Would a full lottery with even odds for non-playoff teams fix tanking?

[skones]

You won't be a basement team of your trying not to be. Don't trade good players for picks, don't sit healthy players with BS injuries, sign solid vets in free agency. How many times do we see teams stuck in the middle and feel like the only way out is to tank and bottom out? The goal should be to avoid bottoming out at all costs. Reward the teams that try but are stuck on the treadmill

As a bad team, if you're not picking at the top, and you're consistently on the middle to back end of the lottery as suggested. How do you get good players? Guys in this league aren't lining up around the corner to play for small market franchises.

[Sark]

Unpopular opinion. Do away with the lottery and the draft and let every team sign rookies based on a scale. Bad teams have money and playing time. Sounds nuts, but I think it would actually work. Everyone is always playing to win. Would be great for some older players that get tossed out of half the teams in the league since vets are a path to the treadmill. Would instantly make a better product, but those generational talents might make it to bigger markets automatically, provided those markets are attractive enough at the time, but small market teams with proper scouting would actually be able to snag the best rookies since they can offer them the money and playing time.

All generational rookies will go to good teams/big cities, and small teams will be forced to pick up scraps. And those generational rookies won't care too much how much they will get with the rookie scale, since you can get a much better endorsement deal if they are in big cities, and they will resign with max deal after the rookie contract. And, if small teams do not have proper scouts/good organization, they are pretty much doomed forever, where big market teams will get top rookies over and over again.

This is not true at all. The rookies would go to the organizations that have the best opportunity for them.

Otherwise in college we would see all the top recruits going to UCLA, USC, and St Johns, but that never happens. They all go to Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Indiana, or whatever other small state you can think of.

In college football it's the same. The top recruits go to Alabama, Clemson, LSU, or whatever other crappy state you can think of. USC, and UCLA sometimes get good recruits, but NY schools never do.

[Effigy]

Magic played the following heavy minutes - Cole Anthony, Suggs, Wagner, WCJ, Bamba, Fultz, Hampton. All recent first round picks, mostly top 10 picks. That's called development

Rockets played Jalen Green, Kevin Porter Jr, Eric Gordon, Sengun, Wood. Either young first rounders or veteran role players

Pistons played Cade, Hayes, Stewart, Bey, Jeremi Grant, Bagley. Again, recent lottery picks

Kings did the opposite of tanking by making a win-now trade.

OKC and Portland are the only ones you can argue were intentionally tanking by sitting their good players.

What about the Pacers? And remind me, how many minutes did John Wall play for Houston? Trading away veterans or sitting them is a form of tanking also. Heck, even giving tons of minutes to very young guys you drafted is a tanking strategy too. Kumonga would have got a ton of minutes if he went to a bad team, but when teams are trying to win they don't tank, I mean 'develop young players'. Sure it's a good strategy for the future...much like losing on purpose to get a better pick, but it isn't an honest attempt to win more games.

Would anyone say the Pacers made a bad trade? Pacers trade was brilliant because they acquired a young player with much higher potential than Sabonis.

Playing young guys isn't a tanking strategy, it's a development strategy. I don't understand the point on Kuminga.

I agree on John Wall. I don't like teams that sit healthy players. OKC did the same with Horford. But playing young players and developing for the future isn't tanking imo. That's just a part of sports, teams go through cycles where they win and then rebuild.

Kuminga is an extremely promising rookie. And he played 16.9 minutes a game. WHy didn't he play more? Because the Warriors didn't want to lose. Would it be better for next year if Kuminga played more this year? Yeah, probably, but the Warriors wanted to win THIS year. In general, if you play young players you are going to lose. It's good strategy for the future, but not for this year. Much like tanking. It's a balance. You want to get young guys time, but if you give them a lot of time you will lose a lot. Generally the youngest teams lose the most and they are constructed that way on purpose. Detroit, Orlando and Houston and OKC COULD have put more veterans on their team, but they weren't trying to win. Theirs was a year-long tank, and didn't just happen after they gave up on the season like Indy and Portland.

[ReggieSlater]

Unpopular opinion. Do away with the lottery and the draft and let every team sign rookies based on a scale. Bad teams have money and playing time. Sounds nuts, but I think it would actually work. Everyone is always playing to win. Would be great for some older players that get tossed out of half the teams in the league since vets are a path to the treadmill. Would instantly make a better product, but those generational talents might make it to bigger markets automatically, provided those markets are attractive enough at the time, but small market teams with proper scouting would actually be able to snag the best rookies since they can offer them the money and playing time.

All generational rookies will go to good teams/big cities, and small teams will be forced to pick up scraps. And those generational rookies won't care too much how much they will get with the rookie scale, since you can get a much better endorsement deal if they are in big cities, and they will resign with max deal after the rookie contract. And, if small teams do not have proper scouts/good organization, they are pretty much doomed forever, where big market teams will get top rookies over and over again.

This assumes mock drafts are accurate, which they aren't. We never know who the best players are. The idea of player rankings would be obsolete. You could easily covet what is considered the 15th best pick, and all of a sudden have Kawhi, while the big market teams all fight for Wiggins. You have to do your homework. You are correct that small market bad teams will struggle, but so will big market ones, with bad management. The consistent factor is proper management, which won't really change from what it is now.

Another incentive would be more homegrown talent. Would be cool to see young players like Jordan Poole playing is small market teams like Milwaukee. Probably would be more of that.

[Lenneth]

tanking is barely a problem anymore. The bottom 4 teams have the same odds and the odds are flattened now. There is no incentive to do process-style bottom of the barrel tanking anymore, you can just be run of the mill bad and have the same odds as OKC.

The teams with the bottom 4 records this year were just the youngest teams in the league. Aside from OKC (and Houston kind of), none of them were actively tanking. Young teams just lose.

Definitely not true. Everyone who wound up in the bottom 6 tanked hard for months. It was comical when they had to play each other and SOMEONE had to win. Rosters of people you've never heard of on both teams, lol.

Even if there is no incentive to lose for the lottery, I still would like to see my team trying out 24 years d-league call ups and 2nd rounders if there is no hope. Sure, those young ones might be nobody outside of my team, but it's still more exciting to see if they can be rotational players next year instead of watching 31 years old journey vets making the team 27 wins club instead of 22 wins club. So, even with even odds, you will still see tons of games with comical rosters, because that's what many fans would rather want to see.

[skones]

I would rather reward the teams stuck in the middle for atleast trying than the teams that are awful. If you don't wanna be awful then don't trade good players for picks and make some veteran FA signings in the summer. It's not hard to be in the middle. The rewards should start once you get to that point.

You don't want teams to stick in the basement either. That's what you do by taking the middle and improving them while neglecting the teams on the bottom. They would then have to hit against the odds in the draft, and that's far easier said than done. It's not hard to look at the standings and see a lot of teams that were those basement dwellers on their comeuppance because of the current structure of the lottery.

No it isn't, that's just a product of bad management. Look at the Nets. They gave away all their draft picks to Boston and still managed to make the playoffs without any picks at all. Now look at the Kings. Getting lucky in the lottery isn't the only way to improve. Sure it stings one year, but then next year you might get a really good pick. Really not any different than getting the #1 pick and drafting Markelle Fultz.

"Look at the Nets" as if they're representative of the average market size and bank account? THAT was the team that you chose to make your argument with?

But sure, the Kings. They're a poorly run franchise and that's fine. You'll always have that. What I take issue with is the blinders that have to be put on to ignore the success of Philly, Atlanta, Cleveland, Charlotte, Memphis, Phoenix, Dallas, etc.

[HomoSapien]

The only way to get rid of tanking is change to a full league wide draft lottery system. If all 30 teams had equal odds of getting the first pick, then there’d be no incentive to have your team quit. I’ve brought this up in the past and others have had a problem with this because of the possibility that the rich could get richer. That’s certainly true, but for me it’s not really a big deal if every team has an equal shot. It’d also make the draft lottery extremely interesting and dramatic.

At the same time, I think this play-in tournament has helped a great deal as well.

[Quattro]

Make it so that the team with the best record for non playoff teams has the best chance at the no. 1 pick and the worst team has the smallest odds. Stop rewarding failure and see how fast teams work hard to turn things around.

[Lenneth]

Unpopular opinion. Do away with the lottery and the draft and let every team sign rookies based on a scale. Bad teams have money and playing time. Sounds nuts, but I think it would actually work. Everyone is always playing to win. Would be great for some older players that get tossed out of half the teams in the league since vets are a path to the treadmill. Would instantly make a better product, but those generational talents might make it to bigger markets automatically, provided those markets are attractive enough at the time, but small market teams with proper scouting would actually be able to snag the best rookies since they can offer them the money and playing time.

All generational rookies will go to good teams/big cities, and small teams will be forced to pick up scraps. And those generational rookies won't care too much how much they will get with the rookie scale, since you can get a much better endorsement deal if they are in big cities, and they will resign with max deal after the rookie contract. And, if small teams do not have proper scouts/good organization, they are pretty much doomed forever, where big market teams will get top rookies over and over again.

This assumes mock drafts are accurate, which they aren't. We never know who the best players are. The idea of player rankings would be obsolete. You could easily covet what is considered the 15th best pick, and all of a sudden have Kawhi, while the big market teams all fight for Wiggins. You have to do your homework. You are correct that small market bad teams will struggle, but so will big market ones, with bad management. The consistent factor is proper management, which won't really change from what it is now.

Another incentive would be more homegrown talent. Would be cool to see young players like Jordan Poole playing is small market teams like Milwaukee. Probably would be more of that.

I don't think any team can do the homework that accurately. If they could, Jokic wouldn't be the greatest 2nd rounder in history, and people will throw everything to draft Kawhi. I mean, if Ujiri (or any GM in the league) knew Giannis will be who he is now, he would trade literary everything to get that 15th pick. He had an idea that Giannis could be a good player, but nobody can do the homework well enough to predict that he will be two time MVP. The draft is generally a crap shot, and higher picks will generally provide better results. If all high pick candidates go to big cities, those teams will have an inherent advantage over small market teams. Considering one franchise player can change everything in NBA, that would be way too much advantage for small market teams to overcome. Teams like Lakers would get rookies like Mobley every year regardless of how bad their franchise can be.

[ReggieSlater]

Big Market teams simply could not gobble up all the picks. They wouldn't have the money or playing time. It won't happen like that. If it did, we would see something similar with College recruitment, and we don't. The idea of players being ranked is all an artifact of the draft, is what I'm saying. Ranking are very poor. Scouting matters more. Do your homework, and get the better player. If there's a generational talent that's playing behind a starting five that just won a championship, he will not develop. That will not be happening very often.

[Jadoogar]

What about the Pacers? And remind me, how many minutes did John Wall play for Houston? Trading away veterans or sitting them is a form of tanking also. Heck, even giving tons of minutes to very young guys you drafted is a tanking strategy too. Kumonga would have got a ton of minutes if he went to a bad team, but when teams are trying to win they don't tank, I mean 'develop young players'. Sure it's a good strategy for the future...much like losing on purpose to get a better pick, but it isn't an honest attempt to win more games.

Would anyone say the Pacers made a bad trade? Pacers trade was brilliant because they acquired a young player with much higher potential than Sabonis.

Playing young guys isn't a tanking strategy, it's a development strategy. I don't understand the point on Kuminga.

I agree on John Wall. I don't like teams that sit healthy players. OKC did the same with Horford. But playing young players and developing for the future isn't tanking imo. That's just a part of sports, teams go through cycles where they win and then rebuild.

Kuminga is an extremely promising rookie. And he played 16.9 minutes a game. WHy didn't he play more? Because the Warriors didn't want to lose. Would it be better for next year if Kuminga played more this year? Yeah, probably, but the Warriors wanted to win THIS year. In general, if you play young players you are going to lose. It's good strategy for the future, but not for this year. Much like tanking. It's a balance. You want to get young guys time, but if you give them a lot of time you will lose a lot. Generally the youngest teams lose the most and they are constructed that way on purpose. Detroit, Orlando and Houston and OKC COULD have put more veterans on their team, but they weren't trying to win. Theirs was a year-long tank, and didn't just happen after they gave up on the season like Indy and Portland.

There's a difference between the Warriors and the Pistons. Obviously if you're a championship contender, you should be focused on winning.

Yea Detroit could have signed Rajon Rondo and having him run the show instead of Cade but that gains you nothing. Also good free agents would prefer going to good teams (in general). So even if they wanted to, these young teams won't be able to sign the meaningful veterans. The best way to improve is to develop their young players.

Tanking was a problem when Hinkie was around. You can't have teams buckle down for 5 year rebuilding projects, that's not good for the league. If more teams were doing what OKC is doing, the league would have to intervene.

[Nate505]

Unpopular opinion. Do away with the lottery and the draft and let every team sign rookies based on a scale. Bad teams have money and playing time. Sounds nuts, but I think it would actually work. Everyone is always playing to win. Would be great for some older players that get tossed out of half the teams in the league since vets are a path to the treadmill. Would instantly make a better product, but those generational talents might make it to bigger markets automatically, provided those markets are attractive enough at the time, but small market teams with proper scouting would actually be able to snag the best rookies since they can offer them the money and playing time.

How exactly would this work? For this year would the Rockets have more money to sign a rookie than the Hornets or something?

[ReggieSlater]

No, everyone has what ever cap space they have. They might have to have some exception for rookies or something, but basically, it's like every rookie is a free agent.

[dhsilv2]

Unpopular opinion. Do away with the lottery and the draft and let every team sign rookies based on a scale. Bad teams have money and playing time. Sounds nuts, but I think it would actually work. Everyone is always playing to win. Would be great for some older players that get tossed out of half the teams in the league since vets are a path to the treadmill. Would instantly make a better product, but those generational talents might make it to bigger markets automatically, provided those markets are attractive enough at the time, but small market teams with proper scouting would actually be able to snag the best rookies since they can offer them the money and playing time.

Raptors will never be close to contending again if you do that...

Giving incentive on scouting and management over luck would not give one of the best run franchises a disadvantage.

yeah it would...players would take less to play for teams they want to play for! Nobody would play for you without a 50% premium!

[Effigy]

You don't want teams to stick in the basement either. That's what you do by taking the middle and improving them while neglecting the teams on the bottom. They would then have to hit against the odds in the draft, and that's far easier said than done. It's not hard to look at the standings and see a lot of teams that were those basement dwellers on their comeuppance because of the current structure of the lottery.

No it isn't, that's just a product of bad management. Look at the Nets. They gave away all their draft picks to Boston and still managed to make the playoffs without any picks at all. Now look at the Kings. Getting lucky in the lottery isn't the only way to improve. Sure it stings one year, but then next year you might get a really good pick. Really not any different than getting the #1 pick and drafting Markelle Fultz.

"Look at the Nets" as if they're representative of the average market size and bank account? THAT was the team that you chose to make your argument with?

But sure, the Kings. They're a poorly run franchise and that's fine. You'll always have that. What I take issue with is the blinders that have to be put on to ignore the success of Philly, Atlanta, Cleveland, Charlotte, Memphis, Phoenix, Dallas, etc.

Ok. Look at the Bucks then. Your own team. You won a title and never had a high draft pick of your own on that team. Obviously having a high pick CAN help, but it can also bust and not help at all. Everyone overvalues how important having a top pick is. Go look at the best number one picks since 2000. You have Lebron, Dwight Howard, Anthony Davis, Derek Rose, Kyrie Irving, Yao Ming, Blake Griffin, KAT, ... do you see how fast this list is declining? It drops off a cliff from there. Out of 20 first rounders you have a handfull of guys who were worth that pick. And I'm sorry, what success has Charlotte had?

This idea just encourages teams to try to put together winning teams and think of the draft as a bonus rather than their entire rebuilding strategy.

[dhsilv2]

Big Market teams simply could not gobble up all the picks. They wouldn't have the money or playing time. It won't happen like that. If it did, we would see something similar with College recruitment, and we don't. The idea of players being ranked is all an artifact of the draft, is what I'm saying. Ranking are very poor. Scouting matters more. Do your homework, and get the better player. If there's a generational talent that's playing behind a starting five that just won a championship, he will not develop. That will not be happening very often.

lol, college teams can't trade players! Those teams would trade if they needed cap their other talent! And players will take pay cuts for better cities! Lets be honest, players would need a 100% premium to play in canada!

[ReggieSlater]

Raptors will never be close to contending again if you do that...

Giving incentive on scouting and management over luck would not give one of the best run franchises a disadvantage.

yeah it would...players would take less to play for teams they want to play for! Nobody would play for you without a 50% premium!

But players play for "us" right now. I don't understand what you're saying.

[Effigy]

There's a difference between the Warriors and the Pistons. Obviously if you're a championship contender, you should be focused on winning.

My point is that EVERYONE should be focused on winning, not just the best teams. It's the great thing about the Premier league. You just DO NOT want to lose ever! But that isn't how it is in the NBA. They incentivize you to want to lose or be ok with losing.

[skones]

No it isn't, that's just a product of bad management. Look at the Nets. They gave away all their draft picks to Boston and still managed to make the playoffs without any picks at all. Now look at the Kings. Getting lucky in the lottery isn't the only way to improve. Sure it stings one year, but then next year you might get a really good pick. Really not any different than getting the #1 pick and drafting Markelle Fultz.

"Look at the Nets" as if they're representative of the average market size and bank account? THAT was the team that you chose to make your argument with?

But sure, the Kings. They're a poorly run franchise and that's fine. You'll always have that. What I take issue with is the blinders that have to be put on to ignore the success of Philly, Atlanta, Cleveland, Charlotte, Memphis, Phoenix, Dallas, etc.

Ok. Look at the Bucks then. Your own team. You won a title and never had a high draft pick of your own on that team. Obviously having a high pick CAN help, but it can also bust and not help at all. Everyone overvalues how important having a top pick is. Go look at the best number one picks since 2000. You have Lebron, Dwight Howard, Anthony Davis, Derek Rose, Kyrie Irving, Yao Ming, Blake Griffin, KAT, ... do you see how fast this list is declining? It drops off a cliff from there. Out of 20 first rounders you have a handfull of guys who were worth that pick. And I'm sorry, what success has Charlotte had?

This idea just encourages teams to try to put together winning teams and think of the draft as a bonus rather than their entire rebuilding strategy.

Ok, well now, sure Milwaukee. Everything about Milwaukee is an outlier and we all know it. How many guys get drafted at 15 that become generational talents? That's what you want to hang your hat on? That's the point here. I just gave you 7 teams with some come uppance that are direct counter arguments to what you're trotting out here, and you're choosing outliers. (We DID have a high pick, he just tore one of his ACLs twice) You don't do yourself any favors using just the number one overall pick to illustrate a case here either. We can't act like Ingram, Tatum, Brown, Luka, Trae, Ayton, JJJ, Ja, Edwards, and Ball don't help my cause here just because they weren't the number one overall picks. The talent, as proven time and again, is at the top of the draft. Stop narrowing your scope so much.

Charlotte? You serious? They've gone from 23 wins too 43 wins and a play-in appearance in two years behind their top draft pick. I'd say there's a lot of evidence here that shows rapid improvement.

If you're one of the bad middling or smaller markets, how do you get good players? The answer is picks. Take away that, as you're proposing. How do they get good players?

[toooskies]

"Look at the Nets" as if they're representative of the average market size and bank account? THAT was the team that you chose to make your argument with?

But sure, the Kings. They're a poorly run franchise and that's fine. You'll always have that. What I take issue with is the blinders that have to be put on to ignore the success of Philly, Atlanta, Cleveland, Charlotte, Memphis, Phoenix, Dallas, etc.

Ok. Look at the Bucks then. Your own team. You won a title and never had a high draft pick of your own on that team. Obviously having a high pick CAN help, but it can also bust and not help at all. Everyone overvalues how important having a top pick is. Go look at the best number one picks since 2000. You have Lebron, Dwight Howard, Anthony Davis, Derek Rose, Kyrie Irving, Yao Ming, Blake Griffin, KAT, ... do you see how fast this list is declining? It drops off a cliff from there. Out of 20 first rounders you have a handfull of guys who were worth that pick. And I'm sorry, what success has Charlotte had?

This idea just encourages teams to try to put together winning teams and think of the draft as a bonus rather than their entire rebuilding strategy.

Ok, well now, sure Milwaukee. Everything about Milwaukee is an outlier and we all know it. How many guys get drafted at 15 that become generational talents? That's what you want to hang your hat on? That's the point here. I just gave you 7 teams with some come uppance that are direct counter arguments to what you're trotting out here, and you're choosing outliers. (We DID have a high pick, he just tore one of his ACLs twice) You don't do yourself any favors using just the number one overall pick to illustrate a case here either. We can't act like Ingram, Tatum, Brown, Luka, Trae, Ayton, JJJ, Ja, Edwards, and Ball don't help my cause here just because they weren't the number one overall picks. The talent, as proven time and again, is at the top of the draft. Stop narrowing your scope so much.

Charlotte? You serious? They've gone from 23 wins too 43 wins and a play-in appearance in two years behind their top draft pick. I'd say there's a lot of evidence here that shows rapid improvement.

If you're one of the bad middling or smaller markets, how do you get good players? The answer is picks. Take away that, as you're proposing. How do they get good players?

Milwaukee, Miami, Utah, Denver all are competitive without being driven by lotto picks.