Anonymous NBA general manager admits to tanking

[JDLAW]

Tanking hurts every team financially who is not tanking. The gate is not as good, parking revenue is not as good (even in the private lots parking is cheaper when the tankers come to town), the concession revenue is not as good in the arena (restaurant revenue outside loses revenue) and ticket prices for the tanking teams are depressed (like most teams, the ticket price per game is higher for the more desirable teams and lower for the lousy teams) TV ratings for the games against the tankers are lower. It is a despicable and corrupt practice that hurts other teams and the league. it should not be rewarded.

I'll just turn the argument back at you, "why reward a team the persistently makes bad choices or does not use other means (trades and free agency) to improve the quality of its product by consistently giving it top picks. The Draft is for all the teams - not just the worst of the worst. It is the only means where a team, if they do not trade their pick get a relatively inexpensive player for the mere price of having to pay the salary.

As for the 76ers, if they get the 1st pick this year, I see no reason why they should be eligible for one of the first 3 picks next year. They have cap space to sign free agents, they have players to trade so they can improve their team. If they are not successful, they can pick 4th and then be eligible for 2 and 3 the following year.

I like your idea with one exception. I would give the 14 teams that miss the playoffs a 5% chance at getting a top 3 pick, and anyone who got eliminated in the first round a 3.75% chance of getting a top 3 pick.

This way, there would be ZERO incentive to barely miss the playoffs like it looked like the Hawks were trying to do this year near the end. There are so many young GMs that have this view of not wanting to be the 8th seed who gets swept and would rather have a chance at a star or a top 10 pick, that this would almost entirely give zero incentive to miss the playoffs, unless someone was seriously ignorant enough to miss for that extra 1.25% chance.

With your idea, each team that missed the playoffs would have a little better than a 7% chance of getting a top pick, which could still be preferable to some GMs than making the playoffs with a losing record only to play a team full of superstars and get clobbered in the first round (like the Bucks at 38-44 last year against the Heat 66-16).

I like the idea.

[JDLAW]

Tanking hurts every team financially who is not tanking. The gate is not as good, parking revenue is not as good (even in the private lots parking is cheaper when the tankers come to town), the concession revenue is not as good in the arena (restaurant revenue outside loses revenue) and ticket prices for the tanking teams are depressed (like most teams, the ticket price per game is higher for the more desirable teams and lower for the lousy teams) TV ratings for the games against the tankers are lower. It is a despicable and corrupt practice that hurts other teams and the league. it should not be rewarded.

I'll just turn the argument back at you, "why reward a team the persistently makes bad choices or does not use other means (trades and free agency) to improve the quality of its product by consistently giving it top picks. The Draft is for all the teams - not just the worst of the worst. It is the only means where a team, if they do not trade their pick get a relatively inexpensive player for the mere price of having to pay the salary.

As for the 76ers, if they get the 1st pick this year, I see no reason why they should be eligible for one of the first 3 picks next year. They have cap space to sign free agents, they have players to trade so they can improve their team. If they are not successful, they can pick 4th and then be eligible for 2 and 3 the following year.

I like your idea with one exception. I would give the 14 teams that miss the playoffs a 5% chance at getting a top 3 pick, and anyone who got eliminated in the first round a 3.75% chance of getting a top 3 pick.

This way, there would be ZERO incentive to barely miss the playoffs like it looked like the Hawks were trying to do this year near the end. There are so many young GMs that have this view of not wanting to be the 8th seed who gets swept and would rather have a chance at a star or a top 10 pick, that this would almost entirely give zero incentive to miss the playoffs, unless someone was seriously ignorant enough to miss for that extra 1.25% chance.

With your idea, each team that missed the playoffs would have a little better than a 7% chance of getting a top pick, which could still be preferable to some GMs than making the playoffs with a losing record only to play a team full of superstars and get clobbered in the first round (like the Bucks at 38-44 last year against the Heat 66-16).

Exception to your exception. Just give the last 2 seeds in each conference a shot at the top 3. That way borderline teams can still feel safe getting into the playoffs and trying to make a run. Normally the 3-6 spots are playing well trying to land home court advantage or a more favorable matchup. I guess some teams might try to hover around the last two spots, but it's too risky because those teams sitting at the 9 spot are usually pretty close to getting in. Both the us and the Knicks were only 1 game out of the playoffs.

Another suggestion, why does the lotto only have to be for the top 3 picks? Why not expand it to 5?

I like it also.

[Phystic]

I would much prefer the idea of expanding the lotto to include the bottom two seeds. That would be a bit more incentive to still sneak into the playoffs considering the bump in revenue and bonuses you get for making the playoffs. And yet still a shot at a top 3 pick(even though it would be insanely low at that point).

[bwgood77]

I would much prefer the idea of expanding the lotto to include the bottom two seeds. That would be a bit more incentive to still sneak into the playoffs considering the bump in revenue and bonuses you get for making the playoffs. And yet still a shot at a top 3 pick(even though it would be insanely low at that point).

That would be fine too, especially since the last two teams usually have to play premiere teams in playing the top seeds.

And it works out to where the 14 teams that miss could have a 6% chance of winning and the 2 last seeds in each conference have a 4% chance. VERY little incentive to miss. There would still be the possibility of a team in control of the sixth seed trying to drop to the 7th seed if they feel the matchup doesn't make much difference to them AND they get that 4% lotto chance though. But I suppose that could happen to a 4 seed dropping to a 5 seed as well, though they would likely value home court advantage over that small chance.

[Phystic]

I would much prefer the idea of expanding the lotto to include the bottom two seeds. That would be a bit more incentive to still sneak into the playoffs considering the bump in revenue and bonuses you get for making the playoffs. And yet still a shot at a top 3 pick(even though it would be insanely low at that point).

That would be fine too, especially since the last two teams usually have to play premiere teams in playing the top seeds.

And it works out to where the 14 teams that miss could have a 6% chance of winning and the 2 last seeds in each conference have a 4% chance. VERY little incentive to miss. There would still be the possibility of a team in control of the sixth seed trying to drop to the 7th seed if they feel the matchup doesn't make much difference to them AND they get that 4% lotto chance though. But I suppose that could happen to a 4 seed dropping to a 5 seed as well, though they would likely value home court advantage over that small chance.

Oh I was just talking about adding the bottom 2 seeds to the lottery not changing the odds. I still think the worst teams should have a bigger chance at a higher pick.

And really there is no perfect method. There will always be a way for teams to work it. That's inevitable. And if that's something that needs to be fixed that starts with the people doing it not the process. Lottery is fine, if the league thinks tanking is such a massive issue then they should take that up with the owners/front office of that team. Also, I want to stress again I feel like people throw tanking around a lot. I find nothing wrong with a team bottoming out intentionally to try and rebuild. Sometimes it's necessary. Only thing I would have issues with is teams benching their top players to lose games and add to an already talented core.

[bwgood77]

I would much prefer the idea of expanding the lotto to include the bottom two seeds. That would be a bit more incentive to still sneak into the playoffs considering the bump in revenue and bonuses you get for making the playoffs. And yet still a shot at a top 3 pick(even though it would be insanely low at that point).

That would be fine too, especially since the last two teams usually have to play premiere teams in playing the top seeds.

And it works out to where the 14 teams that miss could have a 6% chance of winning and the 2 last seeds in each conference have a 4% chance. VERY little incentive to miss. There would still be the possibility of a team in control of the sixth seed trying to drop to the 7th seed if they feel the matchup doesn't make much difference to them AND they get that 4% lotto chance though. But I suppose that could happen to a 4 seed dropping to a 5 seed as well, though they would likely value home court advantage over that small chance.

Oh I was just talking about adding the bottom 2 seeds to the lottery not changing the odds. I still think the worst teams should have a bigger chance at a higher pick.

And really there is no perfect method. There will always be a way for teams to work it. That's inevitable. And if that's something that needs to be fixed that starts with the people doing it not the process. Lottery is fine, if the league thinks tanking is such a massive issue then they should take that up with the owners/front office of that team. Also, I want to stress again I feel like people throw tanking around a lot. I find nothing wrong with a team bottoming out intentionally to try and rebuild. Sometimes it's necessary. Only thing I would have issues with is teams benching their top players to lose games and add to an already talented core.

Oh, well the odds are what most needs to change. If the odds are drastically better if you finish with the worst record or one of the three worst records, I think tanking will never go away.

[Phystic]

That would be fine too, especially since the last two teams usually have to play premiere teams in playing the top seeds.

And it works out to where the 14 teams that miss could have a 6% chance of winning and the 2 last seeds in each conference have a 4% chance. VERY little incentive to miss. There would still be the possibility of a team in control of the sixth seed trying to drop to the 7th seed if they feel the matchup doesn't make much difference to them AND they get that 4% lotto chance though. But I suppose that could happen to a 4 seed dropping to a 5 seed as well, though they would likely value home court advantage over that small chance.

Oh I was just talking about adding the bottom 2 seeds to the lottery not changing the odds. I still think the worst teams should have a bigger chance at a higher pick.

And really there is no perfect method. There will always be a way for teams to work it. That's inevitable. And if that's something that needs to be fixed that starts with the people doing it not the process. Lottery is fine, if the league thinks tanking is such a massive issue then they should take that up with the owners/front office of that team. Also, I want to stress again I feel like people throw tanking around a lot. I find nothing wrong with a team bottoming out intentionally to try and rebuild. Sometimes it's necessary. Only thing I would have issues with is teams benching their top players to lose games and add to an already talented core.

Oh, well the odds are what most needs to change. That was JDLAW's original chance so if you are thinking the odds shouldn't change, I'm surprised he liked your idea.

If the odds are drastically better if you finish with the worst record or one of the three worst records, I think tanking will never go away.

Wasn't my idea he liked, haha. I don't think tanking is as prevalent as people seem to act like it is. Before this year(the sixers) when was the last time a team blatantly did everything they could to lose games? I mean there are always bad teams(Hornets, Bucks, Bobcats, Jazz, Kings, Magic, etc) but I don't think a team being bad is the same thing as tanking. Those teams haven't done anything to make themselves worse, they just haven't made great strides forward. Which I don't think is completely on them. It takes two to make a deal; whether that be trade or a signing.

[bwgood77]

Wasn't my idea he liked, haha. I don't think tanking is as prevalent as people seem to act like it is. Before this year(the sixers) when was the last time a team blatantly did everything they could to lose games? I mean there are always bad teams(Hornets, Bucks, Bobcats, Jazz, Kings, Magic, etc) but I don't think a team being bad is the same thing as tanking. Those teams haven't done anything to make themselves worse, they just haven't made great strides forward. Which I don't think is completely on them. It takes two to make a deal; whether that be trade or a signing.

Yeah, I realized it wasn't your idea he liked and edited it, but I guess you quoted my original post (which mean to say "stance" and not "chance".

I agree there hasn't been a ton of tanking in the past. Maybe OKC in trading Allen for picks and trying to build with zero talent they could have signed to help Durant and Green in the early years. Then maybe his protege in Orlando kind of doing the same thing recently.

But I think the landscape has changed that many of the new younger GMs feel that tanking is better than trying to compete and get in the playoffs unless you think you have a championship contender, which may sound like a good theory, but it probably will rarely work out like it did for OKC because that required quite a bit of luck as well.

[Phystic]

Wasn't my idea he liked, haha. I don't think tanking is as prevalent as people seem to act like it is. Before this year(the sixers) when was the last time a team blatantly did everything they could to lose games? I mean there are always bad teams(Hornets, Bucks, Bobcats, Jazz, Kings, Magic, etc) but I don't think a team being bad is the same thing as tanking. Those teams haven't done anything to make themselves worse, they just haven't made great strides forward. Which I don't think is completely on them. It takes two to make a deal; whether that be trade or a signing.

Yeah, I realized it wasn't your idea he liked and edited it, but I guess you quoted my original post (which mean to say "stance" and not "chance".

I agree there hasn't been a ton of tanking in the past. Maybe OKC in trading Allen for picks and trying to build with zero talent they could have signed to help Durant and Green in the early years. Then maybe his protege in Orlando kind of doing the same thing recently.

But I think the landscape has changed that many of the new younger GMs feel that tanking is better than trying to compete and get in the playoffs unless you think you have a championship contender, which may sound like a good theory, but it probably will rarely work out like it did for OKC because that required quite a bit of luck as well.

Honestly, I feel like people are just far too sensitive when it comes to 'tanking'. They look at a lot of situations as tanking that simply aren't. Teams need to be allowed to rebuild how they see fit(within reason obviously, I don't agree with PHI this year).

[MrMiyagi]

I would much prefer the idea of expanding the lotto to include the bottom two seeds. That would be a bit more incentive to still sneak into the playoffs considering the bump in revenue and bonuses you get for making the playoffs. And yet still a shot at a top 3 pick(even though it would be insanely low at that point).

That would be fine too, especially since the last two teams usually have to play premiere teams in playing the top seeds.

And it works out to where the 14 teams that miss could have a 6% chance of winning and the 2 last seeds in each conference have a 4% chance. VERY little incentive to miss. There would still be the possibility of a team in control of the sixth seed trying to drop to the 7th seed if they feel the matchup doesn't make much difference to them AND they get that 4% lotto chance though. But I suppose that could happen to a 4 seed dropping to a 5 seed as well, though they would likely value home court advantage over that small chance.

The odds definitely need to be evened out, but not completely even. I still like the idea of expanding the lotto to top 5 rather than keeping it at 3.

I also think the 4-6 seeds would be motivated by match-ups more so than the possibility of a pick. I think too much could go wrong trying to drop from a 5 or 6 to a 7 or 8 seed.

[Phystic]

You could also do a tier system. 1-5 at a certain percentages, 6-10 at a certain percentage, etc.