Jazz's Markkanen: Tanking is a failed concept

[MemphisX]

He turned down winning to get paid. He should stfu.

[ItsDanger]

They wouldn't be tanking if he was a better player. Something for him to think about.

[Dan Z]

He turned down winning to get paid. He should stfu.

Where was he going to go? Based on reports Ainge talked to teams about trading for him,but nothing happened. Were the offers bad? Or did Ainge ask for too much? Or something else? Who knows.

After that they renegotiated his contract with an extension.

[Axolotl]

I see a lot of this in the thread:

[Dan Z]

They wouldn't be tanking if he was a better player. Something for him to think about.

One player can't do it all by himself and it's okay if he's a good player, but not a superstar (those players are rare).

[Dan Z]

I'm sure it sucks to go from a losing team to another losing team to another losing team, but at the end of the day, Markkanen will probably make close to a half a billion dollars playing a kid's game. If something he should be quite happy about his life, no matter if he never plays in a playoff game in his career.

Lauri could have chosen not to extend with the Jazz, by forcing a trade or accepting a lower salary to go to a win-now team. By remaining in Utaz, he opted for the money instead of competitive basketball.

Based on reports Ainge talked to teams about trading for Markkanen, but nothing happened. Why? I have no idea.

You're right that Markkanen could've waited another half year to see if a trade could be worked out. At that point would he still get the same contract offer from a team?

[zero rings]

It is the worst part of American sports culture. We're obsessed with sending the best young players to terrible teams in the pursuit of parity that we create tons of unwatachable teams every year.

As if in the free market European soccer, there are no unwatchable teams.

Everybody loves to watch Alaves, Leganes, Crystal Palace, and Southampton games.

These teams don't try to lose. They're just not good enough. And if they're not good enough, they get relegated to the lower division.
I don't know what's the point of your post.

Wizards players aren’t trying to lose, either. They just aren’t good enough.

You could argue the front office is trying to lose by not making moves to improve the team, but really, they are holding on to their ammunition until they get a good player or two in the draft. There is no sense in going all in on the current roster when they wouldn’t be able to compete anyways. They are wisely playing the long game.

Every anti-tanking measure I’ve seen proposed would punish a team like the Wizards for simply being bad, and incentivize them to gun for the meaningless 10th seed every year. In the case of relegation, they would be forced to make short sighted moves just so they don’t get deleted from the NBA. It’s a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

People just need to accept that not all 30 teams can be good at the same time. It’s ok if the Wizards stink it up for a few years. You don’t have to watch them.

[Richard4444]

It is the worst part of American sports culture. We're obsessed with sending the best young players to terrible teams in the pursuit of parity that we create tons of unwatachable teams every year.

As if in the free market European soccer, there are no unwatchable teams.

Everybody loves to watch Alaves, Leganes, Crystal Palace, and Southampton games.

These teams don't try to lose. They're just not good enough. And if they're not good enough, they get relegated to the lower division.
I don't know what's the point of your post.

They are too weak, and almost nobody wants to watch their games.

You are complaining about NBA and the draft system, arguing that it creates bad tanking teams.

However, in reality, in a free system like European Soccer, there are a lot of bad teams that no one likes to follow.

[Richard4444]

I don't know why people waste time discussing things that will not change.

Only the board of owners can change NBA rules. The majority of the owners are from medium and small-market franchises, and they love the draft system. Otherwise, small market teams would not be worth billions of dollars.

[sp6r=underrated]

He turned down winning to get paid. He should stfu.

The NBA gives players Hobson's Choices and Hobson's Choices aren't real choices. He has a right to be pissed.

[Sixers in 4]

If tanking is a failed concept then they should just fold up the league into 6-8 teams because more than half will never be a destination including Utah.

[sp6r=underrated]

As an aside, if we're keeping the draft/cartel system eliminating the rookie scale would be the best anti-tanking measure.

Right now rookies are assured to be underpaid. If you changed that there is less incentive to be bad.

[ItsDanger]

There has been many anti tanking threads on this board lately. Yet not much discussion as to why certain franchises continue to struggle with playoff success for very long periods of time. NBA is a talent driven league and just 1 player makes process much easier.

[KGtabake]

As if in the free market European soccer, there are no unwatchable teams.

Everybody loves to watch Alaves, Leganes, Crystal Palace, and Southampton games.

These teams don't try to lose. They're just not good enough. And if they're not good enough, they get relegated to the lower division.
I don't know what's the point of your post.

They are too weak, and almost nobody wants to watch their games.

You are complaining about NBA and the draft system, arguing that it creates bad tanking teams.

However, in reality, in a free system like European Soccer, there are a lot of bad teams that no one likes to follow.

I didn't complain about anything.
I replied to your post regarding the particular soccer teams.
The teams you're referring to have their fans and that won't change regardless of their current status.
These teams don't face danger of relocating.
Crystal Palace or Southampton or any soccer team you're mentioning represent thousands of fans throughout the decades.

Crystal Palace was founded in 1861.
164 years of history.

Southampton exists since 1885.
That's 140 years of history.

Do you see any similarities with NBA or any other American league?
It's not a matter of good or bad system.
It's just different cultures.

Soccer teams usually have political, religious, national, social backgrounds.
Groups of people founded these teams as a part of a greater picture.
This picture isn't affected by results.

[zzaj]

The solution is pretty simple, IMO...

Not an original idea--but change lotto odds based on beating teams above you in the standings. The worst teams would have something to play for, the middling teams and good teams wouldn't want to lose to the worst teams...for 82 games.

[madmaxmedia]

Criticism in the middle makes sense but the part about Markkanen himself is a logical fallacy, a version of ad hominem but even worse IMO. I still try to get good health insurance for myself even though I don't like the health insurance system, millions of people use things like Walmart, Google, etc even though they have valid criticims of them and would prefer sometihng else, etc.

It's not a valid criticism to say that, unless you're being personally extreme and doing all you can to take down a system, you cannot criticize that system or have any opinion about it.

Doesn't mean Markkanen is right but he's not automatically logically or theoretically wrong because he's not costing himself millions to disrupt or personally (and uselessly/symbolically) protesting that system.

They should all play for free to help their teams win.

Or if they dont, they’re never allowed to say ‘winning is important’ or ‘I’d like to be on a winning team.’

But if you do, you're a ring chaser and any rings you get don't count.

[Richard4444]

These teams don't try to lose. They're just not good enough. And if they're not good enough, they get relegated to the lower division.
I don't know what's the point of your post.

They are too weak, and almost nobody wants to watch their games.

You are complaining about NBA and the draft system, arguing that it creates bad tanking teams.

However, in reality, in a free system like European Soccer, there are a lot of bad teams that no one likes to follow.

I didn't complain about anything.
I replied to your post regarding the particular soccer teams.
The teams you're referring to have their fans and that won't change regardless of their current status.
These teams don't face danger of relocating.
Crystal Palace or Southampton or any soccer team you're mentioning represent thousands of fans throughout the decades.

Crystal Palace was founded in 1861.
164 years of history.

Southampton exists since 1885.
That's 140 years of history.

Do you see any similarities with NBA or any other American league?
It's not a matter of good or bad system.
It's just different cultures.

Soccer teams usually have political, religious, national, social backgrounds.
Groups of people founded these teams as a part of a greater picture.
This picture isn't affected by results.

I am saying that the average soccer fan does not want to see games of small-market franchises because their rosters are usually weaker than NBA tanking teams.

These small soccer franchises usually have just local fans due to political, religious, national, and social backgrounds. They have limited funds and can't get/keep good players to increase their fan base and their revenues. It's almost impossible to be champions like Leicester did in the last decade.

[Sixers in 4]

They are too weak, and almost nobody wants to watch their games.

You are complaining about NBA and the draft system, arguing that it creates bad tanking teams.

However, in reality, in a free system like European Soccer, there are a lot of bad teams that no one likes to follow.

I didn't complain about anything.
I replied to your post regarding the particular soccer teams.
The teams you're referring to have their fans and that won't change regardless of their current status.
These teams don't face danger of relocating.
Crystal Palace or Southampton or any soccer team you're mentioning represent thousands of fans throughout the decades.

Crystal Palace was founded in 1861.
164 years of history.

Southampton exists since 1885.
That's 140 years of history.

Do you see any similarities with NBA or any other American league?
It's not a matter of good or bad system.
It's just different cultures.

Soccer teams usually have political, religious, national, social backgrounds.
Groups of people founded these teams as a part of a greater picture.
This picture isn't affected by results.

I am saying that the average soccer fan does not want to see games of small-market franchises because their rosters are usually weaker than NBA tanking teams.

These small soccer franchises usually have just local fans due to political, religious, national, and social backgrounds. They have limited funds and can't get/keep good players to increase their fan base and their revenues. It's almost impossible to be champions like Leicester did in the last decade.

Not to mention the competitiveness for the dollar is much tougher. If you live in southhampton what is there really for you other than soccer. These are major metropolian cities there is football, there is MLB, there is soccer, there is hockey, there are major concerts shows etc all in competition for your entertainment dollar.

[HotelVitale]

As an aside, if we're keeping the draft/cartel system eliminating the rookie scale would be the best anti-tanking measure.

Right now rookies are assured to be underpaid. If you changed that there is less incentive to be bad.

Good rookies are assured to be be underpaid, but the vast majority of rookies aren't good.

I don't love the rookie scale as it stands now, but without it teams would definitely overpay based on potential for young guys because the upsiode gamble would often make sense. Given that something like half of top-ten picks are busts, you'd be looking at a lot of bad players getting paid like good players, leaving a lot less money for the actually good vets. And a lot of depressing dead money on teams' salary sheets.

(Also not sure it's illuminating to call that a 'cartel' system--the NBA isn't a free market, it's a closed private system with a very limited number of teams, and it's also structured around a massive amount of organized labor input plus the collective decision-making of ownership. Its salary structures are more like someone setting up rules to its own game to make it as good as possible, than they are a cartel of private groups taking control of and fixing (and ruining) an otherwise freely flowing public market.)

[sp6r=underrated]

As an aside, if we're keeping the draft/cartel system eliminating the rookie scale would be the best anti-tanking measure.

Right now rookies are assured to be underpaid. If you changed that there is less incentive to be bad.

Good rookies are assured to be be underpaid, but the vast majority of rookies aren't good.

I don't love the rookie scale as it stands now, but without it teams would definitely overpay based on potential for young guys because the upsiode gamble would often make sense.

That's a good thing. You want one over-paid player for every under-paid player. If you did that you'd reduce the value of picks and increase the value of veteran free agents.