Idea to fix the disgrace that is the NBA tankathon

[tombomb]

As most would be aware, there are currently 7 teams who plan on spending the entire rest of the season losing as many games as possible. You would add the Nets and the Lakers to that as well if they hadn't traded away their pick, and the Knicks are probably also about to join the the group ... if they havent already.

I have read things online with people suggesting something like an end of season tournament to decide the no.1 pick, which I think doesnt really fix the problem (you would still have teams treating the regular season like an extended preseason) and adds an extra problem of creating a significant disincentive for teams on the fringe of the playoffs to tank. I.e. If you were Utah, would you rather have a shot at the no.1 pick in a tournament against the likes of the Hawks and Magic or would you want to get bounced in 4 games by the Warriors.

So here is my suggestion

- No more staggered lottery. if you finish with the worst record, you have just as much chance of getting the first pick as anyone else.

- If a team finishes in the lottery 3 years in a row, but never picks inside the top 10. They would receive a priority pick in the 3rd year - e.g. Pick 15.

- The 8 teams that lose in the first round of the playoffs each receive a priority selection at the beginning of the second round of the draft, as effectively a reward for making the playoffs.

- The order for the 8 losing teams would be decided in a separate lottery. The picks would be staggered against the teams with the overall worst records.

Pick 31 - Suns (worst overall record)
pick 32 - Clippers (winner of the secondary lottery)
Pick 33 - Hawks (2nd worst overall record)
Pick 34 - Nuggets (pick 2 in secondary lottery)
etc ...

So that was my quick idea. I think the NBA really need to do something urgently about this as it is going to get worse and worse ... although it couldn't get much worse than it is this year.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

In my opinion there are obvious flaws in the draft system, I like the idea of having even odds for the bottom 10 teams in league to sort out who gets the top 10 picks. The drop off seems to be the bottom 4 in each conference who are perpetual tankers, the 5th worst is only a couple spots outside the 8 and seem to be somewhat competing.

I believe the real issue as it currently stands is the rookie contracts given. The fact a team gets the right to a player till year 8 when they finally hit free agency is absurd. You effectively put in 1 year of being trash to gain one if the best young players in the country for 7 years. The maths just makes to much sense.

Make the rookie contract 4 years with a player option instead of team option to extend and I'm sure you'd get much less teams going on these tanking runs for several years.

 

[tombomb]

In my opinion there are obvious flaws in the draft system, I like the idea of having even odds for the bottom 10 teams in league to sort out who gets the top 10 picks. The drop off seems to be the bottom 4 in each conference who are perpetual tankers, the 5th worst is only a couple spots outside the 8 and seem to be somewhat competing.

I believe the real issue as it currently stands is the rookie contracts given. The fact a team gets the right to a player till year 8 when they finally hit free agency is absurd. You effectively put in 1 year of being trash to gain one if the best young players in the country for 7 years. The maths just makes to much sense.

Make the rookie contract 4 years with a player option instead of team option to extend and I'm sure you'd get much less teams going on these tanking runs for several years.

While I dont disagree with this as it stands. If you made the change to Top 10, then the teams in the 11-14 range would have real incentive to lose games to get into the top 10. So you would potentially just be widening the tank to even more teams.

 

[PP34]

You do realise they’re changing the lottery system from next season, hence why everyone is tanking hard right now?

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

While I dont disagree with this as it stands. If you made the change to Top 10, then the teams in the 11-14 range would have real incentive to lose games to get into the top 10. So you would potentially just be widening the tank to even more teams.

I feel like if you had the same chance of getting pick 1 whilst being competitive (somewhat) I'm not sure why you wouldn't do that. I dont have a huge problem with teams playing for picks, its more the teams who just completely bottom out and win under 20 games because it gets then closer to the number 1 pick year in year out.

What if the NBA changed the rookie contracts to - 4 years with a team option to extend another 3 (what they have now), except with the clause that if the team in those 4 years doesn't make the playoffs, that triggers a player option instead of team. Guarantee you would get teams competing hard if it meant potentially loosing their young talent by being constantly below average.

 

[tombomb]

You do realise they’re changing the lottery system from next season, hence why everyone is tanking hard right now?

Im aware of the changes, but I think they will do little at all. None of the discussion I have heard out of the states have suggested the rule changes will fix anything.

If those changes were effective this year, I dont think what we are seeing now would be any different. Teams would probably be trying even harder to get into the top 3.

 

[tombomb]

I feel like if you had the same chance of getting pick 1 whilst being competitive (somewhat) I'm not sure why you wouldn't do that. I dont have a huge problem with teams playing for picks, its more the teams who just completely bottom out and win under 20 games because it gets then closer to the number 1 pick year in year out.

What if the NBA changed the rookie contracts to - 4 years with a team option to extend another 3 (what they have now), except with the clause that if the team in those 4 years doesn't make the playoffs, that triggers a player option instead of team. Guarantee you would get teams competing hard if it meant potentially loosing their young talent by being constantly below average.

Maybe, my concern with that is that allowing players to become free agents so early in their career will just increase the divide between the big and small markets.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Maybe, my concern with that is that allowing players to become free agents so early in their career will just increase the divide between the big and small markets.

Spot on. It's inevitable. The NBA have lost the plot when it comes to even competition. The draft system is a joke, and free agency (as it currently stands) is an abomination.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Maybe, my concern with that is that allowing players to become free agents so early in their career will just increase the divide between the big and small markets.

Really isnt that hard for a team to make the playoffs once in 4 years. Don't know why players should haveto serve 7 years at a club who owes them nothing and has been deliberatley loosing...

 

[tombomb]

Really isnt that hard for a team to make the playoffs once in 4 years. Don't know why players should haveto serve 7 years at a club who owes them nothing and has been deliberatley loosing...

except making the playoffs doesnt mean stars stay in small markets.

KAT is moving into his 4th year. Do you think it would be good for the NBA if he had the choice at the end of this season to sign for LA or Philly or NY, rather than stay in Minnesota.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

except making the playoffs doesnt mean stars stay in small markets.

KAT is moving into his 4th year. Do you think it would be good for the NBA if he had the choice at the end of this season to sign for LA or Philly or NY, rather than stay in Minnesota.

So in reference to KAT, he has had 2 years playing for a mediocre franchise and they will now make the playoffs so he would be staying with the team for 7+ years. A better question is have we been getting the most out of someone like an Anthony Davis putting up 40 a night in New Orleans the past half decade?

The big market vs. small market debate in the NBA is dying in my opinion. Its seems more and more rare that players move to teams simply because they are in a big market, team success or atleast teams who have shown potential for success seem to be much better at drawing in talent. It seems to have died out with Chris Paul, Dwight Howard and Carmelo.

Take a look at the notable player movement over the past few years, Chris Paul: Big Market (LA) to Smaller Market (Houston), Carmelo Anthony: Big Market (NY) to Smaller Market (OKC), Kevin Durant: Smaller Market (OKC) to Bigger Market (GS), Jimmy Butler: Big Market (Chi) to Smaller Market (Minn), Lebron James: Big Market (MIA) to Smaller Market (Cleveland). The ontop of that it seems the rest moved sideways rather than up or down (Aldridge, Cousins etc.). The one instance of a player moving small to big was Durant and the driving factor behind that was hardly moving into a bigger media sphere.

 

[Damon_3388]

So in reference to KAT, he has had 2 years playing for a mediocre franchise and they will now make the playoffs so he would be staying with the team for 7+ years. A better question is have we been getting the most out of someone like an Anthony Davis putting up 40 a night in New Orleans the past half decade?

The big market vs. small market debate in the NBA is dying in my opinion. Its seems more and more rare that players move to teams simply because they are in a big market, team success or atleast teams who have shown potential for success seem to be much better at drawing in talent. It seems to have died out with Chris Paul, Dwight Howard and Carmelo.

Take a look at the notable player movement over the past few years, Chris Paul: Big Market (LA) to Smaller Market (Houston), Carmelo Anthony: Big Market (NY) to Smaller Market (OKC), Kevin Durant: Smaller Market (OKC) to Bigger Market (GS), Jimmy Butler: Big Market (Chi) to Smaller Market (Minn), Lebron James: Big Market (MIA) to Smaller Market (Cleveland). The ontop of that it seems the rest moved sideways rather than up or down (Aldridge, Cousins etc.). The one instance of a player moving small to big was Durant and the driving factor behind that was hardly moving into a bigger media sphere.

Wait, Houston is a small market? It's like the 5th biggest city/metro area in all of the US!

 

[sportsmaniac89]

Wait, Houston is a small market? It's like the 5th biggest city/metro area in all of the US!

Compared to LA it's a smaller market

 

[Damon_3388]

Also, given how many players selected with top 3/5/10 picks that have either been traded for vitual peanuts (compared to their value and potential when drafted) within a couple of years, or busted out of the league completely, do future draft picks actually have less trade value and actual value than ever?

Could we perhaps see a trend away from drafting college freshmen, and / or less one-and-done early entries too?

 

[Damon_3388]

Compared to LA it's a smaller market

Using that logic, everything aside from LA and New York is a small market

 

[tombomb]

Wait, Houston is a small market? It's like the 5th biggest city/metro area in all of the US!

I didn’t know where to start with his post

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Using that logic, everything aside from LA and New York is a small market

I don't recall saying Houston is a small market?

 

[Damon_3388]

I didn’t know where to start with his post

Well, going by population and location, it's potentially a very big market. Obviously there's other factors in play, but I wouldn't view it as a small market like, say, OKC or Memphis.

 

[Damon_3388]

I don't recall saying Houston is a small market?

Your original post mentioned "Chris Paul: Big Market (LA) to Smaller Market (Houston)", which I guess I interpeted as you defining Houston as a small market, rather than just "smaller than LA".

Personally, I wouldn't say that a player going from one of the biggest markets to one slightly less big is something of note to support the argument you were trying to make.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Your original post mentioned "Chris Paul: Big Market (LA) to Smaller Market (Houston)", which I guess I interpeted as you defining Houston as a small market, rather than just "smaller than LA".

Personally, I wouldn't say that a player going from one of the biggest markets to one slightly less big is something of note to support the argument you were trying to make.

My argument was that players aren't moving to big markets anymore just for the sake of going to a big market. Regardless of how much smaller the market they moved to is, they still made the decision to move to a smaller market, so i would say Paul moving to Houston 100% supports the idea. Players couldn't care less about playing in larger markets and the only people you hear talking about how much players want to play in LA and NY is people from LA and NY.