A crazy way to fix tanking in the NBA

[Jameerthefear]

What is America's fascination with parity? The league always does better when there is clear dominance at the top.

Maybe because no one here is getting paid by the NBA?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[tiderulz]

What is America's fascination with parity? The league always does better when there is clear dominance at the top.

does it? 28 cities didnt care much until the finals because they knew who was going to be there.

[KingRobb02]

What is America's fascination with parity? The league always does better when there is clear dominance at the top.

Maybe because no one here is getting paid by the NBA?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Sounds like sour grapes. If the NBA was a bunch of teams all between 35 and 45 wins, no one would care. There is a reason the NBA was in great jeopardy in the late 70s. You get nonsense like teams with losing records making the finals.

[Jameerthefear]

What is America's fascination with parity? The league always does better when there is clear dominance at the top.

Maybe because no one here is getting paid by the NBA?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Sounds like sour grapes. If the NBA was a bunch of teams all between 35 and 45 wins, no one would care. There is a reason the NBA was in great jeopardy in the late 70s. You get nonsense like teams with losing records making the finals.

There's a balance between too much parity and none at all. That's not sour grapes, I don't work for nor am I paid by the NBA, so why should I care that they make more money when 1 team is world's better than the other 29?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[KingRobb02]

Maybe because no one here is getting paid by the NBA?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Sounds like sour grapes. If the NBA was a bunch of teams all between 35 and 45 wins, no one would care. There is a reason the NBA was in great jeopardy in the late 70s. You get nonsense like teams with losing records making the finals.

There's a balance between too much parity and none at all. That's not sour grapes, I don't work for nor am I paid by the NBA, so why should I care that they make more money when 1 team is world's better than the other 29?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Because I kind of like being able to watch the games on TV. If you want to see what happens to sports that don't drive interest/make money look at what has happened to the NHL. Over the past 20 years, they have gone from primetime on NBC, ESPN, and Fox to now being on the Outdoor Network.

[AshBlackstone]

Doesn't address the point I made.

Sure it does. Orlando and Phoenix were poorly run. It's 90 percent how you run the team, 10 percent luck. Hennigan for example, wasn't unlucky. He's a terrible GM.

I think you're wrong on the percentages. A team isn't necessarily poorly run because it doesn't make the playoffs - Minnesota recently is another example. I'd be surprised if anyone describes them as poorly run and they haven't made the playoffs since forever.

Lol. Minnesota got nothing for Garnett. They haven't made the postseason in forever. They have some promise finally, but they spent years being run like crap.

[AshBlackstone]

Look at players taken after Orlando selected in the last few drafts. If that isn't poorly run, I don't know what is.

[Xatticus]

Sounds like sour grapes. If the NBA was a bunch of teams all between 35 and 45 wins, no one would care. There is a reason the NBA was in great jeopardy in the late 70s. You get nonsense like teams with losing records making the finals.

There's a balance between too much parity and none at all. That's not sour grapes, I don't work for nor am I paid by the NBA, so why should I care that they make more money when 1 team is world's better than the other 29?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Because I kind of like being able to watch the games on TV. If you want to see what happens to sports that don't drive interest/make money look at what has happened to the NHL. Over the past 20 years, they have gone from primetime on NBC, ESPN, and Fox to now being on the Outdoor Network.

I think that had more to do with four work stoppages in a 20-year span than it had to do with parity.

I've heard nothing but complaints from the national media about this NBA season's foregone conclusion. The off-season has been a breath of fresh air as there have been numerous compelling stories. This very forum was relatively dead for most of the year. It took the draft to reinvigorate the population. The NBA has dropped it's projections for next season's salary cap several times due to disappointing revenue figures this year.

I think it is beneficial to have villains to root against, but I don't think one can argue that the lack of parity this year has been a good thing for the league.

[npiper17]

Sure it does. Orlando and Phoenix were poorly run. It's 90 percent how you run the team, 10 percent luck. Hennigan for example, wasn't unlucky. He's a terrible GM.

I think you're wrong on the percentages. A team isn't necessarily poorly run because it doesn't make the playoffs - Minnesota recently is another example. I'd be surprised if anyone describes them as poorly run and they haven't made the playoffs since forever.

Lol. Minnesota got nothing for Garnett. They haven't made the postseason in forever. They have some promise finally, but they spent years being run like crap.

Nonsense. You can't say that just because a team has some promise that they've been poorly run until they have that 'promise.' Who drafted Towns? Who traded for Wiggins? Who drafted LaVine? Who acquired assets enough to trade for Butler? This stuff takes years and just because that 'promise' may be being realised doesn't mean what's gone before can be discounted.

Saying that lottery teams are poorly run and playoff teams aren't is very simplistic and not taking the context of each team into account.

For example, the Bulls are probably one of the worst run franchises right now and they're technically a playoff team.

[AshBlackstone]

I think you're wrong on the percentages. A team isn't necessarily poorly run because it doesn't make the playoffs - Minnesota recently is another example. I'd be surprised if anyone describes them as poorly run and they haven't made the playoffs since forever.

Lol. Minnesota got nothing for Garnett. They haven't made the postseason in forever. They have some promise finally, but they spent years being run like crap.

Nonsense. You can't say that just because a team has some promise that they've been poorly run until they have that 'promise.' Who drafted Towns? Who traded for Wiggins? Who drafted LaVine? Who acquired assets enough to trade for Butler? This stuff takes years and just because that 'promise' may be being realised doesn't mean what's gone before can be discounted.

Saying that lottery teams are poorly run and playoff teams aren't is very simplistic and not taking the context of each team into account.

For example, the Bulls are probably one of the worst run franchises right now and they're technically a playoff team.

It's not nonsense. They only acquired those assets in the last 2-3 years. What were they doing for nearly a decade before that? Acquiring nothing, and being awful. Minnesota has been bad for so long because they were poorly run until recently. Period.

Next you'll tell me that Hinkie was a great GM.

[npiper17]

Lol. Minnesota got nothing for Garnett. They haven't made the postseason in forever. They have some promise finally, but they spent years being run like crap.

Nonsense. You can't say that just because a team has some promise that they've been poorly run until they have that 'promise.' Who drafted Towns? Who traded for Wiggins? Who drafted LaVine? Who acquired assets enough to trade for Butler? This stuff takes years and just because that 'promise' may be being realised doesn't mean what's gone before can be discounted.

Saying that lottery teams are poorly run and playoff teams aren't is very simplistic and not taking the context of each team into account.

For example, the Bulls are probably one of the worst run franchises right now and they're technically a playoff team.

It's not nonsense. They only acquired those assets in the last 2-3 years. What were they doing for nearly a decade before that? Acquiring nothing, and being awful. Minnesota has been bad for so long because they were poorly run until recently. Period.

You're the one who said that lottery teams are bad because they are poorly run. You can't make that claim and then say well this one team was poorly run for 10 years and now isn't for the last 2-3 year and because they show promise. Either you take the context of each team into account or you don't. You're wrong to make such a blanket statement is all I'm saying.

[anothermagicfan]

Eventually teams get better. It almost always happens through the draft. Rarely do teams sign free agents to climb out of bottom of the league. The worst teams need the best picks. Otherwise the bad teams would always be bad and never get better. Maybe the league could do something with the salary cap instead. Maybe the bottom few teams get given a slightly hirer cap so they could offer bigger contracts to free agents. Sure it would be one more reason to tank but it might get teams out of sucking for several years. And if a team is spending more money the last thing an owner will want is a crappy team that nobody wants to pay to watch. It could also stop the super teams from being brought together. Who couldn't of predicted the Warriors cavs finals? That's pretty damn boring. And for the rest of the league how else are you going to compete with the elite teams? The only real possibility to become an elite team is to start by drafting the next Lebron.

[AshBlackstone]

Nonsense. You can't say that just because a team has some promise that they've been poorly run until they have that 'promise.' Who drafted Towns? Who traded for Wiggins? Who drafted LaVine? Who acquired assets enough to trade for Butler? This stuff takes years and just because that 'promise' may be being realised doesn't mean what's gone before can be discounted.

Saying that lottery teams are poorly run and playoff teams aren't is very simplistic and not taking the context of each team into account.

For example, the Bulls are probably one of the worst run franchises right now and they're technically a playoff team.

It's not nonsense. They only acquired those assets in the last 2-3 years. What were they doing for nearly a decade before that? Acquiring nothing, and being awful. Minnesota has been bad for so long because they were poorly run until recently. Period.

You're the one who said that lottery teams are bad because they are poorly run. You can't make that claim and then say well this one team was poorly run for 10 years and now isn't for the last 2-3 year and because they show promise. Either you take the context of each team into account or you don't. You're wrong to make such a blanket statement is all I'm saying.

To be honest, until you actually see results, you can't even claim they're being well run yet. If Minnesota goes 32-50 again next year, what exactly can you point to and say, "they're doing it right"? You can claim they're promising, but you can't claim they're well run until positive results come in.


You can be 51-31, and be poorly run. For example, giving out bad contracts to players surrounding your franchise players. Like what Otis Smith did with Rashard Lewis.

But there is no situation where you can claim a team who hasn't made the postseason in 14 years is being run properly until we see actual results.

[npiper17]

It's not nonsense. They only acquired those assets in the last 2-3 years. What were they doing for nearly a decade before that? Acquiring nothing, and being awful. Minnesota has been bad for so long because they were poorly run until recently. Period.

You're the one who said that lottery teams are bad because they are poorly run. You can't make that claim and then say well this one team was poorly run for 10 years and now isn't for the last 2-3 year and because they show promise. Either you take the context of each team into account or you don't. You're wrong to make such a blanket statement is all I'm saying.

To be honest, until you actually see results, you can't even claim they're being well run yet. If Minnesota goes 32-50 again next year, what exactly can you point to and say, "they're doing it right"? You can claim they're promising, but you can't claim they're well run until positive results come in.


You can be 51-31, and be poorly run. For example, giving out bad contracts to players surrounding your franchise players. Like what Otis Smith did with Rashard Lewis.

But there is no situation where you can claim a team who hasn't made the postseason in 14 years is being run properly until we see actual results.

My whole point is that you can't label playoff teams as 'well run' and lottery teams as 'poorly run.' The context of each teams needs to be taken into account. It seems you now agree with that.

[AshBlackstone]

You're the one who said that lottery teams are bad because they are poorly run. You can't make that claim and then say well this one team was poorly run for 10 years and now isn't for the last 2-3 year and because they show promise. Either you take the context of each team into account or you don't. You're wrong to make such a blanket statement is all I'm saying.

To be honest, until you actually see results, you can't even claim they're being well run yet. If Minnesota goes 32-50 again next year, what exactly can you point to and say, "they're doing it right"? You can claim they're promising, but you can't claim they're well run until positive results come in.


You can be 51-31, and be poorly run. For example, giving out bad contracts to players surrounding your franchise players. Like what Otis Smith did with Rashard Lewis.

But there is no situation where you can claim a team who hasn't made the postseason in 14 years is being run properly until we see actual results.

My whole point is that you can't label playoff teams as 'well run' and lottery teams as 'poorly run.' The context of each teams needs to be taken into account. It seems you now agree with that.

No I agree with half. You can't a team is well run until they win. Minnesota has collected assets. But if they still don't make the postseason, then they are poorly run.

If you don't win, it's always because you're run poorly. But winning doesn't necessarily mean you're well run.

[npiper17]

To be honest, until you actually see results, you can't even claim they're being well run yet. If Minnesota goes 32-50 again next year, what exactly can you point to and say, "they're doing it right"? You can claim they're promising, but you can't claim they're well run until positive results come in.


You can be 51-31, and be poorly run. For example, giving out bad contracts to players surrounding your franchise players. Like what Otis Smith did with Rashard Lewis.

But there is no situation where you can claim a team who hasn't made the postseason in 14 years is being run properly until we see actual results.

My whole point is that you can't label playoff teams as 'well run' and lottery teams as 'poorly run.' The context of each teams needs to be taken into account. It seems you now agree with that.

No I agree with half. You can't a team is well run until they win. Minnesota has collected assets. But if they still don't make the postseason, then they are poorly run.

If you don't win, it's always because you're run poorly. But winning doesn't necessarily mean you're well run.

Not winning is not always because an organisation is run poorly. What about injuries, suspensions, trade demands and other happenstance circumstances? Are you telling me the Spurs were 'run poorly' the year before they got Duncan in the draft?

[AshBlackstone]

My whole point is that you can't label playoff teams as 'well run' and lottery teams as 'poorly run.' The context of each teams needs to be taken into account. It seems you now agree with that.

No I agree with half. You can't a team is well run until they win. Minnesota has collected assets. But if they still don't make the postseason, then they are poorly run.

If you don't win, it's always because you're run poorly. But winning doesn't necessarily mean you're well run.

Not winning is not always because an organisation is run poorly. What about injuries, suspensions, trade demands and other happenstance circumstances? Are you telling me the Spurs were 'run poorly' the year before they got Duncan in the draft?

No, what I'm saying is losing consistently is a result of poor management and only poorly management. San Antonio being bad for one year because of injuries had nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm not talking about isolated seasons. If you haven't made the postseason for at least 3 years, there is no case to be made that you're being run well.

Also, if your star is demanding to be dealt, you're being ran poorly.

[KingRobb02]

There's a balance between too much parity and none at all. That's not sour grapes, I don't work for nor am I paid by the NBA, so why should I care that they make more money when 1 team is world's better than the other 29?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Because I kind of like being able to watch the games on TV. If you want to see what happens to sports that don't drive interest/make money look at what has happened to the NHL. Over the past 20 years, they have gone from primetime on NBC, ESPN, and Fox to now being on the Outdoor Network.

I think that had more to do with four work stoppages in a 20-year span than it had to do with parity.

I've heard nothing but complaints from the national media about this NBA season's foregone conclusion. The off-season has been a breath of fresh air as there have been numerous compelling stories. This very forum was relatively dead for most of the year. It took the draft to reinvigorate the population. The NBA has dropped it's projections for next season's salary cap several times due to disappointing revenue figures this year.

I think it is beneficial to have villains to root against, but I don't think one can argue that the lack of parity this year has been a good thing for the league.

The work stoppages were a result of the league not being successful. I was making an argument for why people should care if the league is in good health.

And people have complain all they want about this season having a predictable ending. This was still the highest rated finals in like 20 years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentfrank/2017/06/11/2017-nba-finals-ratings-continue-to-set-20-year-highs/

[npiper17]

No I agree with half. You can't a team is well run until they win. Minnesota has collected assets. But if they still don't make the postseason, then they are poorly run.

If you don't win, it's always because you're run poorly. But winning doesn't necessarily mean you're well run.

Not winning is not always because an organisation is run poorly. What about injuries, suspensions, trade demands and other happenstance circumstances? Are you telling me the Spurs were 'run poorly' the year before they got Duncan in the draft?

No, what I'm saying is losing consistently is a result of poor management and only poorly management. San Antonio being bad for one year because of injuries had nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm not talking about isolated seasons. If you haven't made the postseason for at least 3 years, there is no case to be made that you're being run well.

Also, if your star is demanding to be dealt, you're being ran poorly.

Sorry but everytime I challenge what you're saying you change the parameters. First it's playoffs = well run, lottery = poorly run, then it's three years of not making the playoffs = poorly run and now, each time I give a counter example you say you don't want to talk about isolated seasons.

There's no point carrying on the discussion.

[KingRobb02]

Not winning is not always because an organisation is run poorly. What about injuries, suspensions, trade demands and other happenstance circumstances? Are you telling me the Spurs were 'run poorly' the year before they got Duncan in the draft?

No, what I'm saying is losing consistently is a result of poor management and only poorly management. San Antonio being bad for one year because of injuries had nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm not talking about isolated seasons. If you haven't made the postseason for at least 3 years, there is no case to be made that you're being run well.

Also, if your star is demanding to be dealt, you're being ran poorly.

Sorry but everytime I challenge what you're saying you change the parameters. First it's playoffs = well run, lottery = poorly run, then it's three years of not making the playoffs = poorly run and now, each time I give a counter example you say you don't want to talk about isolated seasons.

There's no point carrying on the discussion.

It's based around the fact that people like to believe that success is a result of hard work and preparation. No one wants to believe that sometimes it just comes down to opportunity and luck.