I can't mess with teams tanking at all

[AVXL]

show me a team that won a title whos best player was drafted outside the top 10?

You dotn win titles with a bunch of mid round picks

Don't get me wrong. You need talented players to win a championship, but if you mismanage picks (a la ATL Hawks from 2004-2007) what difference does it make if you tank anyway.

You need good management to find the right picks. If you can guarantee that every player selected in the top 10 is going to be an All Star then by all means tank. But since there are no guarantees I don't see the value of tanking. If you're genuinely bad, that's one thing. But if you have a decent team & don't compete & diminish the integrity of your sport & your team to get a top 10 pick, I don't think that's good for your team or the sport

 

[FTBS]

I'd tank. fukk it. I wouldn't be mad if my team tanked. What you lose in one year CAN be made up quickly.

The bolded is the key word. Just look at 97. Both the Spurs and C's sucked. Spurs got the top pick, a title within two years, and went on one of the best runs in recent history that still isn't over yet. The C's had to wait a decade to become a contender.

I absolutely abhor tanking. Wasn't the purpose of the lottery to curtail tanking? I have been thinking about a few alternatives to the current system:

1. Let teams bid for picks with their cap room. You could have it where having the better record is the tie breaker or give some sort of benefit to teams with better records. That way you reward teams that are smart with the cap and at the same time prevent tanking.

2. Have all non-playoff teams have an equal shot at the lottery.

3. Do it the exact opposite of how they do now. Instead of the worst record having the most ping pong balls, have the best record that missed the playoffs have the most ping pong balls. This prevents tanking overall but you would have 7 and 8 seeds tanking at the end of the year. But at least they would by trying for the first 3 quarters of the season.

 

[superunknown23]

NOTHING can beat the fukkery of 1984

The wacky ending to that regular season was tied to the Akeem (later Hakeem) Olajuwon Draft - though it would also famously produce such consolation prizes as Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and John Stockton. By the time the teams involved were finished tanking games in 1984, David Stern instituted a draft lottery for the 1985 draft.

Tanking paid off in '84, big time. The Bulls got Jordan by dropping 14 of their last 15 games that spring, including their final five. The Rockets earned Olajuwon by losing 14 of their last 17, nine of their last 10, and their final five. Aging Elvin Hayes, a shadow of his old self, played a full 53 minutes of an overtime game for Houston during a 129-128 loss to San Antonio in the 81st game of the season. As one local Houston reporter, Fran Blinebury, recalled, "He looked like he needed an IV stuck in his arm out there."

In Dallas, coach dikk Motta fumed because his Mavs owned the Cavaliers' first pick in the draft, and Cleveland therefore had no incentive to tank like Chicago or Houston.

The same was true with Indiana, which had traded its pick to Portland, and with the Clippers, who had dealt theirs to the Sixers.
"Weird things were happening," recalled Pat Williams, who was GM at the time in Philadelphia, and would choose Barkley at No. 5. "A lot of funny stuff going on, leaving a dark mark on the integrity of the game."

Frank Layden, the former Jazz coach and executive, said years ago that he had been told by a Rocket executive there was, in fact, a conspiracy of failure at hand in 1984.

"They were losing on purpose," Layden said. "It was a business decision."

The league's board of governors instituted a lottery system weeks after the 1984 draft to make certain this nonsense would never happen again. Because of that decision, Patrick Ewing ended up on the Knicks in the 1985 lottery, even though the Pacers and Warriors finished with worse records.

 

[FreedS[ohh]lave]

Don't get me wrong. You need talented players to win a championship, but if you mismanage picks (a la ATL Hawks from 2004-2007) what difference does it make if you tank anyway.

You need good management to find the right picks. If you can guarantee that every player selected in the top 10 is going to be an All Star then by all means tank. But since there are no guarantees I don't see the value of tanking. If you're genuinely bad, that's one thing. But if you have a decent team & don't compete & diminish the integrity of your sport & your team to get a top 10 pick, I don't think that's good for your team or the sport

But as i said just to have a chance at contending you need to get lucky in the lotto in the right year first if you're a small market team its just the nature of the beast in a game that is really about your best one or two players

Look at the Bucks they are trying to stay medicore by tryign to sing guys like JR Korver and Jennigns what sense does that make?

They like many other tems are better of detroying and rebuilding and playing mostly young players and getting rid of veterasn with big contracts,if you want to cal lit "tanking" fine but i call it beign smart

 

[#1 pick]

The bolded is the key word. Just look at 97. Both the Spurs and C's sucked. Spurs got the top pick, a title within two years, and went on one of the best runs in recent history that still isn't over yet. The C's had to wait a decade to become a contender.

I absolutely abhor tanking. Wasn't the purpose of the lottery to curtail tanking? I have been thinking about a few alternatives to the current system:

1. Let teams bid for picks with their cap room. You could have it where having the better record is the tie breaker or give some sort of benefit to teams with better records. That way you reward teams that are smart with the cap and at the same time prevent tanking.

2. Have all non-playoff teams have an equal shot at the lottery.

3. Do it the exact opposite of how they do now. Instead of the worst record having the most ping pong balls, have the best record that missed the playoffs have the most ping pong balls. This prevents tanking overall but you would have 7 and 8 seeds tanking at the end of the year. But at least they would by trying for the first 3 quarters of the season.

The problem was outside of Duncan, who was the player anyone thought would be great after him? Keith Van Horn? Tracy McGrady was mad raw out of HS. That draft had no one who was seen elite during the draft but Duncan. So it only makes sense that if you win the lotto, you hit the jackpot in that draft and if you lose

Let's be real, the reason why everyone wants to tank in this draft is because there is suppose to be 6-7 potential franchise players in this draft alone. It makes sense to tank in this draft. It didn't make sense to tank in the Duncan draft because Duncan was the only elite prospect.

I don't really like your plan, it has too many outside variables. The current system is good tho. If you have the worst record, you can't get the #1 pick unless you win the lottery. That makes sense.

 

[Tres Leches]

its not even that serious young guys get to play more minutes and usually play harder than the vets anyway ..stop hating plus it only happens with really deep drafts which dont happen often

 

[#1 pick]

its not even that serious young guys get to play more minutes and usually play harder than the vets anyway ..stop hating plus it only happens with really deep drafts which dont happen often

Some nikkas just hate bad Basketball and not winning games. They hate that shyt. Long term, you gotta do what cha gotta do.

 

[FTBS]

The problem was outside of Duncan, who was the player anyone thought would be great after him? Keith Van Horn? Tracy McGrady was mad raw out of HS. That draft had no one who was seen elite during the draft but Duncan. So it only makes sense that if you win the lotto, you hit the jackpot in that draft and if you lose

Let's be real, the reason why everyone wants to tank in this draft is because there is suppose to be 6-7 potential franchise players in this draft alone. It makes sense to tank in this draft. It didn't make sense to tank in the Duncan draft because Duncan was the only elite prospect.

I don't really like your plan, it has too many outside variables. The current system is good tho. If you have the worst record, you can't get the #1 pick unless you win the lottery. That makes sense.

The Duncan piece was in reference to the idea that tanking guarantees a top pick. Beyond that Van Horn was expected to be a star coming out of college. Let's not act like that draft was looked upon like this years going into it. Also the key to great drafts is usually the unexpected. Nobody expected Mike to be what he became in 84. Same for Barkely and Stockton. Nobody expected Kobe to be what he became in 96. Nobody saw Wade becoming what he became in 03. Unless you can see into the future it's gonna be a crapshoot.

I don't like tanking. I get why team do it but I don't like it. That's why I think the system should be changed. In the current set-up it's best to be either be in contention or in the toilet. The 15-20 teams in between are pretty much just stuck unless they fall to the bottom. I say help the teams stuck on the treadmill rather than the bottom feeders who most likely deserve to be there. That way teams would have no reason to tank AND you wouldn't have the top players always going to sucky squads to start out. Make teams be creative and reward smart moves and management and give top players a chance at success out the gate.

 

[#1 pick]

The Duncan piece was in reference to the idea that tanking guarantees a top pick. Beyond that Van Horn was expected to be a star coming out of college. Let's not act like that draft was looked upon like this years going into it. Also the key to great drafts is usually the unexpected. Nobody expected Mike to be what he became in 84. Same for Barkely and Stockton. Nobody expected Kobe to be what he became in 96. Nobody saw Wade becoming what he became in 03. Unless you can see into the future it's gonna be a crapshoot.

I don't like tanking. I get why team do it but I don't like it. That's why I think the system should be changed. In the current set-up it's best to be either be in contention or in the toilet. The 15-20 teams in between are pretty much just stuck unless they fall to the bottom. I say help the teams stuck on the treadmill rather than the bottom feeders who most likely deserve to be there. That way teams would have no reason to tank AND you wouldn't have the top players always going to sucky squads to start out. Make teams be creative and reward smart moves and management and give top players a chance at success out the gate.

A lot of scouts thought that 84' draft was going to be badazz before the draft started. You had coaches like Bobby Knight saying I would draft MJ, he will be great. You had five guys in that draft that scouts felt were franchise players. Then you had guys like Stockton who became franchise players. That draft was beyond loaded breh. Most didn't think MJ would be one of the greatest ever, they did think he was a franchise player and a complete showman. Who the fukk rocks the cradle in a college game at the buzzer?
nikkas on here think I hate MJ but I probably watched more MJ tape than any player in NBA history, even the ones I tried to mimick like Stockton, Pistol Pete, and Fat Lever.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B9obsY_Yg8[/ame]

No ONE thought KVH would be a superstar. They felt he could be an All Star player but no felt he would be special. Like I said, that draft was Duncan or bust.

Kobe was expected to be a NBA superstar breh. Philly wanted him at #1, he fell because of Kobe's lack of willingness to play for anyone other than LAL.

Wade surprised scouts but I knew he would be great Pat almost drafted Kaman over Wade

A lot of scouts felt Chuck could be a star breh.

 

[FTBS]

A lot of scouts thought that 84' draft was going to be badazz before the draft started. You had coaches like Bobby Knight saying I would draft MJ, he will be great. You had five guys in that draft that scouts felt were franchise players. Then you had guys like Stockton who became franchise players. That draft was beyond loaded breh. Most didn't think MJ would be one of the greatest ever, they did think he was a franchise player and a complete showman. Who the fukk rocks the cradle in a college game at the buzzer?
nikkas on here think I hate MJ but I probably watched more MJ tape than any player in NBA history, even the ones I tried to mimick like Stockton, Pistol Pete, and Fat Lever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B9obsY_Yg8

No ONE thought KVH would be a superstar. They felt he could be an All Star player but no felt he would be special. Like I said, that draft was Duncan or bust.

Kobe was expected to be a NBA superstar breh. Philly wanted him at #1, he fell because of Kobe's lack of willingness to play for anyone other than LAL.

Wade surprised scouts but I knew he would be great Pat almost drafted Kaman over Wade

A lot of scouts felt Chuck could be a star breh.

Do you know how many nikkas in the history of all sports were expected to be stars and didnt' make it for whatever reason? The fact remains that it's a crap shoot. You never really know what spot you will get and what you will get with a player until it happens. Like I said I get why team tank I just think the system should be changed to stop it.

 

[Street Knowledge]

You win in the nba with superstars, and historically teams have gotten their superstars on draft night

 

[#1 pick]

Do you know how many nikkas in the history of all sports were expected to be stars and didnt' make it for whatever reason? The fact remains that it's a crap shoot. You never really know what spot you will get and what you will get with a player until it happens. Like I said I get why team tank I just think the system should be changed to stop it.

You asking a lot of what if's breh. The bottom line is the bottom line. How many teams have built a team via trade outside of LAL, Miami and Boston?

 

[superunknown23]

You win in the nba with superstars, and historically teams have gotten their superstars on draft night

the 2004 Pistons had no superstars though

 

[Street Knowledge]

the 2004 Pistons had no superstars though

After the sheed trade they had the best defense in NBA history

Its a reason The pistons are an outlier

 

[mbewane]

So what would examples of tanking that WORKED?

I can only think of the Spurs getting Duncan...what are other examples of tanking that was "successful"?