Adam Silver: NBA has to focus on tanking

[EvanZ]

San Antonio is the perfect example — championships under David Robinson, one injured season allows them to win the lottery and draft Tim Duncan.

This is one of the ONLY examples of that happening that I can recall in the last 20 years. Can you come up with a few more?

[basketball royalty]

Of course a heat fan would say that...

I'm a Raptors fan and I hope he does too. It is a disgrace to sport and competition and it just wastes entire seasons at a time for the fans as well. You think a season ticket holder wants to pay thousands of dollars to watch a team that is fielding out crap in hopes they will lose?

But the whole reason you're tanking I so get good again. I'd rather suck for 3 years and then be contenders for 5 then be 8th seeds for 8 years.

Or you could potentially suck for 8 years and get to the point where you are only good enough for an 8th seed. Tanking doesn't guarantee you championships, the players still have to play the game after and may bolt before you are contenders.

[mct]

The problem with the tanking issue is that the lottery is the NBA's major way to introduce parity into the league, and prop up franchises that may legitimately need the help. Basketball is like few sports, where a single player (on a 5-man team plying offense and defense) can make or break a franchise for years. These high value assets, need to go to the teams that truly need them, and short term tanking needs to be prevented from hampering this process.

It's a way to introduce a kind of parity, but certainly not parity in the standings. The only parity it facilitates is that of fan interest. It gives hope to fans of bad teams. And the new exciting players provide the only reason to watch those teams.

But do you think they were really trying to increase parity by implementing a system that rewards being bad? I hope that was never their goal, because, if so, then this league is run by morons.

[shrink]

San Antonio is the perfect example — championships under David Robinson, one injured season allows them to win the lottery and draft Tim Duncan.

This is one of the ONLY examples of that happening that I can recall in the last 20 years. Can you come up with a few more?

MIA had a history of success and was a contender in 2007-08 before Wade got hurt, and they ended with a league worst record of 15-67. The current draft system could have awarded them another potential rookie superstar on the cheap, and possibly still allowed them to add LeBron and Bosh.

[fishnc]

This worries me. If the tanking is really bad this season, which it looks to be, I'm afraid Silver will do something drastic to fix it and create even worse problems.

[shrink]

The problem with the tanking issue is that the lottery is the NBA's major way to introduce parity into the league, and prop up franchises that may legitimately need the help. Basketball is like few sports, where a single player (on a 5-man team plying offense and defense) can make or break a franchise for years. These high value assets, need to go to the teams that truly need them, and short term tanking needs to be prevented from hampering this process.

It's a way to introduce a kind of parity, but certainly not parity in the standings. The only parity it facilitates is that of fan interest. It gives hope to fans of bad teams. And the new exciting players provide the only reason to watch those teams.

But do you think they were really trying to increase parity by implementing a system that rewards being bad? I hope that was never their goal, because, if so, then this league is run by morons.

Well, I would say that with rookie scale and RFA's, this is the only way they can introduce any real kind of parity. Superstars are the key to franchises, both in wins and in revenues. Some small market teams will never generate enough money to spend over the lux to draw elite superstars on second max deals in free agency. They also will struggle to get those free agents to want to go to those teams. If a small-market team is going to get parity, it has to come through the draft, where they can essentially lock up a potential future superstar for seven years.

[EvanZ]

San Antonio is the perfect example — championships under David Robinson, one injured season allows them to win the lottery and draft Tim Duncan.

This is one of the ONLY examples of that happening that I can recall in the last 20 years. Can you come up with a few more?

MIA was a top contender before Wade got hurt, they ended with the worst record in the NBA.

Top contender?

They lost Wade over 50 games into the season, so they were already terrible with him. What do you think they should have or could have done differently?

There's a difference between tanking and just being a bad team.

Sadly, all they got for their "tanking" strategy was Beasley.

[shrink]

This is one of the ONLY examples of that happening that I can recall in the last 20 years. Can you come up with a few more?

MIA was a top contender before Wade got hurt, they ended with the worst record in the NBA.

Top contender?

They lost Wade over 50 games into the season, so they were already terrible with him. What do you think they should have or could have done differently?

There's a difference between tanking and just being a bad team.

Sadly, all they got for their "tanking" strategy was Beasley.

Read what was written. San Antonio wasn't tanking either. MIA was in the play-offs the previous season, and Wade had led them even farther the season before. With a healthy Wade, they wouldn't go 15-67, and San Antonio wouldn't have even been in the lottery with a healthy Robinson either.

I said the current system rewards teams that have an injured superstar for one season.

However, if that superstar gets injured, it can sink the team .. for just that season. Next year, the team probably still owns the rights to that superstar. Is it right that they get a good shot at adding another potential superstar in the draft? San Antonio is the perfect example — championships under David Robinson, one injured season allows them to win the lottery and draft Tim Duncan.

[EvanZ]

So that's two examples. Big deal.

Chicago lost Derrick Rose, and could have easily tanked the season, but they didn't.

The Bucks lost Andrew Bogut almost every season and never tried to tank (to the dismay of many of their fans).

Good teams that lose their best players to injury almost always try to keep winning, despite 2 examples you cited. I really don't see what problem you're trying to solve by revamping the entire lottery system for a 0.001% occurrence.

[MalonesElbows]

My prediction is the lottery will soon be extended to every team that doesn't have home court advantage in the playoffs. For instance, what incentive do teams like Milwaukee, Dallas, Toronto, or any bubble team have for making the playoffs in a good draft year? Since the first round was changed back to a 7 game series, the chance of an upset is virtually zero.

[Paradise]

You're right, worse teams have less interest typically, but to me, all this is really saying is that the NBA doesn't care if these middle of the pack teams still lose or don't get that close to any real meaningful accomplishments during the season, just that they look better doing it and be more entertaining fodder for the real contenders in the league.

First off all, you can't just say middle pack teams because there is also a GM and owner that have something to do with their own team's lack of accomplishments. Ask Milwaukee or Toronto. Two teams that under the current tank concepts refuse to do it and take advantage of it. So, there is also middle pack teams that usually create their own graves. I don't see how the league should be blamed for that either.

No, there doesn't. The Sixers have been genuinely fighting for the best results possible the last several years and it has earned them picks in the 10-20 range pretty consistently, re-booting their roster (which their upside most likely was a 2nd round exit in the playoffs) was the right move. It's not just about getting better draft picks, it's about giving up on a roster in which in its current trajectory will never actually reach the ultimately desired goal (championship.) Can teams suck at tanking? Yes, just like teams can suck at any other strategy. I see tanking as a refusal of a team to be stuck in the limbo the middle, with not enough upside to ever get to a championship. It's how to not be a chump IMO, because there aren't a lot of alternative methods for the teams with less natural advantages than teams like the Lakers. Is it the only way to do things? No, but it makes sense in certain situations.

I get all of that but here is the thing: If you want to give up on your roster then that is fine but the fact is, the current logic good or bad is tank = OKC/Spurs success. The teams like Charlotte have sucked at it but the reality is, the logic you are going to basically be the worst possible team and create a roster quality players and pieces is very rare just as winning a championship. And often times it results into a bad pick or a good pick with a bad character player. You could say the Kings drafted and reconstructed their roster well with Cousins/Evans but will be most likely a lottery team for another year and approaching 10 years since being a playoff contender.

Your definition of middle is ridiculous. There's a huge difference between teams that get close to the championship with the potential to get it the next year and a team that barely misses the playoffs or is just first round fodder with not much upward potential.

I was making a point but the reality is, Denver for example has been a 50 win team for a decade, consistently making the playoffs and considered a contender but not close to a championship yet. Do you place them as a team that should blow it up?

My point is, there is 29 teams and 1 championship winner. If you have teams that go through years of contendership but not even getting to the Finals and just making the WCF or 2nd round for 3-5 years. Usually middle pack teams make the playoffs, make it to the 2nd round then exit. So, a slight step up from that is that much of a difference? I'm just saying this whole "Championship contender or lottery team" thing is pretty bad logic. And I'm sure you will bring up it's about keeping a flexible roster with assets, young players, picks like Morey but then you get lucky and have to have quality GMs and owners to do that as well. It's not as cut and dry like most people believe and to me, the NBA wants to eliminate the cut and dry element of tanking.

I don't see how it's being applied to all situations. Clearly if a team has been re-building, they have a core of young players that have championship upside and are continually improving, then if at one point they're a middle of the pack team, it's completely acceptable because their trajectory is towards being legit contenders.

Like OKC for example: If they hypothetically end up spending the next 3-4 years as a 2nd round/WCF exit team for Houston, Memphis or the Clippers then it's acceptable to break it up?

I don't see the league trying to do anything major to the tanking strategy because it does work most of the time but the dire need to tank is the issue then that affects franchises. It affects the financial side, franchise value for resale, fans and players.

[defhalotones]

I agree with Silver culture is critical, teams that's not even trying to win shouldn't be rewarded. I can't believe the suggestion that a team like the Mavericks or Nets should receive stiffer penalties for driving up middling player prices. It's nonsense both of theses teams had losing cultures until they got new ownership that decided to do something mind-boggling, spend money to create a winning culture.

Sure there will be bad teams in the league but doing what the 76ers did this off season should be frowned upon honestly. This tanking culture is getting out of hand, take the Cavs for instance they have drafted in the past 3 years:

2011 Draft
Irving #1 first round
Thompson #4 first round

2012
Waiters #4 first round
Zeller #17 first round

2013
Bennett #1 first round

And a majority of their fans still want them to tank, then when Irving wants to leave in free agency they will decided to complain about it. Why should he want to stay, allowing the Cavs to waste multiple years of his career tanking?

It's ridiculous and at some point teams need to be penalized either it will have to be monetarily or by limiting bad teams ability to keep restricted free agents. The fans that accept tanking really need to stop looking at the league and it's players like it's NBA 2K. You just can't waste years of someone's career being bad and press the start button and go forward to the next season.

These wasted years are players lives and would you want to work for a company for years with the promise of advancement but never any returns? No one would and I wouldn't expect it out of anyone else no matter how much money they make.

There is a difference between tanking and just plain sucking. The Cavs were in the latter. When James left, our roster rivaled that of the Canton Charge.

[dice]

there is no tanking epidemic in the nba. the lottery system as it is is sufficient to discourage tanking

[TheSunGod]

Next year's draft is pretty hyped up so I wouldn't be surprised if next season's standings at season's end warranted change.

[defhalotones]

The way to "fix" tanking is by making the middle a more appealing position. Basically the only reward in the NBA is being the best or being the worst. So if a team can't realistically be the best it makes zero sense to try to be the eighth seed.

One of the few posters in this thread who gets it. Ironically, the lottery just keeps the bad teams down.

It's probably true that championships are impossible without a superstar, but with a few veteran signings and a decent coach today's bottom feeders could actually be decent and fight for the playoffs.

The lottery doesn't increase parity. It's there to let fans believe that, when their team sucks, they are actually building towards a championship. It's insane!

Without the false hope at the bottom of the current lottery, maybe fans could appreciate incremental improvement and decent basketball.

When you say that when your team sucks, it's leading the fans to believe you're building towards a championship. Isn't every professional sports league like that? Like the Colts, who were very excited to know that Andrew Luck was coming..

[Ditchweed]

They should enact a "large market lottery" giving teams in the bigger markets the first chance at winning the lottery. This would make the league more successful and healthier in the long run.

That would also make the league a lot smaller as well. Adding unfair advantage to the already advantaged.

[gaspar]

One word: relegation.

[Ditchweed]

A lot of answers in this thread but most do not go after the root cause of the problem.

What causes tanking? Simply a team can not field a high enough caliber team to be competitive and tanks to get higher caliber players so they can be competitive. Why do some teams have higher caliber players than others? If it is because a weaker team's higher caliber players leave, if so then the only way to stop tanking is to restrict player movement.

To correct that, the league could increase the length a drafted player is required to be on Restricted Free Agency by the drafting team, until 28 years old for example, plus increased compensation (including 1st round picks and or other players on the offering team) to the team losing a player in RFA. Another option is not pure restricted franchise tags, but allow teams to rank their players from 1 to 15 in order of their team's importance, and if a player is lost to RFA, then as an example, compensation could be the equivalent number (or lower if desired) player on the other team.

The only other way is a hard salary cap (or at least a soft cap but with much harsher such as triple penalties from what is in place now), plus no restriction on players salaries at all so that if a team wants LeBron, they will have to pay him $50M, but will have a lot less for other players on the team.

Does this restrict player movement ... of course! Wide open player movement is certainly part of the problem and if it is not curtailed somewhat, the problem of tanking will just continue to occur.

[Ditchweed]

One word: relegation.

That makes no sense at all ... relegation to what, the D league?

[Danchan]

I'm pretty sure this is a ploy for some rule change that will screw out the raptors again at the draft.