Draft Idea

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Brickowski said:
I don't favor removing the cap on individual salaries.  The NBA is too star-centric as it is, and the bidding wars for the very best players would result in more tanking, not less, as teams cleared salaries in hopes of signing a Lebron James or Kevin Durant.  The current rules already permit veteran stars like Kobe to earn in excess of 30M annually.  That's enough in a league with a 60M cap (and a 71M de facto hard cap).
 
You're missing the flipside of the equation though.  If you want a Lebron you have to completely decimate your team, thats a huge amount of risk to take.  And it wouldnt be tanking aka trying to lose games, it would be trying to clear your cap space which would also result in a reduced FA market which isnt a bad thing for the NBA.  The first few years would be very strange where teams would be looking to get $30M under the cap, but after just a few offseasons of utter failure when teams do that I think teams would think long and hard about doing that.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Any change as to the way the draft is conducted or any change to the salary structure, has to have the effect of reducing tanking.  The NBA is destroying its own product, like a snake that eats its own tail.  Convince me that removing the cap on individual salaries will give teams less incentive to tank, and I'll be happy to go along.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Brickowski said:
Any change as to the way the draft is conducted or any change to the salary structure, has to have the effect of reducing tanking.  The NBA is destroying its own product, like a snake that eats its own tail.  Convince me that removing the cap on individual salaries will give teams less incentive to tank, and I'll be happy to go along.
 
wutang112878 said:
 
You're missing the flipside of the equation though.  If you want a Lebron you have to completely decimate your team, thats a huge amount of risk to take.  And it wouldnt be tanking aka trying to lose games, it would be trying to clear your cap space which would also result in a reduced FA market which isnt a bad thing for the NBA.  The first few years would be very strange where teams would be looking to get $30M under the cap, but after just a few offseasons of utter failure when teams do that I think teams would think long and hard about doing that.
 
I just illustrated the how for you
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
I guess I missed it.  Eliminating the cap on individual salaries does nothing that I can see to alleviate tanking to get better draft picks.  Plus it is very possible that some dumb owners and GMs will decimate their rosters to go after that big star who will put fannies in the seats and generate additional revenue from advertising, luxury boxes, jersey sales and all the rest.  We've seen it before.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Honestly, I really think you guys are both emphasizing tanking far too much. For all the talk about how terrible it is, and how the NBA is "eating it's own tail", how many teams this year actually tanked? Philly. Boston. Utah. Who else? And which of those franchises is in a bad position currently? The sky isn't falling or anything. The product on the floor is still extremely strong.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Add Orlando and Milwaukee to the list.  Detroit and Sacramento may not have been trying to tank, but the result was about the same.  IMHO the product has deteriorated. 
If tanking isn't an issue, then I'd be happy to leave the draft lottery as is. 
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Brickowski said:
Add Orlando and Milwaukee to the list.  Detroit and Sacramento may not have been trying to tank, but the result was about the same.  IMHO the product has deteriorated. 
If tanking isn't an issue, then I'd be happy to leave the draft lottery as is. 
 
If Milwaukee was tanking, explain their offseason to me. And how was Orlando tanking? You realize there's a difference between being bad and tanking, right? They have a lot of young talent. It hasn't translated to wins. That doesn't mean they're taking.
 
Edit: And Detroit and Sacramento are terrible examples. Obviously both made major acquisitions in order to compete. That those acquisitions backfired is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Also, here's an article about Herb Kohl's opposition to tanking: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/209958411.html.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Well if I really wanted to compete, the last two "major acquisitions" I would make are Josh Smith and Rudy Gay.  Carmello would also be near the top of the acquisitions I would not make if I wanted to win.  Some folks might call what Sacramento did perfuming the pig, although Detroit's offseason was probably just bad judgment (which has cost Dumars his job).
 
Milwaukee sure had many injuries-- as did the Celtics. I don't think the Bucks were trying to win at all.  As for Orlando, maybe they were just bad, although Vucevic missed quite a few games with a "sore achilles" and letting Glenn Davis go to the Clippers for nothing was not a move designed to win games.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Brickowski said:
Well if I really wanted to compete, the last two "major acquisitions" I would make are Josh Smith and Rudy Gay.  Carmello would also be near the top of the acquisitions I would not make if I wanted to win.  Some folks might call what Sacramento did perfuming the pig, although Detroit's offseason was probably just bad judgment (which has cost Dumars his job).
 
Milwaukee sure had many injuries-- as did the Celtics. I don't think the Bucks were trying to win at all.  As for Orlando, maybe they were just bad, although Vucevic missed quite a few games with a "sore achilles" and letting Glenn Davis go to the Clippers for nothing was not a move designed to win games.
So Detroit and Sacramento were tanking when the acquired Smith and Gay respectively? Cool.

Also, now that I know that you define tanking as "not trying to win it all", it makes perfect sense that you feel it's an epidemic. 25 teams a year are tanking. Makes way more sense now.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Just a bunch of bad teams not trying very hard.  In some cases they start out with high hopes, but bag it midway through the season.  There are too many uncompetitive games, too much shoddy play.  The refs allow bad teams to win just enough home games to dupe their fans.  Maybe it's just me, but the NBA is at a crossroads right now.  Silver has his work cut out for him.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Brickowski said:
Well if I really wanted to compete, the last two "major acquisitions" I would make are Josh Smith and Rudy Gay.  Carmello would also be near the top of the acquisitions I would not make if I wanted to win.  Some folks might call what Sacramento did perfuming the pig, although Detroit's offseason was probably just bad judgment (which has cost Dumars his job).
 
Milwaukee sure had many injuries-- as did the Celtics. I don't think the Bucks were trying to win at all.  As for Orlando, maybe they were just bad, although Vucevic missed quite a few games with a "sore achilles" and letting Glenn Davis go to the Clippers for nothing was not a move designed to win games.
 
Your definition of tanking is really 'teams that made moves that I didnt like'.  I think Orlando is the poster child for rebuilding / asset development going into this season.  They have 3 'big' money deals in Jameer $8M, Afflalo $7.7M, and BigBaby $6M, so not terribly financially crippling.  Then except for these 3 guys, everyone that got any significant minutes was 23 or under.  I think thats as close as rebuilding / developing utopia as you possibly can get.  You need a few veterans to lead the way, and you can ship those 3 guys out as expirings. 
 
BigBaby however is not a mature player, I can almost guarantee you that he provided zero veteran leadership and it probably became evident that he was hurting rather than helping the young players.  But he isnt a real difference maker, sure maybe the lost 2 or 3 extra games without him there but thats a small sacrifice when your focus is on developing your youngesters.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
As I've said elsewhere, tanking is a rational strategy, and what Orlando did was rational.  But the fact remains that they were trying to develop youngsters, not to win games.  When the goal of a franchise is something other than to win every game, it diminishes the appeal of the product on the floor.  It's funny that the Spurs, who win 50+ every year, were fined for resting their veteran stars for the playoffs, but teams like Philadelphia incur no penalties whatsoever for being awful on purpose.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
The Spurs thing is because Stern has an axe to grind with them, Wojo had a great article on the subject where he, rightfully so, blasted Stern for the fine.  I agree that they never should have been fined but from a hypocritical standpoint, its 100% Sterns fault because he is one of the worst, angriest people on the planet.
 
If teams didnt focus their franchise on developing over winning games, how disgusting would that end up looking to their fans?  If you looked at a 5 year span for a 'rebuilding' team who was prioritizing winning above all development their moves would be completely baffling.  Sure you might skip a year or two of bottoming out, but instead fans might have to watch 5 years of having the franchise moving sideways and they would still be one of the worst teams in the league if all their fellow rebuilders were doing the same thing.  Bad teams are still going to look bad, its just going to be a different bad.  So I'm just not seeing what we are really accomplishing.  This year if the Celtics signed someone with the MLE and that player was taking minutes away from Sully and Olynyk it would cause me to watch less games because I would be incredibly frustrated with the teams approach
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Wutang, I don't disagree with anything you said.  You are focusing on the long-term benefits of developing young players.  I am focusing on the here-and-now, the immediate impact of that strategy.  The fact is that, because teams are more interested in developing youngsters or in jockeying for draft position, the games aren't as well played.  There are more dumb mistakes, more lopsided scores, etc.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Lets use Orlando as an example.  Would Orlando today at 23 wins look worse than Orlando trying maximize wins and getting to 35-38 wins?  Sure.  But look at the teams with win totals in that range this year: Knicks, Nuggets, Hawks, and Pelicans.  Do you really think the Orlando 'product' looked much worse than those teams?  To an astute basketball fan, you can probably see some slight differences but its not as if you watch the Nuggets or Knicks and say 'well thats how basketball should be played'.  Or if your team played Orlando one night and then the Pelicans the next, you really arent going to enjoy that 2nd game that much more.  Its like putting grey poupun on a McDonalds cheeseburger and thinking the product is going to get a lot better, its just not happening, the 'meat' of the hamburger and team is still gross
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
That helps, I cant make sense of it.  I was thinking he just hates #s in the 20s so he just cant bear to see those win totals.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
I don't like bad basketball.  It's like going to the ballet and watching second rate choreography and clumsy dancers.   The ballet master can tell me that he's developing his young talent, and that they will be much better next year.  But I didn't buy a ticket for next year.  I bought one for tonight's performance.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
Brickowski said:
I don't like bad basketball.  It's like going to the ballet and watching second rate choreography and clumsy dancers.   The ballet master can tell me that he's developing his young talent, and that they will be much better next year.  But I didn't buy a ticket for next year.  I bought one for tonight's performance.
 
Part of me feels the same way. Its why I can't stand watching college basketball, and only moderately tolerate it during March Madness. But in the NBA everyone is so skilled that even the bad teams (except maybe Philly) have someone who is worth watching.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Brickowski said:
I don't like bad basketball.  It's like going to the ballet and watching second rate choreography and clumsy dancers.   The ballet master can tell me that he's developing his young talent, and that they will be much better next year.  But I didn't buy a ticket for next year.  I bought one for tonight's performance.
 
How much better would the worst teams be if they prioritized wins this season over everything else?  Would seeing Orlando win 32 games really make you happy?  You still wouldnt be happy.  After 20 games you would forget about how bad they could have been and because they were one of the worst teams in the league you still wouldnt like that product.  I genuinely dont think the complete NBA 'product' you want can actually exist.  For every 52 win team you think is great, we have to have a 33 win team, its a zero sum game.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
What would make me happy is good basketball, or at least every team attempting to play good basketball.  Doesn't the NBA bill itself as the world's premier professional league?
 
As for not buying the product if you don't like it, I predict that if things continue to go as they are, it may become an issue in a number of NBA cities, if it isn't already.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
wutang112878 said:
So Orlando winning 32 games would make you happy? I really doubt it
That's irrelevant.  What matters is that if I decide to watch a game in which Orlando is playing (either in person or on TV) I don't want to say to myself, in the middle of the first quarter, "You know, there are some movies on cable that are alot more interesting than this shit."
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
wutang112878 said:
It's nearly impossible to have a coherent discussion with you sometimes
No, it's impossible to get it through your head that I  (and perhaps other consumers of professional sports) watch professional basketball to be entertained, and for no other reason.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
I asked you to tangibly describe what would make you happy and you evade the question and change the subject.  It would be an interesting discussion if we could define what you wanted in the NBA product and if its possible to get there, but when I ask those specific questions you go off topic
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Here's another way to say it: you don't want fans to be rooting for losses. I was getting up in the morning, checking the Celtics score, finding that they won, and being disappointed.

Same when watching the game. You don't want coaches, ownership or fans watching games hoping that the team loses. That's what the current system gives us.

And that leads to bad basketball too. Gerald Wallace was complaining this year that some guys didn't care. That affects the play on the floor even if you have all your developing youngsters playing. Removing the incentives to lose cannot hurt the quality of play.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
crystalline said:
Here's another way to say it: you don't want fans to be rooting for losses. I was getting up in the morning, checking the Celtics score, finding that they won, and being disappointed.

Same when watching the game. You don't want coaches, ownership or fans watching games hoping that the team loses. That's what the current system gives us.

And that leads to bad basketball too. Gerald Wallace was complaining this year that some guys didn't care. That affects the play on the floor even if you have all your developing youngsters playing. Removing the incentives to lose cannot hurt the quality of play.
 
Opinion: Gerald Wallace felt that some of his Celtics teammates didn't care about the outcome of games, and that led to bad basketball.
 
Fact: Playing Gerald Wallace at this stage in his career leads to bad basketball.
 

Curtis Pride

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
1,372
Watertown, MA
Another way to look at it as "bad basketball" is to have teams that are too dominant for too long. It also creates doormats that remain doormats for too long. Baseball, due to its long season and high variability of performance, have the best teams win 60% of their games and the worst win at least 40%. And very few teams stay down there for long, because through their farm systems, trades and free agents, their chances of becoming competitive again is not dependent on what talent they draft, so they have no incentive to lose or take gammes off. The 2012 Red Sox didn't lose 93 games because they were angling for a better draft pick, they lost because they were a dysfunctional team that played poorly that year. They weren't that much fun to watch.
 
The NFL has parity built in to their system: a hard salary cap, schedules that gives better teams more challenging opponents and lesser teams easier games, and a draft for rebuilding. Even the worst teams still have enough talented pieces to build into contenders in a fairly short time under the right leadership. Tanking really doesn't make much difference in their drafting strategies because they would need several productive drafts to contend instead of being able to turn around in just one.
 
The NHL is more like baseball in the sense that top-end can be neutralized by depth. This year's Bruins team can roll out 4 lines of offense and 3 pair of defense along with a top goalie. The Penguins have Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, and that might not be enough for a Stanley Cup run.
 
In the NBA, however, there's a prevailing wisdom that one player can have a tremendous impact on the game, and the only way to get that player is to get a good draft position. If a team can win a title without a superstar but with deep depth, then the draft becomes less important and the culture of competing every night gets more emphasis, then we'll have better games. I think better games should be the goal for the NBA.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
It's not just the lack of effort, although that's part of it, especially when the score gets lopsided and the losing team just quits.  It's not boxing out, not rotating on defense,   "hero" basketball where any guy who touches the ball just shoots it, no coherent offensive schemes (just one pick and roll after another after another), and flops galore. 
 
The playoffs are another matter.  Obviously there are no really bad teams in the playoffs, but watching truly competitive and highly entertaining games like the one last night between Houston and Portland makes you realize how crappy many of the regular season games have become.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Brickowski said:
It's not just the lack of effort, although that's part of it, especially when the score gets lopsided and the losing team just quits.  It's not boxing out, not rotating on defense,   "hero" basketball where any guy who touches the ball just shoots it, no coherent offensive schemes (just one pick and roll after another after another), and flops galore. 
 
The playoffs are another matter.  Obviously there are no really bad teams in the playoffs, but watching truly competitive and highly entertaining games like the one last night between Houston and Portland makes you realize how crappy many of the regular season games have become.
 
If Orlando's young players boxed out 100% of the time, and made proper rotations on defense, they wouldn't be young players. Learning NBA defensive rotations and applying that knowledge in a game that moves that fast is extremely difficult. There are dozens hall of fame level players who didn't start fully figure out every aspect of the NBA game until well into their careers. Do you really think that Victor Oladipo, Moe Harkless, Andrew Nicholson, etc. are making the decision not to do these things? They're struggling to find their place in the league. Each of them has tens of millions of dollars on the line. Believe me, they want to play "good basketball" way more than you want them to play "good basketball." If you don't want to watch them until they're capable of it, that's your choice. But it's silly to act like it's nothing more than a decision on their part and that the NBA needs to figure out how to make the best players in the world better.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Brickowski said:
It's not just the lack of effort, although that's part of it, especially when the score gets lopsided and the losing team just quits.  It's not boxing out, not rotating on defense,   "hero" basketball where any guy who touches the ball just shoots it, no coherent offensive schemes (just one pick and roll after another after another), and flops galore. 
 
The playoffs are another matter.  Obviously there are no really bad teams in the playoffs, but watching truly competitive and highly entertaining games like the one last night between Houston and Portland makes you realize how crappy many of the regular season games have become.
Im not sure there's a solution that you'd like besides shortening the season dramatically and cutting the number of teams in half or adding a relegation element, none of which are going to happen.
 
There's no realistic way to eliminate the fact that the NBA regular season is going to have bad teams playing bad basketball and other teams coasting at points through the regular season.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
Stitch01 said:
Im not sure there's a solution that you'd like besides shortening the season dramatically and cutting the number of teams in half or adding a relegation element, none of which are going to happen.
 
There's no realistic way to eliminate the fact that the NBA regular season is going to have bad teams playing bad basketball and other teams coasting at points through the regular season.
 
But but... Good old days!
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,461
Somewhere
I suppose one way to eliminate tanking would be to expand the league and include relegation rules. It would never happen but I'd laugh my ass off every time the Lakers or Knicks were relegated to the sub-league.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Here is an idea to stop tanking.  This is beyond radical, but it would be so much fun to watch.  Set a loss threshold, lets say its 47 losses basically a 35 win pace.  Once a team loses 47 games for every game they lose they are fined $1M.  So the Bucks just got slapped with a suck-charge of $20M and the Celts got a suck-charge of $10M  That would certainly create the incentive to at least win 35 games.  It would also create some must watch basketball.  Suddenly TNT could show a Bucks/Celts matchup because the loser gets penalized $1M, and to take it one step further TNT gets to have a camera on the owners all night as they watch the game.  Now even some of the worst games are entertaining.