Adam Silver: NBA has to focus on tanking

[jjscap]

Whoever saying that tanking is not a problem in the NBA today lacks honor and integrity.

You win some you lose some but you always try. Competition! This is the foundation of sports. If there are teams blatantly trying to lose games and you do nothing about it, NBA stinks to high heaven.

[Gideon]

I think there are two different strategies being discussed in this thread (often as if they are interchangeable). However, to me at least, they seem very different from each other.

One is "tanking," which I view as deliberately losing more games, not playing your best players, and so on, and I agree this is an issue and bad for both the culture of the league and for the culture of the specific teams that do it.

The other is strategically building for the future in a way that results in and/or includes the concept of having a team that may be weaker in the present, but is generally young, inexperienced, and developing players with potential. In this paradigm, you are still playing guys for the right reasons (either to have the best shot at winning, or sometimes to develop young players who will be important to the team in the future and need on court time), and everybody is still playing (and coaching) as hard as they can. Sure, you also know that by playing lots of young, raw guys who aren't quite ready (but benefit from getting run and could be important to the team down the line), you set yourself up for a higher pick, but I feel like that's okay.

For example, the way Orlando is developing young guys like Vucevic, Harris, and Oladipo (who will obviously get plenty of run this year), is a great plan imo. Those guys will be playing hard, and their experience from this time period will help them develop and learn to play with each other as a core. Yet, since they are still really young, Orlando will likely have a poor record again this season and add another potentially core guy through the draft. It's all part of a holistic strategy that makes sense and has a positive focus.

To me, the "Orlando paradigm" is very different from when essentially directionless teams try to really just blow seasons to lose as many games as possible, giving their best players phantom injuries, literally "coaching to lose" during games towards the end of the season, and so on, all in the hopes that a high lotto pick will become their savior. I think this makes both the league and the team look bad, and it's not very smart as a developmental strategy either. You are SO MUCH better off with a positive culture and strong young core (like Orlando is developing) than with a **** team that bottoms out at something like 17-65 while having a negative vibe all year, and then hopes to add ONE high draft pick with the idea that doing so will fix everything.

I have no problem with a 42-40 type team shipping out mid-level veterans and rebuilding with young players and picks, even if that means a season or two of bad records. There's both a present and a future, and prioritizing them makes total sense. However, whatever team you construct (including coaching) should focus on each game and the overall season with positive objectives in mind (winning games, developing young players, etc.) not negative objectives (such as "let's just play our worst guys and make really sure we have the best shot at Wiggins").

Not sure if there's really a "solution" but I think making the draft somewhat more "level" -- (without totally randomizing it, which just wouldn't be fair) -- would help... if there's not much difference in your draft odds whether you're the worst team or the 5th worst, then there's way less incentive to do a full on "let's be as horrible as possible this season" type of tank (even though I think that's still a mistake with the current system, for the reasons I mentioned above).

[Paradise]

Why not stiffer penalties on the Lakers, Nets, Knicks and Mavericks of the league who drive up middling player prices making it less affordable for softer markets?

When has a big market team driven up the price of a player? Usually, it's the big market teams that take overpaid players from a smaller market or outright signs them to a larger amount.

Or stiffer penalties on the Melos, Dwights, and Pauls of the league who give their teams what is essentially ultimatums to trade them to teams of their choosing, or risk losing them for nothing which would force teams to inevitably lose anyways?

Why? If you're team isn't doing the best to win around you and you want out, why should they pay for that? I get it's becoming a problem with multiple guys doing it but why should it be a problem?

Also, hate to say it but the NBA makes alot of headlines and buzz over the superstar sweepstakes that has taken place since LBron started it. While, It's immortal for the league to capitalize off of it, it's one of those things that just is not going away. It's been that way since back in the day. How many times did Barkley pull a Dwight Howard? There is a few other examples out there as well.

Or how about the league actually steps back, looks at the economics of player movement, the adverse effects max salaries and poor profit sharing are having on the 'have not' markets while benifitting the 'have' markets, creating the disparity in talent (and greater disparity in wealth) and therefore the need to tank.

So, what is the league going to do about it? Take away max salaries, force big market teams to share their hearts out? It's not going to create any less of a disparity.

The draft isn't what is causing tanking. The unfair distribution of wealth and the inevitable movement of labour towards those who have the, and can offer greater, wealth is what is causing teams to tank. The league has, through their ever tightening CBAs, offered owners greater rewards at lower risks. However not all owners have benifited the same - the LAs, NYs, Miamis, Houston/Dallas' of the league have just been able to take a bigger peice of the talent pie at a risk and cost thats much smaller than it ever was. Convient that David Stern has at many times in the past talked about the importance and benifit to the league of having great players in the major markets? I think not.....

Well, because this is a star driven league and having a star in every market benefits the league from the fans in the US to across the world. It's very hard to fairly distribute wealth among teams and owners backing sinking ships even with talented rosters. The Pacers are a contender but finish in the bottom attendance, their ratings aren't good and I'm sure they are not holding up well on their own financially for a team that is been a playoff team with a budding star. Then, there is other examples. Then, these same star players go to NY, LA, Chicago and see the fans and the support and feel the grass is greener, the pockets are deeper and the fanbases are better.

You also have to factor in the outside things like Addias, Nike, international deals that become something these players can make 200 million or 300 million on. Like for example, Howard could have made 300 million with his new deal with Addias which he would not get in Orlando. These companies do not want to see their clients in smaller markets that don't sell their product.

If the Charlottes and Phillies of the league ever truelly want to compete at the top they have what boils down to 2 choices. Tank and try to get top talent at the top of the draft. Not tank and try to get top talent in the middle of the draft. Seems pretty logical, given history, where those teams will have their best opportunity to find it.

Tanking isn't really the problem but it's lack of competitiveness that is the problem. There is teams out there that have a pretty decent roster but tank, then there is teams that purposely put out a bad team knowing it will lose games 20+ games in a row or purposely throwing games by sitting their stars and exaggerating injuries knowing it will help their chances at the lottery ball. That's where it becomes an issue. Every team is going to rebuild and go through the draft at some point.

I think what the league is saying is they want teams to rebuild like they want too but also have some pride and play the games as well. The Hornets, Blazers, Wolves, Piston were basically lottery teams the last few years but remained competitive and still getting top talent. Yet, we have teams purposely trying to dog it expecting to become the next OKC in a year or two like Charlotte.

If the league goes about and actually changes the CBA so those 'have not' markets can both keep and afford to keep that better talent that they draft or acquire, there will be no or atleast little need to tank. Unfortunately the executives of the league, its more influential owners and really the media itself has little desire for this. They want that top talent in the major markets - thats whats best for them.

Well, it is what's best for the league and I do agree most stars need to stay in their respective markets but they do certainly need to have the option to leave as well if they're front offices cannot provide them with the proper decisions to win a championship.

I just don't see a realistic way of fixing that big market/small market system. The Yankees in baseball will always have an advantage in free agents, the Knicks, Lakers, Nets and maybe Clippers will always have an edge there too.

I do think a franchise tag with a little different rules will end up ultimately happening.

[Myam333]

One word: relegation.

[Myam333]

I think that they should just leave teams in the dark. They need to have multiple ways that the draft can be set up, but without telling any of the teams how the draft will be until the season is over. Teams wouldn't know what to do.

I liked the idea someone mentioned regarding punishing losers with less revenue sharing if they miss playoffs for several years.

[SmoothKobra]

The whole "losing culture" concept is so overrated...Seattle/Oklahoma City lost 50+ games their first two seasons w/ Durant and nobody considers them to have had a "losing culture". The Cavs have purposefully lost games both this past year and the year before to get higher picks. This year they are projected to be a playoff team.

The best chance you have at getting a superstar player is through the draft, in the form of a top 5 pick. You want bad teams to perpetually be bad and miss out on young talent because you don't like "tanking"? What a joke. Probably 5 teams max actually "tank" each year (like the Cavs), with another 2-4 being horribly mismanaged (Sacramento, Charlotte). There are only usually 7-8 superstars (if that) in the league at any given time anyway, so it's not like these tanking teams are taking over the league and ruining the game.

Fact is, if you desire to even have the opportunity to compete at the highest level as a non-major market team, you are probably going to have to tank at some point. There is nothing morally wrong about tanking--it's a short term loss and risk for a potentially huge future gain. The financial losses that teams suffer aren't nearly as bad as most people make them out to be, and the losses can be recouped and then some if the team gets a future all-star with their high draft pick.

Almost every "solution" offered here keeps bad teams perpetually bad and favors major market teams. I think a franchise tag would be a good solution, but the players got cheated by the owners so bad in the CBA negotiations (and they really got people to believe the NBA was going broke and teams were losing money. look at what teams like the Kings are selling for! Exploitation at its finest) that the owners probably felt they didn't even need it.

Point is, the lottery system isn't broken. It does what it is designed to do...bring high caliber young talent to bad teams. That some teams have horrible management and continuously select bad players is not really related to tanking or the lottery system. There is no tanking epidemic and it's really not even a real problem. The teams that do tank have no shot at the playoffs if they played their best anyway. And as a result they pick up hyped young talent that their fan bases can get excited about. Would you rather take that away so that bad teams stay bad forever, with teams like the Sixers and Suns getting picks 10-15 instead of 1-5?

Honestly I think it's a joke that we are considering punishing teams for their superstars leaving, or having key players get injured, or having draft picks not pan out. It's like punishing poor people with a fine for being poor. The system is fine exactly the way it is--there's no need for a change that only hurts the teams who need talent the most.

[Sixerscan]

I think that they should just leave teams in the dark. They need to have multiple ways that the draft can be set up, but without telling any of the teams how the draft will be until the season is over. Teams wouldn't know what to do.

I liked the idea someone mentioned regarding punishing losers with less revenue sharing if they miss playoffs for several years.

lol if people think the lottery is fixed now...

[Sixerscan]

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.

What other pieces? Thad and? The whole reason why we have gone down the road is because we traded basically every asset that we had to get Bynum. We were left with no cap room, limited young players and a our draft picks, which would have gone to other teams if we made the playoffs.

We got Noel and NOLA's top 5 protected pick next year. That's pretty awesome value for Jrue, who let's be honest probably wouldn't have been an all star if the team was picked at the end of the year, not to mention if Rose was healthy, not to mention if he played in the western conference. Is that really that much different than what the Hornets got for Paul?

[Sixerscan]

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.

You need to distinguish between socialism by the government and by private actors. We aren't big on extreme government socialism (Although some aspects we are fine with). There is however a long tradition of cooperation between private actors.

Maybe it would be easier to look at the the actor here not being the individual franchises, but the league itself. The league's goal is to make as much money as possible. It has decided that the best way to do that is to share the wealth of talent and money among all 30 teams. At the end of the day, the broader the reach of the league, the more successful they think it will be. The NBA doesn't make the Lakers share money with the Kings because they feel bad for the people of Sacramento, they think its in the best long term economic interest of the league. When the Kings sell for $500+ million, it drives up the value of the Lakers.

[JonFromVA]

Frankly, it's always going to be a problem when you reward someone for losing. The curious thing is that tanking as a strategy is far better for the league than just letting the top players go to the most incompetent teams year after year.

Still, this doesn't address that a middle or upper team would have to just throw out a season to play. Short of that, it's very hard for those teams to take the next step - unless they're a glamor destination.

[Myam333]

I think that they should just leave teams in the dark. They need to have multiple ways that the draft can be set up, but without telling any of the teams how the draft will be until the season is over. Teams wouldn't know what to do.

I liked the idea someone mentioned regarding punishing losers with less revenue sharing if they miss playoffs for several years.

lol if people think the lottery is fixed now...

Mb, I left out them choosing the draft method at the beginning of the season and not tell anyone, but then again nobody will take the NBA's word for it.

Hmm what if they tell the owners whichever method they'll use at the beginning of the season, but maybe have them sign non-disclosure agreement? Thoughts?

[TaiLs21]

The real fix is to give the nba champs the #1 pick. That will motivate everyone.

[eliasrapp98]

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.

Of course, but it is better to have a CHANCE at championships instead of being an 8th seed for life.

[EddieJonesFan]

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.

Exactly, I hated that the league focused on trying to make the NBA more like the NFL and NHL than what you're suggesting.

[Nondescript]

The real fix is to give the nba champs the #1 pick. That will motivate everyone.

Seriously? That is a legitimately terrible idea.

[irie]

The real fix is to give the nba champs the #1 pick. That will motivate everyone.

That obviously opens up a new mess of problems.

[Bled]

I personally think they should have a single game elimination tourney with the bottom 15 teams to determine the order of the lottery. Being single elimination meaning it could go either way. The mid-tier teams would be rewarded with a chance at earning a #1 draft pick but the single elimination could provide surprises and upsets that would be entertaining in my opinion. Similar to a march madness type ordeal.

[turtlesnjoi]

I personally think they should have a single game elimination tourney with the bottom 15 teams to determine the order of the lottery. Being single elimination meaning it could go either way. The mid-tier teams would be rewarded with a chance at earning a #1 draft pick but the single elimination could provide surprises and upsets that would be entertaining in my opinion. Similar to a march madness type ordeal.

Uh huh, so then potential 7/8 seeds would tank instead. Hardly the best way to get rid of tanking.

[Brown Notes]

IMO you could dampen the effect by shortening rookie contracts.

[No Offense]

IMO you could dampen the effect by shortening rookie contracts.

Sure, you could do that. But those rookie contracts are there for a reason.