How to stop the tankathon

The Needler

lurker
Dec 7, 2016
1,732
No, the NFL doesn't care about CTE because of lawsuits. The NFL's likely future liability because of CTE is relatively minimal following the settlement, now understood risks, and collective bargaining. The NFL cares about CTE because of PR, and the potential financial impact because of lessened fan interest, and the accompanying gate and TV revenue loss. Same reason the NBA cares about tanking. I'm done here, though. While you seem to understand that the NFL doesn't care about CTE for altruistic reasons, you either don't want to, or can't understand that the NBA doesn't care about tanking for altruistic reasons, either. Adam Silver thinks tanking could affect the league's bottom line. I happen to agree.
 
Last edited:

The Needler

lurker
Dec 7, 2016
1,732
To be clear, I'm not trying to be combative here. I'm just not seeing what the actual damage of tanking is, other than a short sighted fan being annoyed by it.
No, it's short-sighted fans who aren't annoyed by it. If you're a fan of the Cavs or the Warriors, or the Celtics, you might not give two craps whether the Nets are playing to win, as long as your team is getting theirs. But if you're a Nuggets or a Pistons season ticket holder, you might be less inclined to renew those tickets when your team's mediocre and 25% of the games are against team who are going through the motions. And if you don't have allegiance to a team at all (like me), you might become less and less likely to watch games (or buy NBA league pass) for the same reason. Tanking is not a victimless crime. It lessens the product as a whole. And that's why the commissioner, whose job is essentially the CEO, doesn't like it -- he's afraid it will ultimately reduce shareholder (owners) value.
 
Last edited:

Lose Remerswaal

Leaves after the 8th inning
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Some make more than others, obviously, but team values aren't being significantly depreciated if a team tanks or sucks. The 2016 Forbes list has the following teams ranked as such:

#1 NY Knicks
#2 LA Lakers
#7 Brooklyn Nets
#14 Phoenix Suns
#15 Sacramento Kings

Five of the top 50% of teams valuation have been dog shit for multiple seasons. Three of which are in major markets. Yet their valuations continue to rise, league revenues continue to rise and the salary cap continues to rise.
1, 2, and 7 are obvious. I really have to question how Phoenix and especially Sacramento can qualify as Top half of team values of NBA teams. The Kings do have a new stadium, mostly paid for by the city, which might be part of that.

By the way, you can throw a hat over the valuations of #11 (Cleveland @ $1.2 billion) to #18 (Washington @ $1 billion), as the differences there are just rounding errors on WAGs

You can do the same with teams 19 to 24 and 25 to 30
 

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,735
Bay Area
No, it's short-sighted fans who aren't annoyed by it. If you're a fan of the Cavs or the Warriors, or the Celtics, you might not give two craps whether the Nets are playing to win, as long as your team is getting theirs. But if you're a Nuggets or a Pistons season ticket holder, you might be less inclined to renew those tickets when your team's mediocre and 25% of the games are against team who are going through the motions. And if you don't have allegiance to a team at all (like me), you might become less and less likely to watch games (or buy NBA league pass) for the same reason. Tanking is not a victimless crime. It lessens the product as a whole. And that's why the commissioner, whose job is essentially the CEO, doesn't like it -- he's afraid it will ultimately reduce shareholder (owners) value.
Does it not lessen the product to have teams that are just plain bad? Does it not lessen the product to have teams with no path to improving? Bad teams need a way to get better. Some viable path.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using SoSH mobile app
 

The Needler

lurker
Dec 7, 2016
1,732
Does it not lessen the product to have teams that are just plain bad? Does it not lessen the product to have teams with no path to improving? Bad teams need a way to get better. Some viable path.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using SoSH mobile app
Yes, having too many bad teams lessens the value of the product. Which is one of the reasons why contraction was a possibility just a few years ago. Tanking is not a solution, it's a symptom.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
The fan interest in the sixers fell for a short period and there is now a sold out season ticket and a waiting list and more interest in a non playoff team as there has been in the sixers overall for a decade plus. Since Iverson probably.

If they hadn't stopped being a low lottery or low playoff seed somehow they would be even more irrelevant today.
Meanwhile they had the worst record in the league once.
I don't know why people have a problem with a rebuild for a few years. The kings have been a lottery team for over a decade and no one cares.

This is a problem to address a thing that either won't work (so who cares) or will and will create a good team from a car crash and the worry is people will copy it.

You have to explain how making it harder for bad teams to improve is a good thing. While people complain about a super team btw.

Fix the CBA to make rookies less vital and valuable or stfu
 

The Needler

lurker
Dec 7, 2016
1,732
The fan interest in the sixers fell for a short period and there is now a sold out season ticket and a waiting list and more interest in a non playoff team as there has been in the sixers overall for a decade plus. Since Iverson probably.
They also had the worst road attendance in the league last year, and have among the five cheapest home ticket prices in the league. They have been a relative drag on the rest of the league for years.

Tanking does not increase interest and demand. NBA Inc. implements policies because it thinks they will increase values and revenues. These really shouldn't be controversial points.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Sports are literally a zero sum game.

If team X improves its win total that can only happen if the other teams lose more. The presence of superteams inevitably forces change in the non-superteams. Tanking is not primarily the cause of disparity between teams with LeBron or Durant + Curry and the bottom feeders, but rather the effect of it.

Punishing tanking teams will not make the NBA more competitive or more interesting to casual fans. It is not a competitive or financial problem. It might be a moral problem, but is it worth making the league even less efficient at handling rosters for the sake of a likely doomed attempt to solve a moral hazard?
 

The Needler

lurker
Dec 7, 2016
1,732
Sports are literally a zero sum game.

If team X improves its win total that can only happen if the other teams lose more. The presence of superteams inevitably forces change in the non-superteams. Tanking is not primarily the cause of disparity between teams with LeBron or Durant + Curry and the bottom feeders, but rather the effect of it.
The problem here, as I've tried to express, is that you're conflating competing on the court with competing economically. You make a fundamental mistake when you assume that it's a zero-sum game economically. If there were no barriers to entry, revenue sharing, etc., then of course...if one owner wants to lose intentionally, that is literally his business. But the NBA is not a free market, and the teams are not economic competitors. They are divisions of the same corporation.
 

Joe Sixpack

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
4,088
Mansfield, MA
Lowering the lottery odds for the worst teams probably worsens the problem rather than improving it.

Teams will still tank, but now they are more likely to suck for longer since they are less likely to get a top pick.
 

taxmancometh

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
281
Vermont
I think that the best way to stop tankathon is to make it less attractive. Increasing the cap hit for rookie contracts, especially those in the top half of the lottery, would be an option. Also, there could be a cap penalty for clubs for repeat top 3 picks, top 5 picks, etc.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,930
East Village, NYC
Lowering the lottery odds for the worst teams probably worsens the problem rather than improving it.

Teams will still tank, but now they are more likely to suck for longer since they are less likely to get a top pick.
This is exactly right. For many teams in the league, the draft is the only avenue through which they can acquire a player worth building around.
 

Marbleheader

Dope
Dope
Sep 27, 2004
10,276
So two teams that suck can just swap picks to beat the system.
It's determined pre-lottery. A bad team eligible for the #1 pick wouldn't swap with an ineligible team before the lottery without getting something significant in return. The Sixers and Lakers could swap picks today to get around the system, but they're putting their fate in another team's hands and would be trying to win games.
 

EddieYost

has a special friend in GHoff
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,075
NH
Team A and B pick pick in the top 3 this year. Then they are both terrible again the next season but know they can't pick in the top 3 again. Why wouldn't they trade with each other even before the lottery? The odds of getting an impact player are much better for both if they swap picks.
 

EddieYost

has a special friend in GHoff
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,075
NH
I do see the point though that once you make the trade you don't have the incentive to tank anymore. Can teams make trades before the lottery? If not then my theory is dumb.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
10,309
Somewhere
The problem here, as I've tried to express, is that you're conflating competing on the court with competing economically. You make a fundamental mistake when you assume that it's a zero-sum game economically. If there were no barriers to entry, revenue sharing, etc., then of course...if one owner wants to lose intentionally, that is literally his business. But the NBA is not a free market, and the teams are not economic competitors. They are divisions of the same corporation.
This is a salient point and one that can be validated fairly easily. Just look at road attendance numbers. The Cavaliers and Warriors were tops for road attendance last season, with >19K fans per game each. The Sixers and Magic, on the other hand, averaged ~17.2K fans per road game. The median NBA team (Raptors) drew 17.9K fans/game. Ignoring concessions and assuming roughly $50 per ticket, the bottom feeders are costing home teams $35K per game. Modest in the big picture but $1.5 million over the course of a season is real money.

There are some confounding factors -- the Jazz are always a horrible draw, and the NY/LA teams will have decent attendance no matter how shitty they are -- but the general premise holds.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,776
Portsmouth, NH
This is a salient point and one that can be validated fairly easily. Just look at road attendance numbers. The Cavaliers and Warriors were tops for road attendance last season, with >19K fans per game each. The Sixers and Magic, on the other hand, averaged ~17.2K fans per road game. The median NBA team (Raptors) drew 17.9K fans/game. Ignoring concessions and assuming roughly $50 per ticket, the bottom feeders are costing home teams $35K per game. Modest in the big picture but $1.5 million over the course of a season is real money.

There are some confounding factors -- the Jazz are always a horrible draw, and the NY/LA teams will have decent attendance no matter how shitty they are -- but the general premise holds.
How are you getting to $1.5M? They aren't playing against bottom feeders every home game. For every game the Pelicans are in town, they have many more when a competitive opponent is in town. And when the Pelicans do come, it's not the good seats that usually go unsold, it's the nosebleeds. Even if you want to work with a $50 average ticket price, it can be solved with dynamic pricing. When the Cavs or Dubs come, charge more than when the Nets come.

Regardless, that's not really a problem that is going to be fixed by trying to solve tanking. If your team is playing a team that's running out shit veterans and on pace for 30 wins, but they're trying really really hard and playing earnestly, are you more likely to buy a ticket than if the team coming to town is playing rookies and on pace for 20 wins? I wouldn't be. Maybe I'm an outlier.

Road attendance is affected just as much by a single star player as competitive status and none of it can really be quantified. For every casual fan that would pay $100 to see the Celtics play the Cavs, there's a more diehard fan that would gladly pay $25-50 to go see The Brow. And keeping shitty teams from getting that star isn't going to help anything in this equation, imo.


Even if you want to work with $1.5M (which is kind of laughable to me, but let's go with it), that's a rounding error for most teams - especially the successful ones, that make it up on the back end by making the playoffs, helped in part by the handful of free victories by the tankers.

Id much rather see them abolish the draft and max contract than flatten draft odds. Let teams bid on rookies and eat up as much space as they deem worthy. Let them offer $50M to LeBron if they want. Messing with the lottery, again, is only going to open another can of worms, as the NBA is known to die at every turn with CBA changes.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,087
1) Tanking is fool's gold. It rarely works. We see some of the same teams in the lottery over and over and stay bad despite having high lottery picks year after year. The Clippers and Kings have had epic lottery runs and didn't get good despite it.

2) It's not even clear how hard teams really are tanking when a team like Brooklyn which had no incentive to tank and was playing for pride had the worst and 3rd worst record in the league in those two years.

I think this is all much ado about nothing. Re-jiggering lottery percentages just creates different types of perverse incentives for executives who think they can game the system. The only solution I think would work (and I don't buy the premise that it's even a problem in the first place) is to have a system where the "1st" pick of the lottery gets demoted to the D-League (and the D-League champ gets promoted to the NBA and gets the 1st pick).
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
The problem is that competitiveness in the NBA really requires both luck and skill. Look at the Spurs - model organization, but they got super lucky to get Duncan, and then they got super lucky again to get Kawhi Leonard (in that even if they had identified him (the skill part), they got lucky to find a trade partner that let them end up with him). If they even dropped to number 2 in the 97 draft, what does the recent history of the NBA really look like?

No amount of tanking changes this, and no amount of trying to stop tanking is going to really balance the league competitively. As I've said, I think a lot of this just comes down to owners thinking it's unfair that another team gets something they don't, so they want to try and create "fairness"

As well, the real problem with competitiveness is not the tanking, it's the superteams, both in terms of when stars come together, and in general terms of how long good teams can remain near the top (which in turn, since wins are a zero sum game, keeps more bad teams bad). If this is a problem they need to solve, then they need to work on that too (I don't think it's a problem they need to solve). Institute a hard cap, make it so you can make a bunch of trades without having to worry about the cap until a deadline (i.e. you can go over the hard cap in the off-season but you have to be below it September 1 - July 1), and increase the max in terms of money but decrease it in terms of length. Increase movement of superstars while not letting them all coalesce on the same teams. etc. etc.

But this is why they focus on the lottery even though it hasn't done a thing in any iteration to change competitiveness.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,885
Then fix that problem and adopt an NFL style system where you need to be 3 years post high school to enter the draft.
A clueless rookie that gets no breaks from the refs is a clueless rookie that gets no breaks from the refs whether he's 19 or 22.

Because the NBA is not capitalism or even competition. The Celtics or the Warriors don't benefit if another team tanks, or sucks, and loses its fans, or money. They actually lose. Each team is not an independent island that rises and falls on its own. When one team loses value, it hurts the other owners.
When an NBA team in a literal disaster zone sells for more than three billion dollars, nearly doubing the sale price of a team in the #2 market a couple of years ago, I think it's safe to say that tanking has had exactly zero effect on franchise value.

You know what does impact the sale price of franchises? Supply and demand. There are only ninety two teams in the three major sports leagues and a lot more than 92 billionaires that want the ego trip of being a professional sports franchise owner. And that's before getting in to all the investors that understand that dynamic and want in on the action knowing that franchise values are just going to keep going up so long as the money supply keeps expanding.

So make the 8th place playoff team the top pick. 9th place the 2nd. Eliminates tanking to miss the playoffs. Doesn't the perma suck issue happen now anyways?? I mean the worst teams would have serious incentive to get better. I mean I know it would be difficult for some, but how much worse would it actually be than it is now??
You're missing the point, your proposed solution to tanking literally makes it impossible for the very worst teams to rebuild via the draft. And as an added "side benefit" make it nearly impossible for them to trade their way to a better team because they would only have mid first round picks to use in trade.

You would be forcing the teams in small markets to rely on pure luck and free agents as their only realistic option to improvement. Now that would have an impact on franchise values as you'd be dooming the franchises at the bottom at the time of the "reform" to staying there, and remove one of the attractions to franchise ownership for the billionaire class.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,885
Yes, having too many bad teams lessens the value of the product. Which is one of the reasons why contraction was a possibility just a few years ago. Tanking is not a solution, it's a symptom.
Contraction has not been a real possibility since the post-merger era, which coincided with economic stagflation in the US (and even then it was a discussion of a corporate merger between the Nuggets and the Jazz, which the rest of the league shot down, thus denying we fans the chance to see Doug Moe coaching Adrian Dantley).

The Hornets situation had nothing to do with declining NBA interest and everything to do with George Shinn's financial situation and the NBA's desire to hold a cudgel over the NBAPA's head during the 2011 CBA negotiations. There was always 0% chance that the NBA owners were going to throw away $300 million+ just to spite the Players Association and the City of New Orleans.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I've said it before and I'll say it again--get rid of the lottery. The Sixers tanked for as long as they did because it took so long to get any talent on their team. If they were terrible for two years and the draft delivered two stars, they would have still been bad as the Wolves have been, but they'd at least have been trying to create a winning culture for their young stars.

I would NOT increase the age required to enter the draft. Right now with rare exception, anyone drafted early is hardly guaranteed to be a franchise changer because most 18 or 19 year olds are still developing their game. Force those kids to spend more time honing their game in college or overseas and you make tanking even more attractive because the drafting team would be getting a more polished player on a rookie contract that covers more of their prime.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,408
Has the NHL fallen that far that it's now considered 3 major sports leagues and not 4? I don't watch hockey at all but is the league hurting that bad?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,010
It's a problem that does not need solving. Between the new CBA, and the slowing growth of the salary cap, small market teams will have an easier time keeping their younger star players. All other major sports (including the NHL) let bad teams get the best prospects without any issues.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
They also had the worst road attendance in the league last year, and have among the five cheapest home ticket prices in the league. They have been a relative drag on the rest of the league for years.

Tanking does not increase interest and demand. NBA Inc. implements policies because it thinks they will increase values and revenues. These really shouldn't be controversial points.
And if they had been run of the mill terrible then what? They would ahve been a minorly better draw then and still be rubbish now as opposed to a draw now.
People have the forward thinking of a spanner
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,316
Maine
I am not a mathmatician and I dont play one on TV.

But I wonder,
Is there away to award "Credits" to a lottery.
Say if your the worst team (by record) you get 500 Credits.
Next worst gets 300 Credits
3rd worst gets 150
Etc etc

Nothing earth shattering Yet.

But You also allow teams to earn credits from Wins. Say if a team has victories another team in the Bottom 3rd of the lottery (By record) they get a bonus of 25 Credits for each win. If you have wins against a team in the next 1/3 of the draft you get 10 Credits. If you have a win agains a top tier (Bottom 1/3 of the draft) then you get 5 bonus Credits.

So as an extreme example:
The Nets finish with the worst record in league with 10 wins. They are awarded 500 Credits for thier record and then they receive 2x5 Credits (for 2 wins agains the Celts) 4x10 Credits (for wins against NY, Miami, and Charolotte 2x) and 4x25 Credits for wins against LA, Phoenix and Orlando X2.

Giving them a total of 500+10+40+100=650

Minnesota Has the 2nd worse record with 15 wins. For 300 credits.
They Have they have 2 wins against the best Teams (top tier) 3 wins against mid tier teams and 10 wins against the worse teams.

For a total of 300+10+45+250=605

The credits translate to balls in the machine.

It would basically encourage the lower tiered teams to try to beat each other and get those bonus credits. Cause 4-5 wins against a team in your tier could translate to quite a few more ping pong balls.

Edit For teams that trade a pick and have even less incentive to try:
You could let teams "Bank" a matching 1/3 of thier Bonus points for the FOLLOWING years draft if they dont own their own Pick in that year. Call it the Celtnet rule.

Lets say in 17-18 the nets win 10 games and get the "bonus credits" of 150 (like the example above) for the 18 draft. They dont own that pick, so why try? Because they would be able to use some of them the following draft.
At the 2019 draft they get their allocation (2nd worse team 300pts) their bonus points from the 18-19 Wins (120 Pts) and we then allow them to use 50 pts that they earned and in 2017-18 for their 2019 Draft allocation.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,885
You want to fix the tankathon? Here's the answer, eliminate the whole soft cap/luxury tax schtick and just set up a hard cap slightly larger than the present luxury tax line. Then eliminate the max contract, the age limit, and the draft. It takes care of itself from there.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,408
Yeah, pretty much all the NBA's problem comes from the max contract and the soft cap. If the current trend of the big 3 and fodder continues, we might see the end of the max contract but we are still a few years away from teams being built like the Celtics. The money wasn't there for some players this year.

Also, many people on this board were upset with the Celtics being an 8 seed a few years back and wanted to tank, tank, tank because there was no way out of NBA purgatory. I was one of those people but I've changed my mind since then. Fast forward a few years, and the Celtics are a competing team and it had very little to do with the Nets trade. James Young was garbage and Jaylen Brown was mostly insignificant. This is the year we should see the Nets trade pay off. With their own lottery picks, they did land Marcus Smart who played a factor. Granted, the Celtics did get lucky with IT4. Who was our last big time pick? Paul Pierce?

This is the year a lot of perennial lottery bound teams should actually make the playoffs and be pretty good teams. The Wolves and Nuggets should be 50 win teams. The Pelicans and Sixers could be decent too. The Wolves even used some of those assets to improve their team by trading for Butler. The Nuggets never truly bottomed out and had a ridiculous 2014 draft (Nurkic at 16, Harris at 19, Jokic at 41. I bet the Bulls regret trading Nurkic and Harris for Doug McDermott. Ouch.) Never bottoming out and staying somewhat competitive probably allowed them to sign Millsap.

The Nuggets had a pretty quick turn around, actually. They really are Celtics West in a lot of ways with all their assets. Denver and Boston are examples not to tank but the Wolves and Sixers will be examples why teams should. Tanking really isn't required though.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
35,319
Rotten Apple
USA Today updates with more info on reform proposals: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/09/11/nba-draft-lottery-reform-disincentivize-tanking-set-even-odds-worst-teams/651984001/#

The proposal has three main elements, four people with direct knowledge of the plan told USA TODAY Sports. They requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

  • The three highest lottery seeds would each be allocated 14% odds to win the lottery, compared to the 25%, 19.9% and 15.6% for those three teams in the current lottery system, which has been in place since 2005. The odds for the remaining lottery would decrease smoothly, with approximately a 1%-2% difference between lottery teams.
  • The number of picks determined by the lottery will increase to four, compared to three in the current system. This means that the highest lottery seed would receive no worse than the fifth pick, the second seed no worse than the sixth pick, the third seed no worse than the seventh pick and fourth seed no worse than the eighth pick. Under the current system, the first seed can receive no worse than the fourth pick and second seed no worse than the fifth pick, etc.
  • The new system would begin with the 2019 draft, giving teams time to prepare and plan.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,268
You want to fix the tankathon? Here's the answer, eliminate the whole soft cap/luxury tax schtick and just set up a hard cap slightly larger than the present luxury tax line. Then eliminate the max contract, the age limit, and the draft. It takes care of itself from there.
This would murder small markets, the ability to keep good teams together, and trading.

I'd rather live with a team that might be the 4th worst in the league tanking to try and be the worst team in the league.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,885
This would murder small markets, the ability to keep good teams together, and trading.

I'd rather live with a team that might be the 4th worst in the league tanking to try and be the worst team in the league.
With a hard cap teams wouldn't be able to hoard talent. When you're spending market rates on LBJ, Durant, etc. there just isn't the money to hoard young players.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
500
Brooklyn by way of Orono
With a hard cap teams wouldn't be able to hoard talent. When you're spending market rates on LBJ, Durant, etc. there just isn't the money to hoard young players.
I never like to admit learning things but this thread has changed my mind. My favorite option was to limit top-3 lottery repeaters, but I'm now on the 'nothing to see here' side. The harm is minimal regardless of the various proposals, and the end of season tanking/Process has probably increased overall NBA interest during that time. Barring an absolutely impossible market based solution (no cap, no max salary, teams that suck get relegated not rewarded) my vote has switched to leave it alone.

Its a fiddly little problem, mostly PR based, and Silver provided a fiddly little solution, mostly PR based.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,904
The proposed changes outlined in USA Today seem fairly modest. I like some of the suggestions above that give top picks to teams that sneak into 8th seeds. I'd rather see a race for the top than the bottom, and the really bad teams would still be picking in the top 7-8.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,885
I never like to admit learning things but this thread has changed my mind. My favorite option was to limit top-3 lottery repeaters, but I'm now on the 'nothing to see here' side. The harm is minimal regardless of the various proposals, and the end of season tanking/Process has probably increased overall NBA interest during that time. Barring an absolutely impossible market based solution (no cap, no max salary, teams that suck get relegated not rewarded) my vote has switched to leave it alone.

Its a fiddly little problem, mostly PR based, and Silver provided a fiddly little solution, mostly PR based.
I agree that it's basically a nothing problem, and the mostly nothing solution is guaranteed to have unforeseen consequences.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,268
With a hard cap teams wouldn't be able to hoard talent. When you're spending market rates on LBJ, Durant, etc. there just isn't the money to hoard young players.
Right, so as I said, you won't be able to keep good teams together, and will crush small market teams and the trade market.

All really bad for the league.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,776
Portsmouth, NH
Right, so as I said, you won't be able to keep good teams together, and will crush small market teams and the trade market.

All really bad for the league.
How does not being able to keep super teams together crush small market teams?

If everyone is working with the same pile of payroll - via revenue sharing, so they all have the same hard budget - then wouldn't it seem talent will get redistributed if teams aren't smart about salary structure of their roster?

It's one thing for LeBron/Wade/Bosh to take a little less to team up, but if it's a true open market and, I dunno, Minnesota or Utah or NO is offering $40M to the Brow and the Knicks are offering half that, are players really going to pick the Knicks?

The entire salary cap/structure of the NBA needs to be torn up and redrafted for actual change. Convoluted lottery amendments will be another case of them making things worse while trying to fix them.
 

scott bankheadcase

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
794
hoboken
How does not being able to keep super teams together crush small market teams?

If everyone is working with the same pile of payroll - via revenue sharing, so they all have the same hard budget - then wouldn't it seem talent will get redistributed if teams aren't smart about salary structure of their roster?

It's one thing for LeBron/Wade/Bosh to take a little less to team up, but if it's a true open market and, I dunno, Minnesota or Utah or NO is offering $40M to the Brow and the Knicks are offering half that, are players really going to pick the Knicks?

The entire salary cap/structure of the NBA needs to be torn up and redrafted for actual change. Convoluted lottery amendments will be another case of them making things worse while trying to fix them.
Yes, but a really really really long lockout would probably be bad for the NBA. People are proposing things that would get no where in collective bargaining, for a league that's popularity and revenue is on an upswing.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,776
Portsmouth, NH
Yes, but a really really really long lockout would probably be bad for the NBA. People are proposing things that would get no where in collective bargaining, for a league that's popularity and revenue is on an upswing.
But we've been repeatedly told that tanking is ruining the league's popularity and revenue....so I have to ask which is it?
 

The Needler

lurker
Dec 7, 2016
1,732
But we've been repeatedly told that tanking is ruining the league's popularity and revenue....so I have to ask which is it?
You sound like you'd make an excellent CEO. Yes, the NBA caught lightning in a bottle with their TV deal in 2014. That doesn't mean its popularity is rising, and there is zero chance that deal would get made today. It has practically put espn out of business, and ratings were down nationally, and in 20 local markets, double digits in 15. Bet yeah, don't change anything, because it's all working. Nothing to see here. Errrbody loves the NBA. And tanking!!
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,268
How does not being able to keep super teams together crush small market teams?

If everyone is working with the same pile of payroll - via revenue sharing, so they all have the same hard budget - then wouldn't it seem talent will get redistributed if teams aren't smart about salary structure of their roster?

It's one thing for LeBron/Wade/Bosh to take a little less to team up, but if it's a true open market and, I dunno, Minnesota or Utah or NO is offering $40M to the Brow and the Knicks are offering half that, are players really going to pick the Knicks?

The entire salary cap/structure of the NBA needs to be torn up and redrafted for actual change. Convoluted lottery amendments will be another case of them making things worse while trying to fix them.
It doesn't. The rest of his idea was a hard cap and eliminating the draft.

Without a draft, the small market teams will never have a shot at a top ten player.

They will just have to overpay the 25th best guy who was leftover after the better players chose the big market teams.

Why in your example would Minnesota/Utah/NO be offering double for Davis what NY is? The teams would not be choosing the players, the players would be choosing the teams. If NY didn't have enough space for Davis, they would trade off their players a couple levels below Davis, say like a Khris Middleton, to a small market team like Minnesota/Utah/NO that can't get players to choose them and give NY the space to sign Davis.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,903
Hingham, MA
It doesn't. The rest of his idea was a hard cap and eliminating the draft.

Without a draft, the small market teams will never have a shot at a top ten player.

They will just have to overpay the 25th best guy who was leftover after the better players chose the big market teams.

Why in your example would Minnesota/Utah/NO be offering double for Davis what NY is? The teams would not be choosing the players, the players would be choosing the teams. If NY didn't have enough space for Davis, they would trade off their players a couple levels below Davis, say like a Khris Middleton, to a small market team like Minnesota/Utah/NO that can't get players to choose them and give NY the space to sign Davis.
But top ten players will want money, and will go where it exists. Teams that have LeBron or Harden or another superduperstar won't have the cap room to sign a top draft pick. So they would have to go elsewhere. And it would have zero to do with market and everything to do with cap room.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,885
That's what people seem to be missing. Teams paying market rates for top ten guys aren't going to be able to sign Karl-Anthony Towns when he's eligible to join the NBA.

It eliminates a non-problem, but I've repeatedly made clear in the thread that it isn't really a problem.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,776
Portsmouth, NH
You sound like you'd make an excellent CEO. Yes, the NBA caught lightning in a bottle with their TV deal in 2014. That doesn't mean its popularity is rising, and there is zero chance that deal would get made today. It has practically put espn out of business, and ratings were down nationally, and in 20 local markets, double digits in 15. Bet yeah, don't change anything, because it's all working. Nothing to see here. Errrbody loves the NBA. And tanking!!
And I've maintained that if ratings go down in local markets, that should be the owner's decision if he feels its in the best long term interest of the team.

The national deals they just got, we can bicker over whether they would be handed out again or not - i tend to side with you that they wouldn't; they'd be close but not quite as big - but it's disingenuous to suggest that was some sole reason for ESPN's financial issues, since it ignores the NFL deal and their bloated payroll being a much bigger burden. Also, that they are owned by Disney and will pretty much never go bankrupt.

As to national TV ratings, they were down slightly (http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/nba-regular-season-ratings-1202031083/), 6% overall, but when removing the extra games they aired vs last season, they remained mostly static and that's ignoring the 18% increase in streaming views. It's just as easy to blame cord cutting as much as lack of interest for the national TV loss and that is, again, where the teams make their big money.

I'm not trying to pretend I'm a CEO, I'm just still waiting for someone to show me how it's hurting the league as a whole, because what I see doesn't suggest as such and the "solutions" I've seen - including the one the NBA is proposing - don't solve anything and also just create new problems, which has been the hallmark of every move the NBA has made in the last few decades.

The league was at its nadir 12-15 years ago and since then - while tanking has been an "issue" - it's now at it's peak. The league will live and die based on it's stars and overall talent, as it always has, imo. I don't really give much care to how they redistribute more of that talent, but preventing the worst teams from getting high draft picks - whether though actually tanking or just being shitty - isn't the way to do it.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,268
But top ten players will want money, and will go where it exists. Teams that have LeBron or Harden or another superduperstar won't have the cap room to sign a top draft pick. So they would have to go elsewhere. And it would have zero to do with market and everything to do with cap room.
And it will exist in NY, Brooklyn, LA, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Golden State and Atlanta.

The top dudes aren't going to go sign with Indiana, Milwaukee or Orlando because they have cap space. They'll pick the big market they want to go to, and if that team doesn't have space they'll offload salary on to the Orlando types to fit the stars in.

Which way is better for a small market team? Draft and soft cap, or no draft and hard cap? It's a really easy answer in my eyes.

People think tanking hurts because less than a handful of teams have intentionally downgraded from bad to terrible, small market teams would rarely or never be good for years under this theoretical system.

In a league where if you don't have one of the top ten, maybe even five, guys you have very little chance to win you'd be giving the small market teams nearly no shot to ever win a championship.

You'll have ten NBA versions of the Montreal Expos.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,268
That's what people seem to be missing. Teams paying market rates for top ten guys aren't going to be able to sign Karl-Anthony Towns when he's eligible to join the NBA.

It eliminates a non-problem, but I've repeatedly made clear in the thread that it isn't really a problem.
Yeah, one of them will. Always.

And if the miracle somehow no big market team had cap space to choose KAT out of college, in a hard cap league where you have no advantage to keep your "homegrown" guy, where's he going after his rookie contract when he'd developed and ready to win? Or does no big market team have cap space again?