also do not ever remember such tanking discussion going on prior to a season beginning. Dubbing the efforts of the off season as a 'tanking' one seems out of place. But looking at the 76ers... sheesh...

[YFZblu]

There seems to be a lot of busts out there, tons of which went second, third, fourth, or fifth. Even in the special draft with LeBron, there is still is a bust right there at number two.

I'm not saying busts don't happen, I was disagreeing that the lottery is as much of a crapshoot as picks 15 - 30. That's just not the case. Using the 2003 draft class is not a good example of your position considering LeBron/Wade/Bosh/Anthony were four of the top five.

[JDLAW]

I am bringing this back - not for the purpose of crowing about how we beat all the prognosticators as that has been done to death, but because I wanted to comment about how some of the teams appeared to shamelessly throw a whole season for more pingpong balls.

Some of the teams Milwaukee and Phila did not even give the pretense of trying to be competitive. It is one thing to slip into the lottery at the end of the season. Regardless the entire subject left a bad oder and should not be tolerated again.

I am also tired of seeing the same teams grab #1-3 picks year after year. It is tough watching teams like the Cavs have three #1 overall picks in 20 years, or Orlando who has picked #1 three times in it its history , or Milwaukee who has picked #1 four times and is likely to pick there again this year

I suggest the NBA revise its lottery as follows:

Every team in the lottery has an equal chance at the top three pick. Then go in reverse order. Next restrict the eligibility by making a team that gets the number 1 pick ineligible to have it again until it makes the playoffs for 2 years. And finally make the teams that pick 1-3 ineligible for those picks the following year. In other words, if you pick in the top three in this year's draft, you are ineligible for picks 1-3 in next year's draft.

I think this helps prevent season-long tanking and forces some teams to try to become more competitive.

[bigfoot]

I like the idea of rotating the 1st pick to every team. Guaranteed to get the 1st pick once every 30 years and a top 6 pick every five years. Completely eliminates any talk of tanking.

[Phystic]

Don't like the idea. It screws teams over that are legitimately bad. So Cavs getting #1 in a crappy draft last year would make them ineligible for a top pick until the make the playoffs?

And I would say neither did the Bucks. Bucks had multiple different injuries and a terrible coach. Not to mention they just aren't very good to begin with. If anything the Bucks have CONSISTENTLY done the opposite of what you are accusing them of. Kohl as always, ALWAYS tried to make the playoffs that's why they have been crappy for so long. They have yet to bottom out. They routinely push and keep themselves in the no mans land area of end of lotto or 8th seed.

The only team that legitimately tanked this year was the 76ers. The draft is meant to help the bottom teams, guaranteeing a top pick for every team in a 30 year cycle is a terrible idea. If a team like the Bucks, 76ers, Cavs land a top pick in a horrendous draft that just screws them. Then on the flip side guaranteeing the Heat, Thunder, Spurs, Pacers a top pick in say 2014 would be completely unfair.

[JDLAW]

Don't like the idea. It screws teams over that are legitimately bad. So Cavs getting #1 in a crappy draft last year would make them ineligible for a top pick until the make the playoffs?

And I would say neither did the Bucks. Bucks had multiple different injuries and a terrible coach. Not to mention they just aren't very good to begin with. If anything the Bucks have CONSISTENTLY done the opposite of what you are accusing them of. Kohl as always, ALWAYS tried to make the playoffs that's why they have been crappy for so long. They have yet to bottom out. They routinely push and keep themselves in the no mans land area of end of lotto or 8th seed.

The only team that legitimately tanked this year was the 76ers. The draft is meant to help the bottom teams, guaranteeing a top pick for every team in a 30 year cycle is a terrible idea. If a team like the Bucks, 76ers, Cavs land a top pick in a horrendous draft that just screws them. Then on the flip side guaranteeing the Heat, Thunder, Spurs, Pacers a top pick in say 2014 would be completely unfair.

i understand your point, but more often than not the worst team does not get the first pick and more often than not teams stay in the lottery. I am not accusing the Bucks of anything but if they are what you say and were not competitive because of injuries, why should they get a windfall of the #1 selection to supplement their returning players? I am not advocating rotating the #1 pick around the best teams. As for the Bucks, i think your assessment of their operations is only partly accurate. Their inconsistency has been because of poor drafting and poor player transactions.

[MrPerfect1]

Don't like the idea. It screws teams over that are legitimately bad. So Cavs getting #1 in a crappy draft last year would make them ineligible for a top pick until the make the playoffs?

And I would say neither did the Bucks. Bucks had multiple different injuries and a terrible coach. Not to mention they just aren't very good to begin with. If anything the Bucks have CONSISTENTLY done the opposite of what you are accusing them of. Kohl as always, ALWAYS tried to make the playoffs that's why they have been crappy for so long. They have yet to bottom out. They routinely push and keep themselves in the no mans land area of end of lotto or 8th seed.

The only team that legitimately tanked this year was the 76ers. The draft is meant to help the bottom teams, guaranteeing a top pick for every team in a 30 year cycle is a terrible idea. If a team like the Bucks, 76ers, Cavs land a top pick in a horrendous draft that just screws them. Then on the flip side guaranteeing the Heat, Thunder, Spurs, Pacers a top pick in say 2014 would be completely unfair.

i understand your point, but more often than not the worst team does not get the first pick and more often than not teams stay in the lottery. I am not accusing the Bucks of anything but if they are what you say and were not competitive because of injuries, why should they get a windfall of the #1 selection to supplement their returning players? I am not advocating rotating the #1 pick around the best teams. As for the Bucks, i think your assessment of their operations is only partly accurate. Their inconsistency has been because of poor drafting and poor player transactions.

MIL has actually drafted pretty well over the years. The problem, though, is that even drafting well at #12-#15 each year does not usually accomplish more than adding an OK player to the team.

[Phystic]

Don't like the idea. It screws teams over that are legitimately bad. So Cavs getting #1 in a crappy draft last year would make them ineligible for a top pick until the make the playoffs?

And I would say neither did the Bucks. Bucks had multiple different injuries and a terrible coach. Not to mention they just aren't very good to begin with. If anything the Bucks have CONSISTENTLY done the opposite of what you are accusing them of. Kohl as always, ALWAYS tried to make the playoffs that's why they have been crappy for so long. They have yet to bottom out. They routinely push and keep themselves in the no mans land area of end of lotto or 8th seed.

The only team that legitimately tanked this year was the 76ers. The draft is meant to help the bottom teams, guaranteeing a top pick for every team in a 30 year cycle is a terrible idea. If a team like the Bucks, 76ers, Cavs land a top pick in a horrendous draft that just screws them. Then on the flip side guaranteeing the Heat, Thunder, Spurs, Pacers a top pick in say 2014 would be completely unfair.

i understand your point, but more often than not the worst team does not get the first pick and more often than not teams stay in the lottery. I am not accusing the Bucks of anything but if they are what you say and were not competitive because of injuries, why should they get a windfall of the #1 selection to supplement their returning players? I am not advocating rotating the #1 pick around the best teams. As for the Bucks, i think your assessment of their operations is only partly accurate. Their inconsistency has been because of poor drafting and poor player transactions.

No but with a cycle system the Sixers who are clearly the worst team could get the worst pick in the draft whereas in the current system they are guaranteed a top 4 pick. And the cycle system gives them a chance of being in **** situation for multiple years.

Why shouldn't the Bucks get the top pick potentially this year? Just because they didn't purposely tank doesn't mean they didn't earn the pick.

And really they have drafted ok, they have been coached like **** though. Which is the main problem

[JDLAW]

I am not advocating the "cycle system" whatever that is. My system keeps the lottery, flattens out the odds, thereby discouraging teams from tanking the season and giving them an incentive to get out of the lottery. It also makes sure the worst team does not pick any lower than 4th.

The 76ers and/or Bucks would both be eligible for the top three picks this year under my system. If they get it this year they cannot get the #1 pick until they spend 2 years out of the lottery. Further they would not be eligible for #2 and #3 next year, but would be the following year. Giving all lottery participants the same odds keeps the bad teams from chasing ping-pong balls as the team with a 27-55 record has the same chance as the team with 28-54 or 30-52 records. There can be a significant difference in these teams' odds of winning the lottery when in fact there might be little difference the actual quality of the team.

Moreover, it gives teams that attempt to put a good product on the floor and just fall short the opportunity to escape the dreaded stuck "in the middle syndrome." Something that should be rewarded. I think a team like the Suns or Minnesota are deserving of an equal shot at the top pock - maybe more so than a team like the 76ers or Cavs or Magic that stay there year after year. Think about the Magic - they have been in the league twenty five years and have picked #1 three times and each time they got a franchise player. Last year they picked #2 and went from 20 - 23 wins, in large part because they did little to upgrade the rest of the roster in any significant way. The current system is a drag on the league and force franchises that are not good enough to get into the playoffs to ultimately tear the team apart and lose 50-60 games to get a shot at a franchise player. Some teams have become adept at this - look at Cleveland, win 19 games in '10-'11. Get the 1st pick and then win 21 games the next year. Get the 4th pick and win 24 games. Get the 1st pick and win 33 games. They have been in the league 44 years and have picked #1 five times (it should have been 6) but they traded it to LAL for some bauble. In contrast, the Suns have been around 46 years and have never picked #1. They were predicted to be awful and could have tanked, but they did the right thing and put a competitive team on the court instead of "losing to win." Please do not give me the argument that because they picked #1 in a "bad draft" they should still be eligible. They made the selection they made. They could have picked any other player, because they chose poorly does not mean they should get another crack at #1, 2 or 3 this year. I do not feel a bit sorry for them. They had two #1 overall picks and two #4 overall picks in three years.

The incentives for tanking have become sufficient that the perverse this notion of "losing to win has gotten" has kept teams like the 76ers from keeping two players that could help them win games. For some teams it has become a race to the bottom and it should not be rewarded.

[i505]

The problem I see with that is you then just shift which teams might tank. If everybody has the same odds for top 3, a team that is on track to be a 7th - 10th seed might just opt for the lottery instead of a likely first round exit.

Get rid of the draft altogether I say. Rookies come in as free agents. Over the cap?... no rookies for you. This will add extra incentive to not constantly go over the cap. Good college players will still want to play their first contract on lesser teams due to additional playing time and higher possible salary.

Tanking eliminated 100%. That's the only way I can see it working.

[MrMiyagi]

The problem I see with that is you then just shift which teams might tank. If everybody has the same odds for top 3, a team that is on track to be a 7th - 10th seed might just opt for the lottery instead of a likely first round exit.

Get rid of the draft altogether I say. Rookies come in as free agents. Over the cap?... no rookies for you. This will add extra incentive to not constantly go over the cap. Good college players will still want to play their first contract on lesser teams due to additional playing time and higher possible salary.

Tanking eliminated 100%. That's the only way I can see it working.

That'd be really interesting. However then the teams who couldn't manage their money and paid some 19 year olds way too much money for 5 year deals will be complaining how they can't get good players because they don't have the cap space for half a decade.

There will never be a perfect answer and I honestly think that the current lotto system is as good as it's going to get.

[mrlancers]

The problem I see with that is you then just shift which teams might tank. If everybody has the same odds for top 3, a team that is on track to be a 7th - 10th seed might just opt for the lottery instead of a likely first round exit.

Get rid of the draft altogether I say. Rookies come in as free agents. Over the cap?... no rookies for you. This will add extra incentive to not constantly go over the cap. Good college players will still want to play their first contract on lesser teams due to additional playing time and higher possible salary.

Tanking eliminated 100%. That's the only way I can see it working.

It's not a bad idea. But I think the NBA relishes in the draft's existence. It's a television experience. Seeing your team potentially draft the next all-star or the next Adam Morrison. The trades. The interviews. The pageantry of it all. None of this exists if these players are just thrown into the FA pot on July 1st.

[Phystic]

I am not advocating the "cycle system" whatever that is. My system keeps the lottery, flattens out the odds, thereby discouraging teams from tanking the season and giving them an incentive to get out of the lottery. It also makes sure the worst team does not pick any lower than 4th.

The 76ers and/or Bucks would both be eligible for the top three picks this year under my system. If they get it this year they cannot get the #1 pick until they spend 2 years out of the lottery. Further they would not be eligible for #2 and #3 next year, but would be the following year. Giving all lottery participants the same odds keeps the bad teams from chasing ping-pong balls as the team with a 27-55 record has the same chance as the team with 28-54 or 30-52 records. There can be a significant difference in these teams' odds of winning the lottery when in fact there might be little difference the actual quality of the team.

Moreover, it gives teams that attempt to put a good product on the floor and just fall short the opportunity to escape the dreaded stuck "in the middle syndrome." Something that should be rewarded. I think a team like the Suns or Minnesota are deserving of an equal shot at the top pock - maybe more so than a team like the 76ers or Cavs or Magic that stay there year after year. Think about the Magic - they have been in the league twenty five years and have picked #1 three times and each time they got a franchise player. Last year they picked #2 and went from 20 - 23 wins, in large part because they did little to upgrade the rest of the roster in any significant way. The current system is a drag on the league and force franchises that are not good enough to get into the playoffs to ultimately tear the team apart and lose 50-60 games to get a shot at a franchise player. Some teams have become adept at this - look at Cleveland, win 19 games in '10-'11. Get the 1st pick and then win 21 games the next year. Get the 4th pick and win 24 games. Get the 1st pick and win 33 games. They have been in the league 44 years and have picked #1 five times (it should have been 6) but they traded it to LAL for some bauble. In contrast, the Suns have been around 46 years and have never picked #1. They were predicted to be awful and could have tanked, but they did the right thing and put a competitive team on the court instead of "losing to win." Please do not give me the argument that because they picked #1 in a "bad draft" they should still be eligible. They made the selection they made. They could have picked any other player, because they chose poorly does not mean they should get another crack at #1, 2 or 3 this year. I do not feel a bit sorry for them. They had two #1 overall picks and two #4 overall picks in three years.

The incentives for tanking have become sufficient that the perverse this notion of "losing to win has gotten" has kept teams like the 76ers from keeping two players that could help them win games. For some teams it has become a race to the bottom and it should not be rewarded.

You say"It also makes sure the worst team does not pick any lower than 4th. " , except it actually restricts teams from getting up there twice. So for instance the Sixers are probably going to be pretty bad next year potentially don't get a top 3 pick next year because of this draft? How exactly is that fair? And for the teams, usually smaller market teams, that get stuck in the lottery for years, they go no chance of getting a top pick until they make the playoffs for two consecutive years?

I don't like the idea at all. All it does is screw over bad teams. How often is that a team BLATANTLY tanks like the Sixers did this year? Not that often. Cavs, Magic, Bucks, Hornets, Wizards have all had high picks the last few seasons and yet none of them have intentionally made their teams worse. Which means they aren't tanking they are simply not good. So why would the league deliberately hurt the teams that are already struggling? So if a team gets a top pick in a garbage draft like last years or say the 2000 draft, then they are now ineligible? Seems really fair. So essentially to reward the teams that are fighting for a playoff spot, right? Why should be rewarded at the expense of the teams that are struggling? Sure the Suns haven't gotten a #1 pick and yet somehow we are like 4th overall in terms of historical winning %, so why do we need the help? As a fan sure it's appealing to have our team get the top pick but in terms of actual necessity it simply isn't needed. It's better for the league to try to improve the bad teams. What should the Magic have done differently? You think they haven't made pitches to the top free agents like everyone else? Should they have tried to overpay mediocre players to try and win 35-40 games and get into the playoffs? No, that turns them into the Bucks. The Magic are building their team through the draft similar to how the Thunder/Warriors did, also they are acquiring assets, you know, kind of like the Rockets/Nets/Celtics did.

And by "cycle system" I mean how similar your system is to that the proposed wheel system or whatever it's called.

[Phystic]

Furthermore, what exactly is the problem with tanking? Outside of diminishing fan interest? Is it not the owners/teams right to rebuild however they see fit? Essentially the only real 'tanking' is benching your top players. For instance, the Heat can't just bench Lebron,Wade,Bosh for a season to land Wiggins. But if they decide to trade those three for scraps to try and land Wiggins and Embiid, that's their prerogative.

You think teams enjoy being consistently in the bottom 5? No it hurts their revenues and of course every team wants to win a championship. You think the Bucks aren't trying to win? They just don't make good decisions, that hurts nobody but themselves. So why should we gift a better team a higher draft pick because of it? It's not like these lottery teams are building super teams and it's screwing the league up.

[JDLAW]

Tanking hurts every team financially who is not tanking. The gate is not as good, parking revenue is not as good (even in the private lots parking is cheaper when the tankers come to town), the concession revenue is not as good in the arena (restaurant revenue outside loses revenue) and ticket prices for the tanking teams are depressed (like most teams, the ticket price per game is higher for the more desirable teams and lower for the lousy teams) TV ratings for the games against the tankers are lower. It is a despicable and corrupt practice that hurts other teams and the league. it should not be rewarded.

I'll just turn the argument back at you, "why reward a team the persistently makes bad choices or does not use other means (trades and free agency) to improve the quality of its product by consistently giving it top picks. The Draft is for all the teams - not just the worst of the worst. It is the only means where a team, if they do not trade their pick get a relatively inexpensive player for the mere price of having to pay the salary.

As for the 76ers, if they get the 1st pick this year, I see no reason why they should be eligible for one of the first 3 picks next year. They have cap space to sign free agents, they have players to trade so they can improve their team. If they are not successful, they can pick 4th and then be eligible for 2 and 3 the following year.

[bwgood77]

Tanking hurts every team financially who is not tanking. The gate is not as good, parking revenue is not as good (even in the private lots parking is cheaper when the tankers come to town), the concession revenue is not as good in the arena (restaurant revenue outside loses revenue) and ticket prices for the tanking teams are depressed (like most teams, the ticket price per game is higher for the more desirable teams and lower for the lousy teams) TV ratings for the games against the tankers are lower. It is a despicable and corrupt practice that hurts other teams and the league. it should not be rewarded.

I'll just turn the argument back at you, "why reward a team the persistently makes bad choices or does not use other means (trades and free agency) to improve the quality of its product by consistently giving it top picks. The Draft is for all the teams - not just the worst of the worst. It is the only means where a team, if they do not trade their pick get a relatively inexpensive player for the mere price of having to pay the salary.

As for the 76ers, if they get the 1st pick this year, I see no reason why they should be eligible for one of the first 3 picks next year. They have cap space to sign free agents, they have players to trade so they can improve their team. If they are not successful, they can pick 4th and then be eligible for 2 and 3 the following year.

I like your idea with one exception. I would give the 14 teams that miss the playoffs a 5% chance at getting a top 3 pick, and anyone who got eliminated in the first round a 3.75% chance of getting a top 3 pick.

This way, there would be ZERO incentive to barely miss the playoffs like it looked like the Hawks were trying to do this year near the end. There are so many young GMs that have this view of not wanting to be the 8th seed who gets swept and would rather have a chance at a star or a top 10 pick, that this would almost entirely give zero incentive to miss the playoffs, unless someone was seriously ignorant enough to miss for that extra 1.25% chance.

With your idea, each team that missed the playoffs would have a little better than a 7% chance of getting a top pick, which could still be preferable to some GMs than making the playoffs with a losing record only to play a team full of superstars and get clobbered in the first round (like the Bucks at 38-44 last year against the Heat 66-16).

[MrMiyagi]

Tanking hurts every team financially who is not tanking. The gate is not as good, parking revenue is not as good (even in the private lots parking is cheaper when the tankers come to town), the concession revenue is not as good in the arena (restaurant revenue outside loses revenue) and ticket prices for the tanking teams are depressed (like most teams, the ticket price per game is higher for the more desirable teams and lower for the lousy teams) TV ratings for the games against the tankers are lower. It is a despicable and corrupt practice that hurts other teams and the league. it should not be rewarded.

I'll just turn the argument back at you, "why reward a team the persistently makes bad choices or does not use other means (trades and free agency) to improve the quality of its product by consistently giving it top picks. The Draft is for all the teams - not just the worst of the worst. It is the only means where a team, if they do not trade their pick get a relatively inexpensive player for the mere price of having to pay the salary.

As for the 76ers, if they get the 1st pick this year, I see no reason why they should be eligible for one of the first 3 picks next year. They have cap space to sign free agents, they have players to trade so they can improve their team. If they are not successful, they can pick 4th and then be eligible for 2 and 3 the following year.

I like your idea with one exception. I would give the 14 teams that miss the playoffs a 5% chance at getting a top 3 pick, and anyone who got eliminated in the first round a 3.75% chance of getting a top 3 pick.

This way, there would be ZERO incentive to barely miss the playoffs like it looked like the Hawks were trying to do this year near the end. There are so many young GMs that have this view of not wanting to be the 8th seed who gets swept and would rather have a chance at a star or a top 10 pick, that this would almost entirely give zero incentive to miss the playoffs, unless someone was seriously ignorant enough to miss for that extra 1.25% chance.

With your idea, each team that missed the playoffs would have a little better than a 7% chance of getting a top pick, which could still be preferable to some GMs than making the playoffs with a losing record only to play a team full of superstars and get clobbered in the first round (like the Bucks at 38-44 last year against the Heat 66-16).

Exception to your exception. Just give the last 2 seeds in each conference a shot at the top 3. That way borderline teams can still feel safe getting into the playoffs and trying to make a run. Normally the 3-6 spots are playing well trying to land home court advantage or a more favorable matchup. I guess some teams might try to hover around the last two spots, but it's too risky because those teams sitting at the 9 spot are usually pretty close to getting in. Both the us and the Knicks were only 1 game out of the playoffs.

Another suggestion, why does the lotto only have to be for the top 3 picks? Why not expand it to 5?

[Phystic]

Tanking hurts every team financially who is not tanking. The gate is not as good, parking revenue is not as good (even in the private lots parking is cheaper when the tankers come to town), the concession revenue is not as good in the arena (restaurant revenue outside loses revenue) and ticket prices for the tanking teams are depressed (like most teams, the ticket price per game is higher for the more desirable teams and lower for the lousy teams) TV ratings for the games against the tankers are lower. It is a despicable and corrupt practice that hurts other teams and the league. it should not be rewarded.

I'll just turn the argument back at you, "why reward a team the persistently makes bad choices or does not use other means (trades and free agency) to improve the quality of its product by consistently giving it top picks. The Draft is for all the teams - not just the worst of the worst. It is the only means where a team, if they do not trade their pick get a relatively inexpensive player for the mere price of having to pay the salary.

As for the 76ers, if they get the 1st pick this year, I see no reason why they should be eligible for one of the first 3 picks next year. They have cap space to sign free agents, they have players to trade so they can improve their team. If they are not successful, they can pick 4th and then be eligible for 2 and 3 the following year.

Because a team can only do so much. Bucks, Sixers, Magic, etc can't force players like Melo, Lebron, etc to sign there. That's why people talk about big market teams vs small market teams. What should the Magic have done differently? You're right the draft is for all teams, that's why all teams get a pick so they get inexpensive young players. Not sure why you're pointing that out because it's irrelevant considering that's always been and will always be the case with the draft.


So, essentially you're arguing teams should sign/overpay players like OJ Mayo and Zaza Pachulia to try to become mediocre? Where exactly does that benefit them? I guess in your eyes contraction or forcing certain owners out would be the best decision then? Since some teams make mistakes and stay in the lotto for years. Why should be reward losing? Because the goal of the draft is to improve the bad teams to keep a competitive balance to the league. Of course that won't always work because the draft isn't a sure thing. Players aren't what they appear. So instead you argue giving good teams top picks to make them better and to further keep the bad teams down? How exactly does that help your notion of bad teams driving down revenue for every team? As an example, would keeping a team from getting Wiggins,Parker,Embiid this year help improve revenue when they go on road games? Wouldn't a horrible team with a nice young potential star like Wiggins create more buzz?

In the idea of revenue, you Michael Carter Williams and Victor Oladipo created more buzz and revenue on these bad teams than they would have if they landed on Phoenix, Thunder, Mavericks, Blazers as an example? Because I certainly think young players have no competition on a bad team helps revenue more than a good player being buried behind more experienced players.

Basically, I just completely disagree with the notion that essentially taking about the chance of landing a top pick when you are the worst team in the league is a bad idea. Tanking is not common enough to have to make such drastic changes.