Adam Silver: NBA has to focus on tanking

[mopper8]

If you want to get rid of tanking, make the top-5 picks lottery eligible (instead of the top-3), and subject those picks to a much more onerous salary scale--no more getting superstars talent on the cheap at the top of the draft. All of a sudden, there's a lot more risk involved in tanking...if you tank and end up with the #3 pick, you might have to go into the luxury tax or otherwise pay handsomely for a guy who turns out to be a role player.

Right now, there's no cap or monetary downside to striking out at the top of the draft, which is in part what makes those picks so desirable. If they carry more risk by being far more expensive, they become less desirable, and teams will have far less incentive to tank. In weak drafts, it might be better to be out of the lottery entirely, to eliminate the risk that you'll be "stuck" with an expensive top pick who's only mediocre.

[sixerswillrule]

Where did I say that being terrible = tanking? I clearly distinguished the two. What I said was who gives a **** about the difference? Whether they were terrible by accident or by intention, that result led them to Tim Duncan, which led them to 4 rings. So being terrible was the way to go.

The entirety of what you responded to was about tanking. All of it, so that would be the difference, and a pretty big one at that. You're the one who introduced this "being terrible" effect into it. We're talking about tanking, you haven't gotten a few replies in without trying to change the subject to something about bad teams get good draft picks, regardless of tanking or not....actually it's not regardless of being terrible or not because I never addressed the "not" in first place except to go so far as to offer that you wouldn't know one from the other anyway, and being that you responded to me and not the other way around, you can stick to the topic at hand or simply take your tangent to another thread (or start a new one) where your contentions are relevant. If you didn't want to talk about the viability of tanking, you shouldn't have replied to my comments because it's pretty clearly the only topic I was addressing here.

A big no doy to your other statements anyway. Bad record = higher draft picks = better players. Umm, is that all? I don't see anyone disputing that. Arguing just to argue in your case. You jumped in to point out that you have a new GM who just started to tank so it's not just crappy GM's trying to save their job, which I responded to (on topic), and then you jumped off on some other **** with a few poor examples to support whatever you're pushing.

I made my point about Silver's comment, which was simply to say that I agree and that tanking is blown way out of proportion on this website. Your point, I don't really care about and don't see what it has to do with this thread at all.

It has everything to with this thread.

If bad records are proven to be the main catalysts in winning rings...

Then what is the point of f***ing around with anything else??!? For **** and giggles? Why not cut straight to the chase? That is my point...You acknowledge that had the Spurs not had that terrible season, they would have never won those 4 rings...But you're somehow condemning a team who realizes this ahead of time and intentionally tries to put their team in that position to win those rings, rather than getting there by accident? Are you freaking kidding me?

I'm sorry but that's one of the most BS-ridden arguments I've ever seen on here, and that's saying something. I've made my point and don't think there's anything left to say, so I'm done here.

[MalonesElbows]

If you want to get rid of tanking, make the top-5 picks lottery eligible (instead of the top-3), and subject those picks to a much more onerous salary scale--no more getting superstars talent on the cheap at the top of the draft. All of a sudden, there's a lot more risk involved in tanking...if you tank and end up with the #3 pick, you might have to go into the luxury tax or otherwise pay handsomely for a guy who turns out to be a role player.

Right now, there's no cap or monetary downside to striking out at the top of the draft, which is in part what makes those picks so desirable. If they carry more risk by being far more expensive, they become less desirable, and teams will have far less incentive to tank. In weak drafts, it might be better to be out of the lottery entirely, to eliminate the risk that you'll be "stuck" with an expensive top pick who's only mediocre.

This isn't the NFL though, star players come out at 19 years old and don't really contribute until their third year on average. By the time they start reaching their full potential at the end of year 4, you have to give them a max extension or match a max restricted offer.

[mopper8]

If you want to get rid of tanking, make the top-5 picks lottery eligible (instead of the top-3), and subject those picks to a much more onerous salary scale--no more getting superstars talent on the cheap at the top of the draft. All of a sudden, there's a lot more risk involved in tanking...if you tank and end up with the #3 pick, you might have to go into the luxury tax or otherwise pay handsomely for a guy who turns out to be a role player.

Right now, there's no cap or monetary downside to striking out at the top of the draft, which is in part what makes those picks so desirable. If they carry more risk by being far more expensive, they become less desirable, and teams will have far less incentive to tank. In weak drafts, it might be better to be out of the lottery entirely, to eliminate the risk that you'll be "stuck" with an expensive top pick who's only mediocre.

This isn't the NFL though, star players come out at 19 years old and don't really contribute until their third year on average. By the time they start reaching their full potential, they are ready to receive a max offer.

Sure. So maybe you don't take that 19-year old with the 3rd pick. This doesn't cut against my point at all. The whole point is to make the top picks less valuable, so teams have less incentive to chase them by losing. You're just describing in of the ways those top picks would be less valuable--which is precisely the point.

edit: also, if the upshot of this is that the young guy who isn't ready to produce maybe starts getting drafted a little later in the 1st round (because teams don't want to pay big money while he develops), that's not necessarily a bad thing either. Maybe fewer 19 year olds enter the draft, instead waiting an extra year or two to try to work their way into the premium top-5 position where they'll make much more money. That's good for the quality of play in the NBA overall.

[SichtingLives]

It has everything to with this thread.

facepalmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm on keyboard

Man you are denser than Iridium. You responded directly and solely to my comment, what the **** does that have to do with "this thread"? My comment was in regard to the direct topic of the thread, matter of fact the quote in the OP! don't know what the hell you're off on. If you should ever study a basic philosophy course you may someday discover the meaning of Ignoratio elenchi. Or you could just look it up.

Another thing about your "argument", it's not actually that when you essentially keep responding to yourself and ignoring the point.

Also caught you in this gem, which is further proof of why I don't care to engage with the likes of yourself on this topic you're so keenly trying to badger on about:

If bad records are proven to be the main catalysts in winning rings...

This here is called a logical fallacy, because no, they're really not. LOL man go back to sleep, tomorrow's another day.

[rapsanity]

I agree with the whole cultural element but I think that's for teams that are consistently bad (Raps, Cavs, Wizards, etc). But for teams that may tank in 1 year and get that superstar in packed drafts like 2014; it may be worth it.

Like imagine Orlando with their team + Wiggins; that'll be a monster team and even if they don't make the playoffs the following year, their 'bad culture' will be eliminated because of improvements made

But the cultural part is significant. Like Orlando (D12 era) had a good culture because after being bad (or tanking) and getting Howard; they showed improvements.

Same with the Hawks. Like 10 years ago, we would call their culture 'bad' and as if they're tanking/losing purposely; but once they started consistently making the playoffs; FA started going to them and noone called them out for 'tanking'

[Sark]

If you want to get rid of tanking, then you need to get rid of the draft. Let Andrew Wiggins be a free agent, and choose where he wants to play for his first team. I guarantee you teams will want to be as attractive as possible to lure him to their city, and they won't want to be looked at as losers.

If Silver really wants a culture change, then he should move to a free market system, and get rid of the socialist based draft system.

[Neutral 123]

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?

In fairness, how many seasons have the Raptors wasted trying to win it all, and haven't made the playoffs for 5 years and counting?

I believe it is 6 years and counting and I don't think when they had Sonny Weems starting for them they were exactly trying to win it all.

I'm not saying you put yourself in a bad situation to win a couple more games but to blatantly tank and say trade away a young allstar like Jrue Holiday and dump a competitive coach which the 76ers did is disgraceful to the game and the teams fans. I certainly hope they don't get rewarded for doing something like that.

Teams virtually never trade superstars willingly. Right or wrong, I think that tells us what they think of Holiday and frankly, I don't think most people around here are that high on him either. What's disgraceful to the game and fans is missing the playoffs for 6 years and counting, and to have virtually nothing to show for it going forward. Sixers saw a dead end and have decided to rebuild. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

No point in worrying about tanking. Losing is its own punishment.

[sixerswillrule]

It has everything to with this thread.

facepalmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm on keyboard

Man you are denser than Iridium. You responded directly and solely to my comment, what the **** does that have to do with "this thread"? My comment was in regard to the direct topic of the thread, matter of fact the quote in the OP! don't know what the hell you're off on. If you should ever study a basic philosophy course you may someday discover the meaning of Ignoratio elenchi. Or you could just look it up.

Another thing about your "argument", it's not actually that when you essentially keep responding to yourself and ignoring the point.

Also caught you in this gem, which is further proof of why I don't care to engage with the likes of yourself on this topic you're so keenly trying to badger on about:

If bad records are proven to be the main catalysts in winning rings...

This here is called a logical fallacy, because no, they're really not. LOL man go back to sleep, tomorrow's another day.

My god...

If you didn't want to talk about the viability of tanking, you shouldn't have replied to my comments because it's pretty clearly the only topic I was addressing here.

My entire argument is regarding the viability of tanking, and that has everything to do with your "argument" and this thread.

The fact that the Spurs became a winner as a direct result of having a terrible season supports the viability of having a terrible season, which supports the viability of tanking. And that is my point which you continue to ignore. Unless you're arguing bad karma of tanking intentionally (which would be all the more reason to never bother with you ever again), then having a terrible season was the best option, intentional or not. It led the Spurs to 4 rings. It led the Heat to a ring with Wade, and also helped them land LeBron for 2 more rings. It's going to lead the Thunder to a ring or two. The future Hakeem, Magic, and Jordan will in all likelihood be top 5 draft picks nabbed by teams who had terrible seasons. This all supports the viability of tanking.

Peace.

[Neutral 123]

If you want to get rid of tanking, then you need to get rid of the draft. Let Andrew Wiggins be a free agent, and choose where he wants to play for his first team. I guarantee you teams will want to be as attractive as possible to lure him to their city, and they won't want to be looked at as losers.

If Silver really wants a culture change, then he should move to a free market system, and get rid of the socialist based draft system.

Sarcasm?

[Sark]

If you want to get rid of tanking, then you need to get rid of the draft. Let Andrew Wiggins be a free agent, and choose where he wants to play for his first team. I guarantee you teams will want to be as attractive as possible to lure him to their city, and they won't want to be looked at as losers.

If Silver really wants a culture change, then he should move to a free market system, and get rid of the socialist based draft system.

Sarcasm?

How would you take that to be sarcasm? You think a free market system would encourage more tanking? Get a clue.

[Neutral 123]

If you want to get rid of tanking, then you need to get rid of the draft. Let Andrew Wiggins be a free agent, and choose where he wants to play for his first team. I guarantee you teams will want to be as attractive as possible to lure him to their city, and they won't want to be looked at as losers.

If Silver really wants a culture change, then he should move to a free market system, and get rid of the socialist based draft system.

Sarcasm?

How would you take that to be sarcasm? You think a free market system would encourage more tanking? Get a clue.

What exactly is tanking? If a team's aim isn't to win a championship this year, but to bring in younger talent in hopes they develop into a contender, are they tanking?

It seems your idea would eliminate any possible route for improvement for teams that are bad, so of course you'd eliminate any suspicion of a team trying to lose, but you certainly wouldn't get rid of the losing. In fact, you'd ensure that there is FAR more of it for many teams.

[Sark]

Sarcasm?

How would you take that to be sarcasm? You think a free market system would encourage more tanking? Get a clue.

What exactly is tanking? If a team's aim isn't to win a championship this year, but to bring in younger talent in hopes they develop into a contender, are they tanking?

It seems your idea would eliminate any possible route for improvement for teams that are bad, so of course you'd eliminate any suspicion of a team trying to lose, but you certainly wouldn't get rid of the losing. In fact, you'd ensure that there is FAR more of it for many teams.

I never said there were no other problems with it. But it would get rid of tanking, which is what this thread is about.

[Neutral 123]

What is your definition of tanking? What is the problem with tanking? Isn't that solution far worse than the original 'problem' that you are trying to fix?

[sixerswillrule]

What is your definition of tanking? What is the problem with tanking? Isn't that solution far worse than the original 'problem' that you are trying to fix?

Yup, bad teams would never become winners with that solution, and it would become even easier for great teams to stay at the top.

[Neutral 123]

What is your definition of tanking? What is the problem with tanking? Isn't that solution far worse than the original 'problem' that you are trying to fix?

Yup, bad teams would never become winners with that solution, and it would become even easier for great teams to stay at the top.

I know it won't stop people from going on and on about it, but I really don't see the problem. So the Sixers should have resigned Bynum, and hope he can actually play at some point and likely not make the playoffs? I've seen struggling franchises criticized for being poorly run, but people want these teams to be forced to continue making poor decisions? Start over, rebuild, take a chance on an unknown versus knowing you will be bad anyways with what you have is a risk definitely worth taking.

[basketball royalty]

What is your definition of tanking? What is the problem with tanking? Isn't that solution far worse than the original 'problem' that you are trying to fix?

Yup, bad teams would never become winners with that solution, and it would become even easier for great teams to stay at the top.

I know it won't stop people from going on and on about it, but I really don't see the problem. So the Sixers should have resigned Bynum, and hope he can actually play at some point and likely not make the playoffs? I've seen struggling franchises criticized for being poorly run, but people want these teams to be forced to continue making poor decisions? Start over, rebuild, take a chance on an unknown versus knowing you will be bad anyways with what you have is a risk definitely worth taking.

Yeah but if you have a 23 year old allstar then you build around him and maybe trade the other pieces? To me it seemed like a team tanking and trying to lessen payroll rather building a solid asset base.

I guess it depends on how high they were on Noels and Carter-Williams as I believe they were the guys they got back. I don't think either of them will be better than Jrue but of course I could be wrong. Also I can see not thinking Jrue is a franchise player but I think while he is making a lot of money it is not an unreasonable contract for what he provides.

[Neutral 123]

Yup, bad teams would never become winners with that solution, and it would become even easier for great teams to stay at the top.

I know it won't stop people from going on and on about it, but I really don't see the problem. So the Sixers should have resigned Bynum, and hope he can actually play at some point and likely not make the playoffs? I've seen struggling franchises criticized for being poorly run, but people want these teams to be forced to continue making poor decisions? Start over, rebuild, take a chance on an unknown versus knowing you will be bad anyways with what you have is a risk definitely worth taking.

Yeah but if you have a 23 year old allstar then you build around him and maybe trade the other pieces? To me it seemed like a team tanking and trying to lessen payroll rather building a solid asset base.

I guess it depends on how high they were on Noels and Carter-Williams as I believe they were the guys they got back. I don't think either of them will be better than Jrue but of course I could be wrong. Also I can see not thinking Jrue is a franchise player but I think while he is making a lot of money it is not an unreasonable contract for what he provides.

That's what most teams do though. The fact they traded him to me means they weren't that high on him. I think that's their right to feel that way and go in another direction. Teams giving away guys to build around so they can start losing, just isn't something that I see as a problem in the NBA. Hell, event the Clippers opened their wallets when they finally got a chance to put together a team that can be elite. I wouldn't even call them title contenders, but the Clippers were willing to spend when it made sense for them to do so.

[basketball royalty]

Of course most teams do that because that is how the system has it set out. It is better to be the worst team in the league than the best team out of the playoffs. Well that should change. If you asked me all teams out of the playoffs deserve the same chance to win the lottery. That should stop teams from throwing away seasons before they even start.

Then if it becomes a problem of teams throwing games at the end of the season to make sure they finish out of the playoffs, then you change it to allow playoff teams without homecourt advantage to have the same chance as the non playoff teams.

If you still have teams throwing games you make the lotto for all thirty teams. Or maybe make it the championship winning team can't get a pick higher than 6 or something. You have the draw televised and we see the order of the draft as each ball comes out and that is that. No bs behind closed doors, no conspiracies and most important no more tanking. Tanking and losing games on purpose and trotting out an inferior product should never ever be considered a normal part of sport.

[Sark]

What is your definition of tanking? What is the problem with tanking? Isn't that solution far worse than the original 'problem' that you are trying to fix?

I never said there was a problem with tanking. I think tanking is fine. But if people hate it so much, then a free market would get rid of it.


We're a country built on capitalism, no? So why do we love socialism in our sports? Survival of the fittest is fine, unless it pertains to sports I guess.