Down with tanking, play to win!

[dhellers]

Its taken as recieved wisdom that a best  overarching NBA strategy is to either be very good, or be terrible. That anything in between is purgatory, a realm of frustration and a paucity of meaningful games.
 
Ainge, with the trades of the summer, seems to be investing heavily on the "being terrible" strategy, with reciept of  a slew of draft picks amplifying the benefits of terrible.  For this strategy to make sense, the fan should hope that the Celtics lose as many games as possible over the next few years, especially this year given for what is projected to be a deep draft.
 
But what if the fan does not like such an approach? If he considers that being lousy doesn't guarantee a top 2 pick, and it isn't easy to be the worst when there are a half dozen other teams adopting the same approach. Moreover, a high draft pick doesn't guarantee a star, much less a franchise defining super star.
 
Imprtantly, tanking doesn't seem proper and right. Call it superstition, but tanking doesn't seem to work for the Celtics. Or call it karma, where tanking just seems wrong. Or call it unpleasantly disjointing, rooting for your team to be terrible.
 
And the last few games with a few wins feels good.
 
So who wishes to throw cleverness into the sewer, and wish for a winning season, regardless of draft consequences?

 

[bowiac]

This has been covered in many threads, but there are a lot of people, including people inside the game, who don't believe tanking is the correct way to rebuild.
 
The important part of a rebuild is a willingness to bottom out - it's not a desire to. You are willing to trade pieces who won't be part of your team 5 years now from now for pieces who might be. You don't throw away games for the sake of additional losses by themselves however.
 
The Celtics don't really have much of a choice sadly - I don't really believe they have the talent to avoid a high lottery pick even if they wanted to.

 

[radsoxfan]

I agree with Bowiac.... tanking is not the primary goal. The strategy is making every decision with an eye towards the future (2015-2018), even if a by-product of those decisions could make the team worse in the short term.  But I have never felt Ainge or Stevens would actively try to make the current team worse, or purposely lose games. And I'm totally fine with that.
 
At this point in the season, I think they want to develop what they have, see which young players could be part of the future, and see if they can get some value in trades for some of their vets.  In the process they want to win games.  The only time I could see them even semi-tanking is at the end of the year once the playoffs are not a possibility.  Even then, I don't expect them to purposely try to lose games. But I could see them hold some injured players out longer than needed and let the rookies take their lumps. 
 
FWIW, the Indiana Pacers are one of the best teams in the NBA, and made up of players acquired by trade, FA, or non-top 5 picks.  Paul George, drafted #10, is their only lottery player.  Tanking for the #1 pick, or even a top 5 pick, usually doesn't work out well.

 

[Brickowski]

The problem with tanking is that you minimize the value of the players you have in order to maximize the value of a player you have a 25% chance of getting (in the best case).  You can make an argument for tanking in a draft that contains a Tim Duncan or Lebron James. But in the many drafts, the best players come after pick 15.
 
Dave Berri pisses people off every time he posts, which usually means he has just slaughtered some sacred NBA cow (e.g. Alan Iverson). See: 
http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/losing-is-not-a-winning-strategy-in-the-nba/
 
Also see: http://freakonomics.com/2012/06/05/michael-jordan-the-bobcats-and-running-the-lottery-treadmill/

 

[nighthob]

Ultimately you need a franchise player to compete, sometimes you get lucky and guys like Pierce and George slip to 10. Mostly they don't. I've always said that it's mostly a bad idea because you have to have the good fortune to suck in the right season. Thankfully this is one of them.

 

[Brickowski]

Ultimately you need a franchise player to compete, sometimes you get lucky and guys like Pierce and George slip to 10. Mostly they don't. I've always said that it's mostly a bad idea because you have to have the good fortune to suck in the right season. Thankfully this is one of them.

I don't see a clearcut franchise player in this draft.
 
If  you look at Beri's numbers, the takeaway is that usually you need to become "pretty good" before you can become "very good."  It's ironic that the Celtics championship in 2008 came after a draft in which the tanking philosophy completely failed, and instead of getting Oden or Durant, the C's had to settle for Green.

 

[repole]

I don't see a clearcut franchise player in this draft.
 
If  you look at Beri's numbers, the takeaway is that usually you need to become "pretty good" before you can become "very good."  It's ironic that the Celtics championship in 2008 came after a draft in which the tanking philosophy completely failed, and instead of getting Oden or Durant, the C's had to settle for Green.

 
You're in the vast minority if you think Wiggins isn't a franchise player. This is widely regarded as one of the best drafts since 2003, and unlike 2008, is considered rather deep as well. I'd also add that if the Celtics don't tank in 2008, and get say, the 10th pick, that Ray Allen deal doesn't happen. Which means that KG deal doesn't happen. But tanking when you already have a star who happens to be hurt is a different story than tanking when you don't. I'd add that there's this weird fascination with the #1 pick, tanking isn't just about getting that #1 spot, it's about maximizing your chances to land a pick early in the draft and have a higher chance at landing a difference maker.
 
As for Berri's article, there's a difference between teams that are bad because they are mismanaged, and teams that are bad because it's part of the plan going forward. Yeah, it's less likely to win 54+ games 2 years after winning under 30 games than 2 years after winning 30+ games, but that says as much about teams that have systematic failures in their management as it does about tanking being a good or bad idea. Then there's the obvious concept that a team that wins 30+ games is almost undoubtedly more talented than one that wins less than 30, and yeah, being more talented is typically a good thing. 
 
If the Celtics could trade nothing for a one year rent a player (imagine Paul Pierce on an expiring contract, without any of the emotional ties we all have to Pierce) right now, would you? What would it accomplish long term? If Gerald Wallace hits 10 game winning shots for the team this year (but remains his mediocre, unmovable contract self the rest of the game), do we magically have a better chance of winning 54+ in a couple years? From a "what's best for this team's long term future" stand point, what exactly did Jeff Green hitting that 3 last night accomplish?

 

[nighthob]

I don't see a clearcut franchise player in this draft.
 
If  you look at Beri's numbers, the takeaway is that usually you need to become "pretty good" before you can become "very good."  It's ironic that the Celtics championship in 2008 came after a draft in which the tanking philosophy completely failed, and instead of getting Oden or Durant, the C's had to settle for Green.

 

I'm not sure how it failed as that #5 pick netted them Kevin Garnett's (then) best friend in the NBA, which allowed them to later turn Al Jefferson into Garnett. Seems to me it worked out perfectly. Far better than anyone had a right to hope for. As for the first point we're going to have to agree to disagree because as of now I see two franchise cornerstone players and two strong possibles, and another 3-4 all star types that you need if you're going to be any good at all. Lastly, Boston really didn't have a choice here, after last season indications were that Garnett was retiring which meant that the party was over anyway. Once they cashed out Rivers, Pierce and Garnett there was no option to be pretty good.

 

[Brickowski]

 
You're in the vast minority if you think Wiggins isn't a franchise player. 
 
From a "what's best for this team's long term future" stand point, what exactly did Jeff Green hitting that 3 last night accomplish?

The jury is out on Wiggins.  He barely weighs 200 lbs and he's 19 years old.  He's 6'7" or 6'8,"  not 7'0."  With all due respect, the folks who have convinced themselves that Wiggins is a surefire franchse player are jumping to very premature conclusions.  He may be that player, but it's way too early to tell.
 
Jeff Green's shot enhanced his trade value and made some young players fell pretty good about themselves.  Winning can be contagious.  I'm rooting for some Nets' injuries and hoping that their first rounders over the next 2-3 years are lotto picks.  Meanwhile, I want the Celtics to win as many as possible.  As I've said, play the kids, try to win and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Brickowski]

 
 

I'm not sure how it failed as that #5 pick netted them Kevin Garnett's (then) best friend in the NBA, which allowed them to later turn Al Jefferson into Garnett. Seems to me it worked out perfectly. Far better than anyone had a right to hope for. As for the first point we're going to have to agree to disagree because as of now I see two franchise cornerstone players and two strong possibles, and another 3-4 all star types that you need if you're going to be any good at all. Lastly, Boston really didn't have a choice here, after last season indications were that Garnett was retiring which meant that the party was over anyway. Once they cashed out Rivers, Pierce and Garnett there was no option to be pretty good.

 

Well if they had selected Durant, would they have done the same thing?
 
They were lucky.  Also, they had one young player that McHale coveted (Jefferson, a #15 pick), Pierce, plus some decent young players who formed enough of a bench to make a championship possible.. 

 

[knucklecup]

Have you seen Wiggins this year? He looks like a different person this year in comparison to the high school vids I've seen.

 

[Brickowski]

Brick - did you see Wiggins? He looks like a different person this year in comparison to the high school vids I've seen.

I've seen the highlight clips on the draft websites.  That's all.  He looks good.  But a franchise player?  I'm not there yet.

 

[repole]

The jury is out on Wiggins.  He barely weighs 200 lbs and he's 19 years old.  He's 6'7" or 6'8,"  not 7'0."  With all due respect, the folks who have convinced themselves that Wiggins is a surefire franchse player are jumping to very premature conclusions.  He may be that player, but it's way too early to tell.
 
Jeff Green's shot enhanced his trade value and made some young players fell pretty good about themselves.  Winning can be contagious.  I'm rooting for some Nets' injuries and hoping that their first rounders over the next 2-3 years are lotto picks.  Meanwhile, I want the Celtics to win as many as possible.  As I've said, play the kids, try to win and let the chips fall where they may.

 
LeBron was pretty skinny entering the league too. There's no such thing as a surefire franchise player, even LeBron could have blown out his knee a few times and never made it, but Wiggins is about as close to that point as you're going to get.
 
GMs around the league aren't going to care that Jeff Green made a shot against the Heat during the first month of the season. It does essentially nothing to his trade value. I'm not going to get into the "winning can be contagious" thing.
 
The kids should be trying to win, absolutely, but that doesn't mean it's what you should be rooting for. I enjoyed the hell out of that Jeff Green shot, but I don't think it's very easy to justify that shot helping you in the future more than a loss would.

 

[Brickowski]

Well, If the Celtics are so devoid of talent that they will lost 60+ games no matter what they do, then tanking is not an issue.  They will lose even if they try to win.
 
I'm not rooting for wins or losses.  I'm rooting for good basketball.  The problem is, if they play the right way, they will win far more than most folks here expect.  But that's ok as far as I'm concerned.  There are more ways to build a foundation for a championship team than the draft, and in fact most teams have done it by getting great players who were not top 10 picks (Ginobili, Parker, Bryant) and then adding key players through free agency or trades (Shaq, Garnett, Gasol, LeBron, etc.).
 
BTW I was at UMass Boston in 2003 to see LeBron's first pro game.  He was 230 lbs plus (and ripped) even at age 18. 

 

[Major Offense]

“Tanking” is too much of a catch-all term.  Some teams are going to just be awful.  Others will underperform due to developing players, injuries or being cursed by whatever BABIP-style deity the NBA has.  Awful teams can’t flip the switch with the top pick (not even with LeBron or Shaq).  But a team that has potential to be better or is just waiting for an injured star to return (e.g. David Robinson with the Spurs) can actually make the leap to playoff team without waiting five years.
 
I still firmly believe this year is their best chance to underperform/tank:  Rondo’s out, they’ve got that trade exception (enough to get a Jeff Green/Omer Asik level supporting star), and guys like Sully, Olynyk, and Faverani are still developing.  They’re still bad enough to be in the lottery - add a high pick in a top-heavy draft to this team and I think you’ve got the makings of a contender.
 
Still happy to root for the scrappy, hardworking kids that manage to screw up the tank job.  Just saying it isn't a bad strategy if Danny ends up pulling the rug out from under them by the trade deadline.

 

[Brickowski]

It's all about good basketball.  If they continue to play as a team, Ainge will have to order them to tank, because there are precious few NBA teams that play sound fundamental basketball and the C's will win too many games.
 
Now if they start playing Bass and Crawford 35+ minutes a night, they're tanking-- although if Crawford continues to dive on the floor for loose balls, I may recant a bit in his case.

 

[repole]

Would never advocate mandated tanking that the players (or even coach) were told to follow through on. It should be a management strategy, not an on court strategy. I'm just fascinated with the concept of what fans (or team management), who's only interest is the long term success of the team, should be rooting for in those close, late game situations. It's a fun conversation.
 
On the LeBron note, he might be 220 here, just because he carries his weight well it seems, but clearly he's bulked up significantly since entering the league. Wiggins is capable of doing the same thing (though bulking up past a certain point for some guys isn't always a good idea).

 

[luckiestman]

How much will NBA players like playing for Stevens? Boston is not a FA destination for a host of reasons, but could some of that be overcome by the coach? The thing I see about Stevens so far that I really like is that most of the players are pretty much playing at or close to  their peak level. Maybe some players would like to play for that guy.
 
To me, it seems like Hayward would sign here tomorrow at market rate.

 

[Brickowski]

 
On the LeBron note, he might be 220 here, just because he carries his weight well it seems, but clearly he's bulked up significantly since entering the league. Wiggins is capable of doing the same thing (though bulking up past a certain point for some guys isn't always a good idea).

NBA draft net thought he was 6-8, 245 at age 18.http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/2003.html
 
Whether or not Wiggins can bulk up without losing quickness remains to be seen.

 

[IdiotKicker]

The other thing to remember is that this draft isn't just about Wiggins.  Wiggins is a stud, no doubt about it, but Jabari Parker and Julius Randle are going to be in the mix for that top spot as well.  Beyond them, there is a drop-off, but this is still going to be one of the deeper drafts in recent memory, especially after how week the 2013 draft was.
 
That being said, this Celtics team probably got lucky last night.  Remember when the 1997-98 Celtics beat the Bulls on opening night when Pitino took over and everyone thought it was a sign of things to come?  Not saying Stevens is Pitino, but this was the same type of performance.  This team is going to lose between 50-60 games and wind up squarely in the lottery, probably landing a top-5 pick.

 

[SoFloSoxFan]

Every opposing coach for the rest of the year is going to make sure their team knows that the Celtics beat Miami and not to take them lightly. 

 

[moly99]

Ultimately you need a franchise player to compete, sometimes you get lucky and guys like Pierce and George slip to 10. Mostly they don't. I've always said that it's mostly a bad idea because you have to have the good fortune to suck in the right season. Thankfully this is one of them.

 
Do the Spurs and Pacers get lucky with players, or do their players turn into stars because those teams do a good job developing their players and putting them in a system they can succeed in? I vote for at least half and half, with an edge toward the latter.
 

 

[nighthob]

 I'm rooting for some Nets' injuries and hoping that their first rounders over the next 2-3 years are lotto picks.  Meanwhile, I want the Celtics to win as many as possible.  As I've said, play the kids, try to win and let the chips fall where they may.

 
If it's a lotto pick that means the Hawks likely made the playoffs and will be swapping the pick out.

 

[nighthob]

Well if they had selected Durant, would they have done the same thing?
 
They were lucky.  

 
They were lucky to get an NBA all-star for a high draft pick? Isn't that sort of the point?

 

[nighthob]

 
Do the Spurs and Pacers get lucky with players, or do their players turn into stars because those teams do a good job developing their players and putting them in a system they can succeed in? I vote for at least half and half, with an edge toward the latter.
 

 
Well, the Spurs got lucky to land the #1 pick and get Duncan and have better European scouting than the opposition at a time when the European scouting wasn't very good. Those days, alas, are past. Once Duncan retires and Parker loses that first step "the system" won't save them. Put another way, "the system" is Duncan and Parker and the rest of the guys flourish because opponents are focused on those two. This was Doc's "system" for the 2008-2013 run. Garnett and Pierce drew the attention allowing the roleplayers to look good. Systems don't make players superstars, superstars, on the other hand, sure do make systems look good.
 
George, like Pierce, had a lot of fans in the scouting world coming out of college, the fear with him was that he was "too skinny to be a franchise player" (he was even skinnier than the 18 year old Wiggins when he came out). So GMs talked themselves out of him (much like they talked themselves out of Pierce because of concerns about his track athleticism). But those guys are the exceptions that bear out the rule. You either have to have a talent source that no one's sufficiently scouting (such as Europe or American high school/AAU in the 1990s) or be lucky enough to have a good player fall into your lap. I'd rather they not rely on luck. Because about the only insufficiently scouted place left is China and their hoops cupboard is still fairly bare.

 

[moly99]

 
Well, the Spurs got lucky to land the #1 pick and get Duncan and have better European scouting than the opposition at a time when the European scouting wasn't very good. Those days, alas, are past.

 
Well, look at Kawhi Leonard. He was the 15th pick in 2011 and wasn't a Euro. They DID get lucky with Duncan, but I don't think Parker, Ginobli and Leonard were products of luck.
 

George, like Pierce, had a lot of fans in the scouting world coming out of college, the fear with him was that he was "too skinny to be a franchise player" (he was even skinnier than the 18 year old Wiggins when he came out). So GMs talked themselves out of him (much like they talked themselves out of Pierce because of concerns about his track athleticism). But those guys are the exceptions that bear out the rule.

 
I can't agree. There are very few complete players in any draft, and a ton of guys with talent/athleticism that haven't put it all together as players (whether character concerns, physical issues or weaknesses in their game) by the time they make it to the NBA. The best run organizations do a good job of helping those players utilize their strengths and improve or negate their weaknesses.
 
I also can't fault people for disagreeing with me, though. I loved Andre Drummond as a draft prospect and think he shows that even franchise centers can be had outside the top 5. I think the Pistons are a better org than people give them credit for being, but . . . they also drafted Darko. Depending on your point of view Darko and Drummond either show that even well-run teams make mistakes or that whether picks turn out to be good or bad is random (from the point of view of GM's and fans.)

 

[southshoresoxfan]

The bass hate is a little mis-directed. He's actually playing well this season, and statistically is the best one on one defender in the NBA right now.  Not sure playing him more minutes than Humprhies or Sully is a huge downgrade.  The problem is the Cs outside of Rondo and maybe Green are a team full of good NBA bench guys.  They're always going to have 5 guys on the floor who are competent and play hard, and most of these guys are (rightfully so) looking at this season as a way to boost their own value.  Stevens has them playing hard for 48min, which in this league, will win you 30-35 games even with minimal talent.  
 
Thankfully they have boat loads of assets between the trade exception, Humphries expiring, Wallace's contract (which will be 2/20 come the deadline, and if hes perceived to be playing well, a contender could use him.  He'd fit in nicely in Chicago who is struggling for wing production off the bench) and all of the 1st rounders.  Danny still has a lot of chips to play with.

 

[Infield Infidel]

I'd really like to see Adam Gold's "Cure for Tanking" take hold, especially in the NBA
 
synopsis - Draft order is determined by how many wins teams have after they are mathematically eliminated for the playoffs. The team with the most wins after they are eliminated gets the first pick. Slide 12 at the link above shows an example. 

 

[Jer]

I'd really like to see Adam Gold's "Cure for Tanking" take hold, especially in the NBA
 
synopsis - Draft order is determined by how many wins teams have after they are mathematically eliminated for the playoffs. The team with the most wins after they are eliminated gets the first pick. Slide 12 at the link above shows an example. 

That looks like a series of exhibits, rather than a proposal. Is there a companion write-up for this?
 
Is "most wins" a net total or winning percentage? I'm assuming the former because it gives terrible teams more time to accumulate wins.
 
On the surface this seems like an improvement on the current dynamic. Although it would clearly favor a team like the Celtics who have an injury to their best player to start the year. Teams could of course game their rosters/decisions to take advantage of the system, but the marginal draft position improvement would be difficult to justify.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Here's the youtube of the presentation on the Sloan website http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=5496
 
And yes it's the net total of wins, and exactly for the reason stated, it gives bad teams more time to accumulate wins
 
Teams could still tank early and then go hard toward the end of the season, but it would reduce tanking in the aggregate. And fans could root for their teams to win at the end of the season instead of hoping they lose. And early season ticket sales are usually better for bad teams.

 

[repole]

 
Well, look at Kawhi Leonard. He was the 15th pick in 2011 and wasn't a Euro. They DID get lucky with Duncan, but I don't think Parker, Ginobli and Leonard were products of luck.
 
 
I can't agree. There are very few complete players in any draft, and a ton of guys with talent/athleticism that haven't put it all together as players (whether character concerns, physical issues or weaknesses in their game) by the time they make it to the NBA. The best run organizations do a good job of helping those players utilize their strengths and improve or negate their weaknesses.
 
I also can't fault people for disagreeing with me, though. I loved Andre Drummond as a draft prospect and think he shows that even franchise centers can be had outside the top 5. I think the Pistons are a better org than people give them credit for being, but . . . they also drafted Darko. Depending on your point of view Darko and Drummond either show that even well-run teams make mistakes or that whether picks turn out to be good or bad is random (from the point of view of GM's and fans.)

 
Drummond was more of a fall in your lap type pick, don't give the Pistons too much credit there.
 
That said, Dumars has done a nice job drafting in that mid to late lotto role the past few years, but he's made some terrible roster moves. Having to give up a pick with limited protection to get rid of Ben Gordon (after signing him, along with Villanueva, to awful deals) is bordering on unforgivable. They also probably went all in too early with those Smith and Jennings moves. They're now locked into a roster, that while pretty talented, doesn't fit together at all, and is entirely dependent on someone like Smith to make the unlikely leap to offensive competency.

 

[Brickowski]

The other thing to remember is that this draft isn't just about Wiggins.  Wiggins is a stud, no doubt about it, but Jabari Parker and Julius Randle are going to be in the mix for that top spot as well.  Beyond them, there is a drop-off, but this is still going to be one of the deeper drafts in recent memory, especially after how week the 2013 draft was.
 
That being said, this Celtics team probably got lucky last night.  

Let me address the second point first.  They were incredibly lucky to win the game.  But it was good basketball during the first 47 minutes, not luck, that put them in a position to get lucky.  Jeff Green played excellent defense on LeBron, etc.  It also helped that Bass was in early foul trouble and played only 15 minutes.
 
Now as to the first point, every draft will have mistakes at the top and gems at the bottom.  Why won't Alex Poythress, currently projected at #29 by DraftExpress, be every bit as good as Parker or Randle?  Poythress is just as big, just as athletic, and is a better defender than either Parker or Randle.  Poythress also has a 3.9 GPA.   Or how about going very deep into the draft to look at Wang Zhelin, a 19 year old 7 footer projected to go at #58 who had the best overall game of any player at the Nike Eurocamp.  He's no stringbean either, at 250 lbs.Then there's Semaj Christon, the Xavier sophomore who is quick on quick and projected to go at #24.  The list goes on.
 
This is not a year in which the players currently at the top of the draft boards are a lock to be the best players.

 

[seantoo]

I'd really like to see Adam Gold's "Cure for Tanking" take hold, especially in the NBA
 
synopsis - Draft order is determined by how many wins teams have after they are mathematically eliminated for the playoffs. The team with the most wins after they are eliminated gets the first pick. Slide 12 at the link above shows an example. 

Great solution! I'd love to see it universally adopted across the major sports.

 

[Brickowski]

Great solution! I'd love to see it universally adopted across the major sports.

But doesn't this reward teams that tank in order to become mathematically eliminated as soon as possible?   If I'm eliminated with 20 games left to play, I have more opportunity to pile up post-elimination wins than a team that is eliminated with only 10 games to play. 
 
You could reward the team with the best winning percentage after being eliminated, but what about the team that is eliminated with only one game to play.  If it wins the next game it's winning percentage is 1.000.   
 
IMHO a better solution is to give the #1 pick to the non-playoff team with the best record, #2 to the team with the next best record, and so on.  That way, being a little worse than average is rewarded more than being lousy.  My guess is that the records of the non-playoff teams would tend to bunch up in the high 20s and low 30's under that system.
 
Or how about just eliminating the draft altogether?  That's what FIBA does.  Of course in Europe the major teams all have junior teams to develop talent internally, as opposed to using colleges as a de facto minor league.

 

[Infield Infidel]

The interesting thing with college and the draft is that the NBA is pushing teams that don't already have one-to-one NBDL arrangements to get them. I think 17-20 teams already do. Every team might have an NBDL affiliate by 2020. If that happens, it will eventually be a lot more like MLB than it is now, and the relationship between college and the NBA should loosen even more. 
 
I don't think they'll get to the point where they'll have academies, but I could see them allowing 16 year-olds to get their GED and join the DL, or signing players out of high school.
 
Just looked it up, 14 NBA teams have direct affiliates, and 3 NBDL teams are independent

 

[radsoxfan]

Basketball is the sport with the biggest potential problem, since there is often such a steep drop-off between a top pick and a pick outside of the top 10.  Plus, one dominant player makes such a big difference in basketball compared to other sports.
 
I dont like the post-playoff elimination wins idea.  Just creates tanking issues early in the season. 
 
The current system is fine I think, as even being the worst team only gives you a 25% chance of the top pick.  That seems reasonable to me, and should discourage tanking to some degree.  
 
You could also make it a flat percentage across all non-playoff teams. No incentive to tank at all. But then you get to the argument, is it better to be a 7/8 seed in the playoffs, or have about a 7% chance at the top pick (and a pretty decent chance at a top 3 pick). In addition, the truly bad teams would get the help  they need even less often than they currently do.

 

[Infield Infidel]

There are already tanking issues early in the season. I'd rather a team tank for 50 games than for 80 games. At least then the fans can root for their team to win at the end of the season, just like any other team, and the team should be able to sell more tickets at the end of the season. 

 

[radsoxfan]

There are already tanking issues early in the season. I'd rather a team tank for 50 games than for 80 games. At least then the fans can root for their team to win at the end of the season, just like any other team, and the team should be able to sell more tickets at the end of the season. 

 
I think the overt on-court tanking is much less dramatic than people assume, particularly early in the season.  All these teams are trying to win right now, though team management admittedly may not be going all out to put the best teams on the floor.  Tanking for 50-60 games to get eliminated first would be uglier than what we have now. In that system, losing has a more tangible benefit than the current weighted lottery system.
 
If you want to do something along the lines of what you are describing, I would probably just pick a date late in the season to start counting wins so every team has an even playing field.  Make the last 20 games of the year the competition for draft position.  That way, all teams are either winning to get into the playoffs, or winning to improve their draft slot.  Losing basically never helps (though I suppose, if you want to have a top 5 pick instead of being the 8 seed, you still might try losing the last game or two depending how the numbers shake out) 
 
Unfortunately with that system, the truly terrible teams that can't win regardless of their motivation level would be in trouble. 

 

[Jer]

There are already tanking issues early in the season. I'd rather a team tank for 50 games than for 80 games. At least then the fans can root for their team to win at the end of the season, just like any other team, and the team should be able to sell more tickets at the end of the season. 

 
Just to build on this. I think it'd be challenging to tank to an extreme level early and then completely change the dynamic of your team to be winners after being eliminated from the playoffs. Furthermore, your eliminated teams are going to be playing "clicking" playoff teams that are jockeying for home court advantage (think Miami sleeping walking through the 1st half).

 

[nighthob]

 
Well, look at Kawhi Leonard. He was the 15th pick in 2011 and wasn't a Euro. They DID get lucky with Duncan, but I don't think Parker, Ginobli and Leonard were products of luck.

 
Leonard was also not a late first round pick but a nice player taken in the top half of the draft. He isn't close to a cornerstone player, though. Parker and Ginobli are really covered by the "they had better European scouting when European scouting wasn't very good" point. Unfortunately the days of finding cornerstone players in Europe with late second round picks are past. Because not only do all teams have European scouting departments these days (well, the Clippers probably don't), but the NBA and even private bureaus exist to provide data on players playing there. The only area left that isn't really covered thoroughly is China, so maybe you could land a bargain there. Unfortunately there haven't been a lot of Chinese all stars yet, and it might be a while before they really start producing players of a quality where having excellent Chinese scouting is an advantage. And it wouldn't help Boston as the situation there isn't going to change between now and June.
 
Now, some Europeans are still available late due to contract issues (such as Splitter, or Chicago's yet to be signed Nikola Mrotic), but again you have to hope that some yet-to-declare cornerstone player in Europe signs a real long term deal before his age 22 season that will delay his NBA entry by 3+ years so that no one in the top half of the draft will want to use a pick on him. And even then Splitter has turned into a roleplayer and no one knows whether or not Mirotic will be worth it. But the point is that if your rebuilding plan is centered on those sorts of lottery ticket chances you're going nowhere fast.
 

 
 

I can't agree. There are very few complete players in any draft, and a ton of guys with talent/athleticism that haven't put it all together as players (whether character concerns, physical issues or weaknesses in their game) by the time they make it to the NBA. The best run organizations do a good job of helping those players utilize their strengths and improve or negate their weaknesses.

 
Guys that have athleticism but no skill rarely magically morph into cornerstone players. Players do grow their games, but for the most part you're just refining what's there. If guys haven't developed proper shooting mechanics by age 18 the odds of them magically developing them later are pretty close to nil.
 

 
 
I also can't fault people for disagreeing with me, though. I loved Andre Drummond as a draft prospect and think he shows that even franchise centers can be had outside the top 5. 

 
Drummond is the classic case of a guy with warts that scared people who slid as a result. The rap on him was that he wasn't willing to work at being an NBA player so a lot of GMs talked themselves into safer picks. Of course, when you're stuck with a mid lottery pick you swing for the fences and hope for the best. Much like Indiana did when they drafted the 6'8" 205 Paul George. He could shoot and jump out of the gym, but people worried that he was too skinny for the SF spot and not quick enough for the SG spot. So teams ahead of them looking for wing help went with "safer" picks. But at the end of the day, if your team sucks, your odds of landing that cornerstone player increase the earlier you draft and in good years. Some drafts are so bad that everything's a crapshoot. Thankfully for Boston this one isn't.

 

[ifmanis5]

I'm all for tanking, especially in this draft. Tank away. But beating Miami was fantastic. Let's just beat Miami (and the Knicks and Lakers) and lose to everyone else.

 

[Brickowski]

The interesting thing with college and the draft is that the NBA is pushing teams that don't already have one-to-one NBDL arrangements to get them. I think 17-20 teams already do. Every team might have an NBDL affiliate by 2020. If that happens, it will eventually be a lot more like MLB than it is now, and the relationship between college and the NBA should loosen even more. 
 
I don't think they'll get to the point where they'll have academies, but I could see them allowing 16 year-olds to get their GED and join the DL, or signing players out of high school.
 
Just looked it up, 14 NBA teams have direct affiliates, and 3 NBDL teams are independent

IMHO there's a solution if the NCAA and the NBAPA will cooperate.  An NBA team can sign a 16 year-old, but the money is deferred or put in trust (as used to be the case with skiers and other "quasi-professional" athletes who wanted to compete in the Olympics).  There would be a cap on how much deferred compensation a team could pay, to avoid absurd bidding wars. 
 
After graduating from high school the player could go directly to the D-league or go to college.  If he chose college, the NBA team would pay full tuition, room,  board and a stipend.  The player could elect to leave college after reaching age 20 (which gives the colleges the services of the player for an additional year as opposed to allowing players to enter the draft at age 19), or stay until he graduated.  What the player could not do without the team's permission is go to Europe (like Brandon Jennings, for example).
 
You would also have to modify the rookie salary scale.  A team would be allowed to add "x" rookies a year at a "tier 1" salary, y players at a "tier 2" salary and the rest for the minimum.  The more the team paid, the longer it could lock the player up.  Players taking the minimum would become free agents in a year absent an extension.
 
Using this type of approach you might eliminate the draft, or limit it to second tier players for whom it is not worth tanking.

 

[Jer]

IMHO there's a solution if the NCAA and the NBAPA will cooperate.  An NBA team can sign a 16 year-old, but the money is deferred or put in trust (as used to be the case with skiers and other "quasi-professional" athletes who wanted to compete in the Olympics).  There would be a cap on how much deferred compensation a team could pay, to avoid absurd bidding wars. 
 
After graduating from high school the player could go directly to the D-league or go to college.  If he chose college, the NBA team would pay full tuition, room,  board and a stipend.  The player could elect to leave college after reaching age 20 (which gives the colleges the services of the player for an additional year as opposed to allowing players to enter the draft at age 19), or stay until he graduated.  What the player could not do without the team's permission is go to Europe (like Brandon Jennings, for example).
 
You would also have to modify the rookie salary scale.  A team would be allowed to add "x" rookies a year at a "tier 1" salary, y players at a "tier 2" salary and the rest for the minimum.  The more the team paid, the longer it could lock the player up.  Players taking the minimum would become free agents in a year absent an extension.
 
Using this type of approach you might eliminate the draft, or limit it to second tier players for whom it is not worth tanking.

 
So take a guy like Andrew Wiggins. If I'm understanding you correctly, he'd be signed for the max compensation by the team of his choice. Isn't this just another rich get richer scenario?
 
I like the development aspect of your proposal, but would rather see it linked to a system that encouraged parity.

 

[Brickowski]

 
So take a guy like Andrew Wiggins. If I'm understanding you correctly, he'd be signed for the max compensation by the team of his choice. Isn't this just another rich get richer scenario?
 
I like the development aspect of your proposal, but would rather see it linked to a system that encouraged parity.

Right, but the max deferred compensation he could receive at age 16 would be capped, and the number of 16 year olds a team could sign would be capped. "Sexy" teams like the Heat or the Lakers would have an advantage, but they already have an advantage when players hit free agency.
 
Isn't locking them up at 16 already how things work in Europe, and how major league baseball teams already operate in the DR?

 

[The Social Chair]

The jury is out on Wiggins.  He barely weighs 200 lbs and he's 19 years old.  He's 6'7" or 6'8,"  not 7'0."  With all due respect, the folks who have convinced themselves that Wiggins is a surefire franchse player are jumping to very premature conclusions.  He may be that player, but it's way too early to tell.

 
 
I watched the last Kansas game and one of things that will be interesting to keep an eye on this season is his motor. He seemed passive in a Jeff Green kind of way. It was just one game obviously but it's something to watch for.

 

[Mloaf71]

Unfortunately with that system, the truly terrible teams that can't win regardless of their motivation level would be in trouble. 

 
In my opinion, this would drive better overall team management from the front office and coaches.  We shouldn't accept that teams will be truly terrible and can't win any games regardles of motivation.
 

IMHO there's a solution if the NCAA and the NBAPA will cooperate.  An NBA team can sign a 16 year-old, but the money is deferred or put in trust (as used to be the case with skiers and other "quasi-professional" athletes who wanted to compete in the Olympics).  There would be a cap on how much deferred compensation a team could pay, to avoid absurd bidding wars. 
 
After graduating from high school the player could go directly to the D-league or go to college.  If he chose college, the NBA team would pay full tuition, room,  board and a stipend.  The player could elect to leave college after reaching age 20 (which gives the colleges the services of the player for an additional year as opposed to allowing players to enter the draft at age 19), or stay until he graduated.  What the player could not do without the team's permission is go to Europe (like Brandon Jennings, for example).
 
You would also have to modify the rookie salary scale.  A team would be allowed to add "x" rookies a year at a "tier 1" salary, y players at a "tier 2" salary and the rest for the minimum.  The more the team paid, the longer it could lock the player up.  Players taking the minimum would become free agents in a year absent an extension.
 
Using this type of approach you might eliminate the draft, or limit it to second tier players for whom it is not worth tanking.

 
Wouldn't this system cause NBA teams to link up with certain colleges and drive all of their early signings there thus hurting the college game?  I enjoy watching NCAA games more than NBA games so I think this wouldn't be an optimum choice.  We already all think college coaches are slimy when it comes to recruiting, this might make it worse.

 

[nighthob]

 
 
I watched the last Kansas game and one of things that will be interesting to keep an eye on this season is his motor. He seemed passive in a Jeff Green kind of way. It was just one game obviously but it's something to watch for.

 
This is the only real knock on him, people wonder if he's aggressive enough to be an alpha scorer. There's no question about his "polish" as he's one of those rare players that can score from anywhere on the floor. The question is will he assert himself over opponents. We know that Randall can/does and Parker is off to a nice start. So it's a good year to finish with a top 5 pick. Because this is the year to pick up that guy.

 

[nighthob]

 
In my opinion, this would drive better overall team management from the front office and coaches.  We shouldn't accept that teams will be truly terrible and can't win any games regardles of motivation.

 
No, what he's saying is that if you ended up in a position like the 2014 Celtics you're kind of screwed. Shitty teams denied high draft choices will tend to remain shitty teams and never escape lottery hell. 

 

[Mloaf71]

 
No, what he's saying is that if you ended up in a position like the 2014 Celtics you're kind of screwed. Shitty teams denied high draft choices will tend to remain shitty teams and never escape lottery hell. 

 
Agreed.  But shouldn't the onus be on Ainge to make them not shitty?  ie Not trade the entire roster to create a land of misfit toys
 
If that system existed the Celtics would have kept Pierce and KG and attempted to make a run at it with less risk.  If something happened they may have just missed the playoffs and ended up with an OK pick.
 
This would have led to a potentially more enjoyable season for C's fans.

 

[Koufax]

So you would rather see KG and PP unable to do what they used to do, getting gassed on back to back games, with an unimpressive supporting cast (because their salaries prevent any more high-cost signings and nobody is going to take a discount to play with those aging stars), rather than see a jumble of young players struggling to find a mix with a new coach and a treasure trove of draft picks coming along?   We have different tastes in basketball.