Adam Silver says NBA monitoring 'serious' tanking issue, claims they considered introducing relegation

[tremonthustler1]

Exactly, so establishing a rule that the worst team in the league can't get the first pick shouldn't be so controversial and would diminish the tanking.

but you're punishing them for losing 65 games instead of 63. Awful is awful at that point. That's why the top 3 teams currently share the same odds. That didn't diminish the race to the bottom. All it did was adjust the goal from wanting the top pick to being ok with a guaranteed top 5 selection.

You asked about ME, now you're talking about "Knicks fans". I told you how I (as in ME PERSONALLY) felt, but you're out here throwing generalizations about "Knicks fans".

What's the number one draft good for if it's to draft a Markelle Fultz, Anthony Bennet or a scared Ben Simmons. Or if you can't develop the player as he needs to be developped. Since when have the Knicks been known for knowing how to develop their players? Given our trash management it's a safe bet that we would manage to draft a bust anyway. Why should I trust them to magically make better choices when they have the frst pick as opposed to the third for example.

because in theory the top prospect has less to fukk up. Fans want the top pick because they want someone that even a dumbass can't botch (he can botch the stuff around that player)

 

[Buckeye Fever]

Honestly, I never complained about what team got the top pick. I just hate watching a game where a team is losing on purpose, and not just for draft positioning. I hate when it is at the end of a regular season and a playoff team loses on purpose to avoid a 1st rd match-up in the playoffs vs a certain team.

Straight up bytch shyt.

 

[who_better_than_me]

You shouldn’t be able to draft top 3 more than twice in a 5 year span. You shouldn’t be able to draft top 5 more than 3 times in a 5 year span.


Limit how many times a team can pick top 5 in a short time span and they’ll start rethinking the tank strategy

 

[hashmander]

most of this site is millennials and above so you all weren't raised in this "headlines only" culture, you all just adopted it. all this obsession with relegation in this thread when he was asked about it by a suns employee and told them it wasn't viable.

 

[nieman]

Even if y'all want to keep the lottery and want to have bad teams rewarded (they shouldn't be), the odds should be more balanced. In truth there is very little difference between the 6th seed and the 11-12th seed (even less since they now reward 9th & 10th seeds). Why shouldn't the 6th seed have an equal opportunity to get that one player...the player that could give them the boost they need? Same for the 9th or 10th.

Even if a bad team loses for a couple of years, yet play hard, and are still bad, yet get the #1 pick, the critics will then say that it is a losing environment and campaign for the superstar to be gone with that first opt-out availability.

There's always a few disgruntled stars/superstars on a roster that can be traded for. And winning in the NBA is as much luck as it is anything else, therefore, everyone should compete.

They can do breakdowns like
10 Worst - 3.627% chance each
12 Next - 3.311% chance each
8 Top - 3% chance each

And do the entire draft like this. This definitely allows for more random seeding. and of course picks given up with prior trades would have teams with multiples.

 

[mbewane]

but you're punishing them for losing 65 games instead of 63. Awful is awful at that point. That's why the top 3 teams currently share the same odds. That didn't diminish the race to the bottom. All it did was adjust the goal from wanting the top pick to being ok with a guaranteed top 5 selection.

because in theory the top prospect has less to fukk up. Fans want the top pick because they want someone that even a dumbass can't botch (he can botch the stuff around that player)

Well then make it those three worst teams that can't get the top pick. You're acting as if getting the top pick is THE go-to move to make a team better. Past 20 years of number one picks you basically have as many players who didn't even stay with the team that drafted them, that were busts, or that ended being average players as players that actually changed their franchise's fortunes/became stars.

I mean if you enjoy watching that race to the bottom that's cool for you, I'm throwing out ideas because seems like the commissioner himself thinks there might be an issue.

 

[tremonthustler1]

You shouldn’t be able to draft top 3 more than twice in a 5 year span. You shouldn’t be able to draft top 5 more than 3 times in a 5 year span.


Limit how many times a team can pick top 5 in a short time span and they’ll start rethinking the tank strategy

in the history of the lottery, the only team I think that had top 5 picks in that range for that long was the Grizzlies and they were an expansion team.

EDIT: and the Hinkie Sixers (Embiid, Okafor, Simmons, Fultz)

 

[SchoolboyC]

OKC CHOSE to go that route. No one forced them to have only young inexperienced kids on their squad. Pretty sure there's veterans out there, players that have been to college for 3 or 4 years with more NBA-ready bodies, players in the G-League, overseas, etc. No one forced them to basically have a NCAA team in the NBA. They chose those players. And that's my point : they chose those players because they don't want to be good too fast. Did they even TRY To get some good solid veterans this summer? Did they even try to package some of their draft picks and young players to bring in a couple of actual NBA players with experience? They want to keep on being bad in order to keep up getting those young talented players through the draft until they feel they got the right mix to start taking games seriously. Exactly like the Sixers did. They chose to be bad long before training camp even started.

As to the bolded I'm personally not a fan at all of this whole "NBA title or blow it up" mentality. Never have been never will be. So what "everyone" is telling Utah etc to do doesn't affect me because that's not my opinion on the matter. I still don't understand why Utah let both Gobert AND Mitchell go. The whole reasoning of "let's suck for 3 or 4 years" being somehow better than "let's be an average team for 3 or 4 years" makes no sense to me.

Simple. One of the worst places to be in the NBA is in purgatory. A treadmill team: Not good enough to contend, no real cap flexibility, a core that has peaked.

Which is exactly what Utah was. A 5 seed 1st round exit with the 6th highest payroll in the league and a core that everyone knew wasn’t good enough to win it all. Now is there value in just being good? Of course. A team in basketball hell like Sacramento or the Knicks would sell their souls to have a 5 year run like Utah had with Gobert & Mitchell.

But if you’re a team that has higher aspirations then it’s not gonna cut it.

Also, Utah had major changes in their front office with Ainge coming in and he wants to build a team in his vision, not keep going in a circle with the squad that Dennis Lindsey built

 

[mbewane]

I wouldn't lump Bennett in that group considering that Cleveland never wanted to make that pick, but couldn't find anyone to trade with them. The majority of teams in the league are shytty at developing players hence them still being in the lottery years later, but that doesn't mean that they don't want the #1 pick.

Remember that a few months from now when the majority of teams go into full tank mode for Wemby.

No one put a gun to the Cavs' head and forced them to draft Bennett, come on breh

That draft was utter trash but you still had players like Oladipo, CJ, Giannis, Schroeder, Gobert...all of whom ended up having better careers than Bennett. But Cleveland couldn't see their potential/didn't know how to develop them. That's on the Cavs.

 

[mbewane]

Simple. One of the worst places to be in the NBA is in purgatory. A treadmill team: Not good enough to contend, no real cap flexibility, a core that has peaked.

Which is exactly what Utah was. A 5 seed 1st round exit with the 6th highest payroll in the league and a core that everyone knew wasn’t good enough to win it all. Now is there value in just being good? Of course. A team in basketball hell like Sacramento or the Knicks would sell their souls to have a 5 year run like Utah had with Gobert & Mitchell.

But if you’re a team that has higher aspirations then it’s not gonna cut it.

Also, Utah had major changes in their front office with Ainge coming in and he wants to build a team in his vision, not keep going in a circle with the squad that Dennis Lindsey built

Oh I understand the logic behind it, if they believe it's better to be bad than "just playoff good" well more power to them

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

No one put a gun to the Cavs' head and forced them to draft Bennett, come on breh

That draft was utter trash but you still had players like Oladipo, CJ, Giannis, Schroeder, Gobert...all of whom ended up having better careers than Bennett. But Cleveland couldn't see their potential/didn't know how to develop them. That's on the Cavs.

That’s having revisionist history at that particular draft as at the time it wasn’t highly thought of. If they knew then and how it would have played out, then a lot of those guys would have went higher.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Simple randomize the draft lottery completely, make every non-playoff team have an equal shot at landing the No. 1 pick

Been said this. This is the ONLY way.

If the Champs get the number 1 pick...oh well.

Or at least if you are a non playoff team (I'd include play in teams as well), give them all the same equal shot.

Worst 18 teams get the same shot at the number 1 pick. We've had multiple franchise guys get drafted not being number 1 picks over the last 15 years


KD
Steph
Giannis
Embiid
Luka
Jokic
Kawhi

 

[mbewane]

That’s having revisionist history at that particular draft as at the time it wasn’t highly thought of. If they knew then and how it would have played out, then a lot of those guys would have went higher.

It's literally the team management's job to try to predict how players could pan out when they draft them. That's the point of the draft and why scouts etc are paid. Some teams know how to do that, others don't. Some teams know how to develop players, other don't. Cavs messed up that draft, that's just facts. Which just proves that having the number one draft pick isn't some magic wand that will solve a team's problems. If you don't know how to draft/develop your players doesn't matter if you draft at number one or at number 8. If your organization/FO is trash it's trash

 

[who_better_than_me]

in the history of the lottery, the only team I think that had top 5 picks in that range for that long was the Grizzlies and they were an expansion team.

EDIT: and the Hinkie Sixers (Embiid, Okafor, Simmons, Fultz)

It would the kill Intent or idea of a gm thinking they can even try that if they knew they had limitations to how many top picks they can accumulate.

 

[SchoolboyC]

Oh I understand the logic behind it, if they believe it's better to be bad than "just playoff good" well more power to them

I don’t think the logic is necessarily it’s better to bad than good. It’s more of “If being bad now can put us in the position of being great later, we’ll take that over being perennially good but never having a chance to be great”

Been said this. This is the ONLY way.

If the Champs get the number 1 pick...oh well.

Or at least if you are a non playoff team (I'd include play in teams as well), give them all the same equal shot.

Worst 18 teams get the same shot at the number 1 pick. We've had multiple franchise guys get drafted not being number 1 picks over the last 15 years


KD
Steph
Giannis
Embiid
Luka
Jokic
Kawhi

Let’s say the NBA completely randomized seeding did that for the draft next year, and the Warriors get Wembanyama and the Celtics get Scoot while the Rockets and Pacers are picking 26th and 28th. You think that helps improve competitive balance in the league?

Y’all would rather have more Celtics-Nets type scenarios where a team is picking top 5 in the draft while being top 5 is the standings while a team is winning 20-something games and picking in the back of the 1st round?

I understand y’all are frustrated with tanking and all but there are pros and cons to everything