Jazz's Markkanen: Tanking is a failed concept

[Dominator83]

Flat lottery odds is the best cure for tanking. There will be zero point to tank then, either you make the playoffs or you get the same chance as anyone else.

I don't get this idea we need to coddle bad teams with extra rewards. There are lots of ways to improve without getting a top draft pick. Mid lotto picks go on to be great players all the time, free agency and trades are available. Do your own work instead of relying on a handout.

Over time this will bring the bottom of the league up, which will also improve the situation for top young stars to join teams that aren't gutted and 3 years away from making noise. When there is no reward for being last teams will actually fight to avoid last place. It is a simple fix that eliminates the problem. The only potential issue is play-in teams might purposefully lose to avoid making the playoffs but I really really doubt any team decides to intentionally miss the playoffs for a 1/14 chance at the top pick.

I see it on the Blazer board, fans are upset at players playing well and competitive late season games. It's so sad the league sets up a situation where fans are mad at their team for doing well. It makes no sense and just hurts their product for no real reason. Tanking doesn't help bad teams get good, it just causes teams to choose to be bad.

Even worse that in the Blazers case, the late season winning came on the backs of young improving players. Sure Scoot still looks like a bust, but Sharpe has been much improved and Deni looks like an emerging superstar.

Us Bulls fans are in a similar dilemma. It's better for us to lose, but they've been winning. Atleast it's mostly because of Giddey, Coby and Buzelis.

Our teams , who are considered treadmill, should actually be the ones to get the top lottery odds. Give us a chance to catapult from the middle to the top tier. Teams that are stuck in no man's land need them just as much, and might actually be able to parlay their lottery gifts into success.

[madmaxmedia]

Jazz ruined Lauri's career by tanking.

he wanted this to get paid, so he should be quiet about it now.

generational money was more important. stop whining about it.

He seemed pretty diplomatic in his interview actually, and seems to make sure he's commenting on the practice in general in the NBA and not the Jazz (of course the two are really hard to separate.) Some of his comments (translated):

Generally speaking, it's a concept that's gone awry. Losing is somehow rewarded. Losing intentionally is not part of sports, or especially professional sports. Everyone should be after winning. I think this is perhaps a wrong direction for business, Lauri Markkanen tells Yle at the end of his eighth NBA season.

When Markkanen is asked about the fueling accusations against Utah, the Finn reminds us that the team had injuries that were beyond their control.

Everyone wants to turn things around quickly and win. But that's pretty difficult in this league. I trust the Jazz's management more than my own GM skills. We'll see what comes out of that. Hopefully we can get some tough players to improve the team, Markkanen says.

I don't think he's publicly complained about the Jazz FO or anything like that?

[sp6r=underrated]

Tanking is not a failed concept. It's a failed execution on the part of many franchises due poor drafting or impatient ownership. A right to fair competition is good for the league but the assumption that forced parity is needed smacks of the millennial mentality that everyone deserves a trophy.

Lauri wanted to stay with a team that had no realistic path towards contention. Either he didn't see it or he was lied to by his agent or Ainge. I don't disagree with everything he said because even he acknowledged that he doesn't have a better solution. I don't particularly find the idea of a league for of teams around .500 exciting nor sustainable.

League record will be .500 with no tanking or tanking. It just redistributes talent to teams that aren't trying to win. It goes against the core of athletic competition.

And Lauri was given Hobson choice by the NBA CBA. Take a massive paycut or sign with a team that is wasting his career, he's right to be furious. it is a garbage system.

Read his quote, his critique isn't tanking doesn't improve teams, his critique is teams shouldn't be allowed to improve via losing:

Losing is rewarded. Losing intentionally is not part of sports, or especially professional sports. Everyone should be trying to win. I think this is may be a wrong direction for the business.

OKC's success is irrelevant to his critique.

I'm not referring to the collective league record but individual teams all hovering around the same individual records.
Good teams are fun for the league. I loved the pre-Durant warriors. I don't have any major issues with how the Celtics and Cavs have built their current teams. Lebron and AD both wanting to play together in warm weather for a mismanaged franchise bothers me much more than the aforementioned teams.


A true superstar can alter a franchise for a decade or more. The players have to go somewhere. If not to the bad teams then where? Should the warriors and cavs have been getting the best picks the years they were on top?

Losing isn't fun and that's true in any sport for a competitor. I understand that Lauri would love to be getting the max amount of money possible while playing in the NBA finals as the lead guy. Just because every aspect in his career might not have gone how he wanted I'm not seeing him as a victim or the system as massively flawed. He didn't have to stay in Utah and probably still could have been able to feed his family.

There shouldn't be a draft. You can disagree with him, most Americans do, but he's clearly arguing for the Euro system. And I agree with him. Americans valorizing companies for trying to lose sucks.

[zero rings]

League record will be .500 with no tanking or tanking. It just redistributes talent to teams that aren't trying to win. It goes against the core of athletic competition.

And Lauri was given Hobson choice by the NBA CBA. Take a massive paycut or sign with a team that is wasting his career, he's right to be furious. it is a garbage system.

Read his quote, his critique isn't tanking doesn't improve teams, his critique is teams shouldn't be allowed to improve via losing:



OKC's success is irrelevant to his critique.

I'm not referring to the collective league record but individual teams all hovering around the same individual records.
Good teams are fun for the league. I loved the pre-Durant warriors. I don't have any major issues with how the Celtics and Cavs have built their current teams. Lebron and AD both wanting to play together in warm weather for a mismanaged franchise bothers me much more than the aforementioned teams.


A true superstar can alter a franchise for a decade or more. The players have to go somewhere. If not to the bad teams then where? Should the warriors and cavs have been getting the best picks the years they were on top?

Losing isn't fun and that's true in any sport for a competitor. I understand that Lauri would love to be getting the max amount of money possible while playing in the NBA finals as the lead guy. Just because every aspect in his career might not have gone how he wanted I'm not seeing him as a victim or the system as massively flawed. He didn't have to stay in Utah and probably still could have been able to feed his family.

There shouldn't be a draft. You can disagree with him, most Americans do, but he's clearly arguing for the Euro system. And I agree with him. Americans valorizing companies for trying to lose sucks.

Nobody valorizes tanking. We just accept that it’s the best and fastest way for a bad team to turn things around.

It’s much better than the Euro system, where the bottom feeders have virtually no chance of ever competing. I can see why relegation makes sense to a Euro soccer fan, where 2/3 of the teams might as well not exist.

What you’re really advocating for is the NBA shrinking down to 8-10 teams and becoming a glamour league. No thanks.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Nobody valorizes tanking. We just accept that it’s the best and fastest way for a bad team to turn things around.

Not if it encourages teams to be worse than they need to be. Teams should not make moves to be bad, no fan should have to root for their team to lose.

[Lockdown504090]

Jazz ruined Lauri's career by tanking.

he took that extension to tank, thats on him.

[reload141]

He’s right, what the Jazz are doing is disgraceful with sitting players intentionally.

[Hangtime84]

Maybe Lauri should focus on playing in a single playoff game before commenting on tanking.

That is his point.

Well maybe he should have not asked out of Chicago. He wanted to be a featured star player and get paid like one enjoying Utah!!

[DiegoChara]

Markkanen comes from Europe where tanking,as in we're gonna intentionally suck for a whole season,simply doesn't exist.This is a player in his prime who wasted a whole year away,of course he's not gonna be happy.Tbh as a european myself, seeing fans of NBA teams actually wanting their teams to lose and getting angry when they win is one of my least favorite ascpects of the league.

I mean, the trade off is, unless their team is bought by a Saudi prince, a fan of Southampton or Sevilla knows their team is never going to win the title.

A fan of even a moribund NBA franchise can at least have hope that the lottery gods smile on them in a year when the next LeBron is in the draft.

[madmaxmedia]

Maybe Lauri should focus on playing in a single playoff game before commenting on tanking.

That is his point.

Well maybe he should have not asked out of Chicago. He wanted to be a featured star player and get paid like one enjoying Utah!!

Did he ask out of Chicago, or have any sway at that point anyway? At the time he was a relatively small part of the entire deal, a sweetener for the Jazz that also helped match salaries. I think Collin Sexton was thought of as the best player Utah was getting, in addition to all the picks and swaps.

[celtxman]

As long as superstars are the only way to win a championship and losing more games improves your draft odds teams are gonna tank.

Yup. Adam Silver and the NBA really like it. Why change now ?

[zero rings]

Nobody valorizes tanking. We just accept that it’s the best and fastest way for a bad team to turn things around.

Not if it encourages teams to be worse than they need to be. Teams should not make moves to be bad, no fan should have to root for their team to lose.

Yeah, except “get gud” is not a real strategy in the NBA. You need high end talent to win in this league, and the draft is the only way for most teams to get that talent.

Tanking teams are sacrificing the short term for the long term. It’s a legitimate strategy, and probably the only strategy for small market teams.

As a fan I’d rather win 20 games for a few years and get rewarded with a star talent, than win 30 games for the rest of eternity.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Nobody valorizes tanking. We just accept that it’s the best and fastest way for a bad team to turn things around.

Not if it encourages teams to be worse than they need to be. Teams should not make moves to be bad, no fan should have to root for their team to lose.

Yeah, except “get gud” is not a real strategy in the NBA. You need high end talent to win in this league, and the draft is the only way for most teams to get that talent.

Tanking teams are sacrificing the short term for the long term. It’s a legitimate strategy, and probably the only strategy for small market teams.

As a fan I’d rather win 20 games for a few years and get rewarded with a star talent, than win 30 games for the rest of eternity.

Mid/late lottery picks go on to be good players all the time. Free agency and trades are available for improvement. It's silly to say top 4 picks are the only way bad teams can improve, there are lots of ways to pull yourself up from being a bad team. It hurts the product when teams gut their team looking for handouts.

It's only a legit strategy because the league encourages tanking. I dunno if you realize you are arguing a catch-22 but literally the point we are saying is it should not be a legitimate strategy.

I'll make it real simple for you, what situation is better to win the #1 pick. Would you rather win the lottery and have absolutely no talent to pair with the #1 pick or have a team full of role players ready to go when you get the #1 and don't have to wait around to build out the rest of the team.

Teams intentionally making non-competitive moves only happens because the league rewards it. It is bad for the product and so the league should not reward it.

[ArksNetsSince99]

Massively unpredictable revenues.

That’s not exactly fans problem , not even the players as most of the contracts is guaranteed

Relegated teams adjust their budget all the time when relegated or promoted, does this for over 100 years , as a club owner I can see your point , but then again if you suck as an owner Ishbia , Tsai , Dolan for most part you being relegated , not rewarded with high draft picks

The Stockton Kings who just won the G League Championship have a collective payroll of less than $1 million.

The Jazz, worst record in the NBA this season have a collective payroll of $154 million.

That's issue #1.

Stockton's Arena only holds 11,000 people. That would by far be the smallest venue in the NBA but imagine if the Southbay Lakers won, their home games hold 750 people. But most G League squads venues only hold between 2,000 to 5,000 people.

That's issue #2.

G League play what 34 games per season vs 82 in the NBA?

That's issue #3.

The G League uses buses to travel to some games. Can you imagine going from a private NBA jet to a bus for MOT?

That's issue #4.

Most importantly the NBA is a union and they're going to lookout for the best interest of their players, relegation isn't one of those things.

That's issue #5

#1 some European clubs have 5m payroll while others have 100m and they compete in the same leagues
#2 some arenas holds as little as 4000 while some teams hold 60.000 again same leagues
#3 it up to the leagues and can be changed /adjusted
#4 imagine I do , it’s done on regular basis , in NBA too
#5 most important , you suck , your ass getting relegated, best interest for players and fans if the said player (team) is good enough to stay in the top league , if he isn’t he gotta adjust to first world problems ( like riding on the bus lol)

And most importantly it’s not wise to compare GLeague to Segunda division ,Bundesliga 2 . Serie B , etc , 95% of all second divisions is head above GLeague in any aspect

[Lala870]

Still trying to figure out how Utah blew that Donavon Mitchell team up,

Between Utah and PHX imploding their own teams, now we get to watch a warriors/lakers playoffs again thanks to favorable trades

The luka trade was durant joining the warriors 2.0

[Ducklett]

All OKC's tank did was shift some good players to OKC instead of other teams. It didn't increase league quality. Every guy OKC acquired would still be in the NBA sans tank. Tanking is a zero sum activity that reduces league quality.

Lauri is right about this.

Tanking is not a failed concept. It's a failed execution on the part of many franchises due poor drafting or impatient ownership. A right to fair competition is good for the league but the assumption that forced parity is needed smacks of the millennial mentality that everyone deserves a trophy.

Lauri wanted to stay with a team that had no realistic path towards contention. Either he didn't see it or he was lied to by his agent or Ainge. I don't disagree with everything he said because even he acknowledged that he doesn't have a better solution. I don't particularly find the idea of a league for of teams around .500 exciting nor sustainable.

League record will be .500 with no tanking or tanking. It just redistributes talent to teams that aren't trying to win. It goes against the core of athletic competition.

And Lauri was given Hobson choice by the NBA CBA. Take a massive paycut or sign with a team that is wasting his career, he's right to be furious. it is a garbage system.

Read his quote, his critique isn't tanking doesn't improve teams, his critique is teams shouldn't be allowed to improve via losing:

Losing is rewarded. Losing intentionally is not part of sports, or especially professional sports. Everyone should be trying to win. I think this is may be a wrong direction for the business.

OKC's success is irrelevant to his critique.

He chose money over winning and then got mad. You realize all of us make that choice in the job market everyday, right? Why do these guys that are making millions either way get off with "Oh woe is me, how hard it is for Lauri".

There are multiple NFL teams with 0 win seasons...

[zero rings]

Not if it encourages teams to be worse than they need to be. Teams should not make moves to be bad, no fan should have to root for their team to lose.

Yeah, except “get gud” is not a real strategy in the NBA. You need high end talent to win in this league, and the draft is the only way for most teams to get that talent.

Tanking teams are sacrificing the short term for the long term. It’s a legitimate strategy, and probably the only strategy for small market teams.

As a fan I’d rather win 20 games for a few years and get rewarded with a star talent, than win 30 games for the rest of eternity.

Mid/late lottery picks go on to be good players all the time. Free agency and trades are available for improvement. It's silly to say top 4 picks are the only way bad teams can improve, there are lots of ways to pull yourself up from being a bad team. It hurts the product when teams gut their team looking for handouts.

It's only a legit strategy because the league encourages tanking. I dunno if you realize you are arguing a catch-22 but literally the point we are saying is it should not be a legitimate strategy.

I'll make it real simple for you, what situation is better to win the #1 pick. Would you rather win the lottery and have absolutely no talent to pair with the #1 pick or have a team full of role players ready to go when you get the #1 and don't have to wait around to build out the rest of the team.

Teams intentionally making non-competitive moves only happens because the league rewards it. It is bad for the product and so the league should not reward it.

The 68 win Thunder built their current roster by making “non-competitive” moves when they traded away Westbrook and George. Should they have just dug in their heels and continued to build around a core that clearly wasn’t going anywhere? For the integrity of the game, or something?

It’s called playing the long game. If a teams wants to sacrifice short term winning in order to build up future assets, they should absolutely be able to do so.

If a team wants to emulate the Chicago Bulls and be a perennial 10th seed, they can do that, too.

[Hangtime84]

That is his point.

Well maybe he should have not asked out of Chicago. He wanted to be a featured star player and get paid like one enjoying Utah!!

Did he ask out of Chicago, or have any sway at that point anyway? At the time he was a relatively small part of the entire deal, a sweetener for the Jazz that also helped match salaries. I think Collin Sexton was thought of as the best player Utah was getting, in addition to all the picks and swaps.

Yes reports mentioned Lauri was gonna play on the QO and go somewhere else. Which is why he signed a short deal with Cavs as prove it deal.

In Chicago a few factors influenced this from Lauri and his team:
1. Revolving coaches especially Jim Bolyen (3 coaches and two FOs in his time here)
2. Acquiring Vuc reduced his role
3. Limitations of Vuc are the same for Lauri defensively
4. Salary of less than 20M+ (he was consistently hurt on his rookie contract)

From Lauri perspective the numbers he put up in February looked like all-star numbers several bulls fans refer to good Lauri times as FebruLauri

[DeBlazerRiddem]

It’s called playing the long game. If a teams wants to sacrifice short term winning in order to build up future assets, they should absolutely be able to do so.

My whole point is this should not be the best option. I recognize that it currently IS the best option, but it should not be.

Teams would still move on from expensive veterans to rebuild but intentionally losing should never be rewarded.

You are welcome to disagree, but I still say its a dumb system that has fans rooting for their teams to lose. No fan should have to put up with their team sacrificing winning and playing a bunch of g-leaguers just to be bad. Destroys the integrity of the game.

If a team wants to emulate the Chicago Bulls and be a perennial 10th seed, they can do that, too.

Chicago and Chicago fans should not be penalized. They don't deserve it.

[Ducklett]

It’s called playing the long game. If a teams wants to sacrifice short term winning in order to build up future assets, they should absolutely be able to do so.

My whole point is this should not be the best option. I recognize that it currently IS the best option, but it should not be.

Teams would still move on from expensive veterans to rebuild but intentionally losing should never be rewarded.

You are welcome to disagree, but I still say its a dumb system that has fans rooting for their teams to lose. No fan should have to put up with their team sacrificing winning and playing a bunch of g-leaguers just to be bad. Destroys the integrity of the game.

If a team wants to emulate the Chicago Bulls and be a perennial 10th seed, they can do that, too.

Chicago and Chicago fans should not be penalized. They don't deserve it.

Uh... if you got rid of tanking, they would still be 10th seed and punished...