Dismiss Notice
Guest, I have a big favor to ask you. We've been working very hard to establish ourselves on social media. If you like/follow our pages it would be a HUGE help to us. SoSH on Facebook and Inside the Pylon Thanks! Nip

How to stop the tankathon

Discussion in 'Mark Blount's Port Cellar: Celtics Forum' started by sox311, Apr 5, 2017.

  1. tims4wins

    tims4wins PN23's replacement SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,146
    If there is a $100M cap and LeBron is making the $80M he deserves how will they sign Towns, who wants say $30M out of college?
     
  2. lexrageorge

    lexrageorge Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,395
    Every sports league has a draft, and it works. So I see no reason to eliminate the NBA's draft. Or the soft cap. Of the final 4 teams last year, 2 were from small to medium media markets, 1 from a large market (but suffers from cold winter weather), and 1 from a large market that has not always played like one in other sports. Seems like the current system is working pretty well.

    Someone mentioned the nadir of the NBA; the true nadir was the late 1970's. The game is far more watchable now than what it was 12-15 years ago, or worse, back in the late 1990's when scoring 100 points was considered a badge of dishonor and grabbing players while going to the basket was considered "playing defense" (thanks Pat Riley).
     
  3. The Needler

    The Needler lurker

    Messages:
    296
    And I've maintained that when you're in a revenue-sharing relationship with 29 other business owners, you can't expect them to agree that you should be able to make such decisions as though you're an independent bookstore owner.

    I'm happy to spread some blame to cord-cutting. But the causes aren't nearly as significant as the effect, which is that TV deals are not an immortal golden goose. When your argument is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," based on revenues that are going to dry up, it doesn't really matter what the cause of that drought is, just that there's going to be no water. Smart managers don't assume that because revenue streams from past deals have a company profitable today, there's no need to address problems, whether correctly-perceived or not, and try to maximize profitability elsewhere. And that's been your repeated argument.
     
  4. Grin&MartyBarret

    Grin&MartyBarret Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,017
    The article you posted states that the two teams that saw the largest decline in ratings were Golden State and Cleveland, while the team that saw the single largest gain was Philadelphia.

    Not sure how that supports your theory that tanking's the cause of the ratings decline. Or even that it's a substantial element.

    Sent from my Pixel using SoSH mobile app
     
  5. The Needler

    The Needler lurker

    Messages:
    296
    For one thing, I never put forth a theory that tanking's the cause of the ratings decline. What I've said is that the NBA obviously believes that tanking is a threat to the game's popularity, which is why it wants to address it. This has been repeatedly met with "LOLWUT, REVENUES!!!" My point in posting the article is that those revenues shouldn't be counted on as eternal. You can write your own reason for why ratings are down, but they're down. And if if I'm running the league, I'd want to make sure I keep trying to make the fans happy, not break my arm patting myself on the back for a TV deal I made three years ago, and assuming it means everyone's happy.

    Secondly, things that start higher have room for greater falls, and vice-versa.

    Third, I'm thrilled that 76ers fans seem happy with the results of their tanking. It's not at all the point, though.
     
  6. Papelbon's Poutine

    Papelbon's Poutine Homeland Security SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,525
    My argument is that the league has trended up for a significant period while tanking has occurred, inflated dollar wise or not. I in now way am saying I think it will be sustained growth. But I also have never said they shouldn't address problems - I just don't think tanking is one, nor do I see evidence for it. I think there's far bigger issues that cause problems and I also, again, have yet to see a valid solution.

    I assure you I understand your point of 1/30, but for one, it's not 1/30, it's much closer to 10/30 and secondly I don't see how tanking affects their primary revenue source (as a league), when those teams aren't being shown on national TV to begin with - national TV schedules are set well in advance and they showcase the contenders.

    I'm very much the average NBA fan when it comes to viewing, I'll watch the Cs when they're good, much less so when they're bad, but as for national games, I'll tune in for the big matchups or stars. Consolidating those stars and creating a non-competitive environment doesn't spark my personal interest in watching ESPN/ABC/TNT games when they're all playing for a participation trophy. Nor do I think the networks would be particularly more driven to pay up to broadcast a team if it's going to win 32 games instead of 22. Your mileage may vary.
     
    #206 Papelbon's Poutine, Sep 12, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  7. Grin&MartyBarret

    Grin&MartyBarret Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,017
    Okay, but in a thread about tanking we're now talking about something entirely different -- which is that changing nature of the media landscape and the impact it'll have on league revenues. That's a worthwhile discussion, but respectfully, insisting that the league needs to address tanking because nobody is watching TV anymore is like trying to put out a forest fire with a water gun.

    And I don't think the league is concerned that tanking is a threat to the league's popularity. I think that's just a more palatable public explanation than "our owners want to make even more money."
     
  8. scott bankheadcase

    scott bankheadcase Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    310
    I probably need to bow out of this thread, but if anyone thinks the NBA is worried about the next TV deals (more than they worry about any negotiations) with the amount of money FB, Netflix, Amazon, ATT, Verizon ect. are paying for content these days, you're mistaken. The NBA's content is being consumed more now than ever, despite some small (and better than industry) ratings declines.
     
  9. The Needler

    The Needler lurker

    Messages:
    296
    It's the same frigging thing, and the only thing, as I've said like 50 times.
     
  10. Grin&MartyBarret

    Grin&MartyBarret Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,017
    It's not really clear to my how/why those two things are the same, even after reading all 50 of your frigging explanations.

    We're in agreement that owners of popular, successful teams don't want to carry water for tanking teams. But that's a much different thing than "tanking teams are hurting the league's popularity." Of course bad teams bring in less revenue than good teams, but you'll have to show your work to convince me that tanking teams are somehow worse for the league than plain old bad teams, and that this proposal puts even the slightest dent in the economic concerns facing the league over the next decade.
     
    #210 Grin&MartyBarret, Sep 13, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  11. The Needler

    The Needler lurker

    Messages:
    296
    You're talking yourself in circles. You said "I don't think the league is concerned that tanking is a threat to the league's popularity. I think that's just a more palatable public explanation than 'our owners want to make even more money.'" So why do owners think stopping tanking will make them even more money?
     
  12. nighthob

    nighthob lurker

    Messages:
    5,196
    Actually he isn't talking himself in circles. You've moved the goalposts so many times at this point that they're now in a hockey rink.
     
  13. Papelbon's Poutine

    Papelbon's Poutine Homeland Security SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,525
    I think because if there's less incentive to do it - ie flattening the odds - less teams will do it and their individual income will increase via TV deals, sponsorships etc.

    To expand let's say you're a team that's on the fine line between making the playoffs and not. Being somewhat competitive may put more money in your pocket, but if you have a long term vision tanking is probably the better bet. If finishing with the 14th worst record gives you the same odds - or not that much worse odds - than the team with the 5th worst (or whatever one wants to propose as a solution*) - then you can have the best of both worlds. You can make money AND have a decent shot at a top pick.

    That will impact the team's *individual bottom line without impacting the *league's. So if it's a more level playing field - to simplify there's a monetary threshold on which way to go and it's likely owners want to mitigate that.

    If you make it less attractive to tank, less will do it but that means zero to the overall product in the big picture. It might bum out a particular fan base for a short period but it's not hurting the league overall, because much like the NFL, the revenues and cap are set primarily by the national deals, not the local ones. And if an individual owner feels pressed into to tanking to compete in the long run and cost himself money, that should be his call, imo. Because it isn't costing other owners anything, unless you want to make a weak 'road attendance' argument.

    Bottom line is that the national tv deals are geared towards the casual fan not the diehard loyalist and if teams tank, they're not getting put on those broadcasts to begin with. So, your 1/30 argument doesn't hold a lot of water.

    But whatever, we aren't going to see eye to eye, so I'll ask if tanking is an issue, what your personal resolution is for it.
     
  14. The Needler

    The Needler lurker

    Messages:
    296
    It sounds like you're ignoring the revenue sharing aspect of the league beyond distribution of national TV money. 50% of every team's revenues are essentially making a pie that gets divided up equally. That's why owners care. You can disagree about whether tanking will increase, decrease, or have no effect on the overall size of that pie, but it's the answer to the original question of why owners care out other teams' business.
     
  15. Papelbon's Poutine

    Papelbon's Poutine Homeland Security SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,525
    I'm not ignoring it, I'm discounting it's importance, because that's not exactly how it works and its not that simple. End of day I don't think it impacts the bottom line of another team significantly enough for them to give a shit.

    If your contribution is equal to or above the league average payroll, you contribute. If it is below league average payroll, you are a recipient. Every team is required to kick in 70% of that number, at a minimum.

    So, the highest revenue team was the Knicks last year, at $376M. So they throw $188M in. The lowest was the 76ers at $140, so they throw in $70M. Then all teams get reallocated the team average salary and the remainder is split up amongst the bottom rung.

    The Knicks are throwing in $188M no matter what # the other teams kick in. In no scenario are they getting money back or contributing less, it's just a difference in how it gets split up to the low revenue teams contributing less than the average. Nor are 14 other teams every year. It's not all one big pie all 30 teams divvy up.

    The national TV deal isn't the only place they make their pooled money. They have a billion dollar deal with Nike for uniforms and apparel, they have league sponsorship deals (Pepsi, Budweiser, etc). And overall ability for individual revenue is impacted quite little by a team's record in a given year, but rather their market. The Nets had a higher revenue than the Celtics last year. The Knicks and Lakers were 1/2. The Suns were only $14M behind both the Spurs and Thunder.
     
  16. mcpickl

    mcpickl Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Lebron is really great, but he'll only be on one big market team. Towns can sign with one of the others, yeah?

    I really don't know what to say if people are trying to argue not having a draft is good for small market teams. I don't get it.
     
  17. Papelbon's Poutine

    Papelbon's Poutine Homeland Security SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,525
    See my post above. The lowest team revenue in the league was $140M. Revenue sharing allots for every team to receive at least the league average payroll. I'm not going to try to do the math on what the average is currently, with aprons and taxes and everything, but presumably with a hard cap, the model would seem to suggest that every team receives the same, no?

    So then, what does market size matter? Other than local endorsements or a preference for location, if every team can offer whatever they want, how is a small market disadvantaged?
     
  18. mcpickl

    mcpickl Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    You answered your own question, because a vast majority of players would prefer to play in big cities. There's a reason the Lebron crew joined up in Miami and there was no thought to doing it in Cleveland. Cleveland could've easily cleared the space to fit all three. Do you think there's any chance Russell Westbrook chooses OKC out of college, or is he in LA? Would Kyrie Irving have chosen Cleveland, or NY?

    It doesn't feel like a hot take to think that if there's no draft, unless a top player/prospect happened to have grown up or gone to school in your town, teams like Sacramento, Indiana, Milwaukee, OKC, Cleveland, Utah...will be AAA teams for the rest of their existence barring a massive dollop of luck.

    The draft is far and away the biggest beacon of hope for small market teams.
     
  19. Papelbon's Poutine

    Papelbon's Poutine Homeland Security SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,525
    The vast majority of players want to make the most money they can. It's one thing for them to team up in Miami and take a little less (and save on income tax to help with that) on marginally less than max deals. It's another to suggest that if OKC offered Westbrook twice what NY offered, he'd have chosen to go play closer to home and his friends coming out of the draft.

    This is all hypothetical and not at all plausible, but in a more beneficial system, it's an open market and teams would be able to bid as much as they want. It would have ancillary benefits that would help that college player cash in early and mitigate further losses for decline or injury. If teams were structuring their cap space to drop $60M on a superstar, they wouldn't be handing out $16M a year to the Evan Turners of the world - so guys with high upside or high draft slots would be more inclined to take a big payout early, as they wouldn't have those big deals to fall back on as bidding gets downright stupid for marginal players.

    But sure, let's perpetuate the notion that NBA players only care about nightlife. That's certainly played out as predicted with the Celtics the last two years.
     
  20. bosox79

    bosox79 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,330
    I've read an article suggesting NBA players are getting less and less about the night life anyway because of Tinder and how badly alcohol can affect performance. It's why home/road records are less severe than they used to be.
     
  21. cheech13

    cheech13 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    433
    The current system of a soft cap with maximum salary restrictions actually exacerbates the small market/large market conundrum by incentivizing players to seek out non-monetary benefits. By keeping the money constant across all teams players weight the ancillary benefits to each situation, be it no state income tax, good nightlife, endorsement opportunities, or a championship-level team. The easiest way to give smaller markets a chance to compete for top-end talent is to give them a monetary advantage. Most players will still default to making the most money all else being equal. That is why you have Bird Rights, the "Super Max", etc. The league realizes that a built-in monetary advantage will level the playing field for the incumbent team.
     
  22. moly99

    moly99 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    825
    I think there is also a generational thing. The pro athletes I know who were born in the 80's have all made terrible decisions in life and with women in part because they never wanted to be anything but pro athletes with cars, women and fame.

    Today many of the players want to be moguls. Lots of them finish their degrees while in the NBA. They are more interested in branding.
     
  23. mcpickl

    mcpickl Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Who suggested this?

    Why do you think all of the big market teams just won't have money to pay the best players but the small market teams will?
     
  24. Papelbon's Poutine

    Papelbon's Poutine Homeland Security SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,525
    Holy shit, man, really? Go back to post #218, where you quoted me and added emphasis, apparently ignoring what followed it.

    The hypothetical we are talking about is a hard cap with no max salary. Your contention was this:

    If you failed to miss this portion of my post:

    then I can't really help you. You're the one that suggested a player will choose based on location. If you missed the context of the discussion - where ALL teams have the same amount of money to spend and there's no max contract - then again, that's on you.

    I'll say it more succinctly.

    In a hard capped environment, where there is no max contract, teams can offer whatever portion of their payroll to a draftee or FA, and all receive the same money to spend to the max (via revenue sharing) there's no inherent disadvantages to being in a small market; unless, as you contend, players will choose based on location and/or leave gigantic sums of money on the table to team up with friends or play at home or where the nightclubs are good. I am disputing the underlined portion of this paragraph, as many others have as well, just so there's no confusion.

    Market size doesn't make a difference in the NFL or NHL, because they have a hard cap set by revenue sharing and no max salary. It wouldn't in the NBA either and were there no draft, a rookie would be no different than a FA. The teams that can offer the most would be the ones who have managed their cap the best and that could be big market or small.
     
  25. mcpickl

    mcpickl Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Holy shit man, I really went back to post #218, I didn't say that Russell Westbrook or any other star would take half of what a small market team would offer him.

    I'll make my point succinctly, the best players will overwhelmingly choose to play in the bigger markets with no draft and a hard cap. Whatever small market team X will offer to pay a star, they'll just choose their big market team Y they actually want to play for, and say team X will pay me this much I'll sign with you for that price. Team Y will either have the space to do it, or they'll trade current players to the small market teams that can't get anyone to pick them to clear space. Because that's what you do for stars.

    With this, I give up. If you want to believe having no draft is somehow better for small market teams, have at it. Feel free to DM me if you want to keep arguing it, I'm clogging the thread.
     
    #225 mcpickl, Sep 16, 2017 at 10:32 PM
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017 at 10:39 PM
  26. Papelbon's Poutine

    Papelbon's Poutine Homeland Security SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,525
  27. bowiac

    bowiac I've been living a lie. Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,669
    This dynamic doesn't make sense for a few reasons. Why would the small market teams take on current non-stars from the big market teams to help them clear cap space? I get you say they "can't get anyone to pick them", but they're already getting the mid-level guys to pick them now (e.g., Al Jefferson to Charlotte). So unless the big market team is sending out good players on good contracts, how are they going to clear cap space?

    Additionally, with no max salary and a hard cap, it's actually not clear that stars are especially great for team-building reasons. You can't build superteams in the same way. There's just no way to get LeBron, Bosh, and Wade onto the same roster, let alone Durant, Draymond, Curry, and Klay. Someone is going to offer Wade $50M or something, and it just becomes impossible to build that team of all-stars.
     
  28. ifmanis5

    ifmanis5 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    24,506
    My hot take is that tanking isn't hurting the league any more than say team stacking or having terrible refs. It's just owners complaining about asses in seats which doesn't even matter anymore.
     
  29. moly99

    moly99 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    825
    In example Kevin Garnett in Minnesota.

    Five very good players should be enough to beat LeBron and chaff. Of course, that is also one of the reasons the league doesn't like that: they want their superstars playing deep into the playoffs.
     
  30. bosox79

    bosox79 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,330
    Would going to international rules help with parity or would the bad teams be just as bad?
     
  31. HomeRunBaker

    HomeRunBaker bet squelcher SoSH Member

    Messages:
    14,270
    I feel like I'm on an island of their not being a problem with the status quo. In a 30-team league the bad teams are going to be REALLY bad. The team with the worst record in the league last year didn't tank. The Lakers went from being bad to really bad by trading Lou Williams (for a 1st rounder which is reasonable) and shutting down a healthy Deng and Mozgov.

    So is the issue that we want to reincarnate the entire NBA draft because we want to see guys like Deng and Mozgov playing on bad teams? I mean, the players on the floor aren't tanking they are competing, and the coaches are also. I just don't see a problem here. Hinkie's tanking went so well that the owner cut it off halfway through......are we really afraid of teams and young aspiring GM's lining up to set their careers on fire again? The talk that the lottery is creating tanking is a bunch of bs......the talk of the lottery creating tanking is click bait headlines for social media clicks.

    To answer your question, we are always going to have awful teams. In the two years before the draft lottery began in 1985, the Pacers compiled a 46-118 record. In '83 the Rockets won 14 games. In '82, Cleveland went 15-67 and San Diego 17-65.....the year before that Dallas won 17 and Detroit 21..........man, I can't wait to go back to when front offices didn't "tank" (sarcasm).
     
  32. bosox79

    bosox79 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,330
    I don't really think there is a problem either but there are enough people in this thread who think it is.

    edit: Personally, I'm going to watch the games regardless so I'm not who the NBA is worried about.
     
  33. cheech13

    cheech13 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    433
    When did "tanking" as a concept become such a hot issue in NBA circles because I feel like it's being discussed ad nausea these days, but I've been watching the NBA for close to 30 year and I can't remember a time when bad teams didn't shut it down at the end of the season to improve their draft position. Is this just a thing now because the Sixers were so egregious in flaunting that they were attempting to game the system by being intentionally horrendous? I just don't know what they are trying to fix. The NBA draft is designed to redistribute talent to the worst teams. You can't legislate out teams being bad and you can't "fix" a draft when it's sole purpose is creating parity.
     
  34. bowiac

    bowiac I've been living a lie. Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,669
    You ask what the issue they're trying to fix, but you've nailed it! It's literally the Sixers issue. The NBA always had a goofy incentive structure around this, but for whatever reason, teams were not willing to openly game the system this way.

    I'm not sure lottery reform is really necessary to be honest however - the NBA stepping in, and effectively firing Hinkie may have solved this issue already.
     
  35. joe dokes

    joe dokes Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,408
    I agree with this. Either you equalize the lottery / disincentivize losing so much that it doesn't help the shitty teams, or you have live with incentivized losing.

    I guess the NBA has always tried to keep losing on purpose in check at least a little. The earliest draft I paid attention to was the Kareem draft in 69. Phoenix had 16 wins (last in west), but still had to have a coin flip with Milwaukee (last in east) even though the Bucks won 27. Bucks won the flip. I dont think Phoenix was trying to lose, though. Just an expansion team, like Milwaukee.

    The difference with the 76ers is that it was a long-term plan of losing. I think one season (or part of a season that's already off the rails) doesn't raise any concerns.
     

Share This Page