Must Read: Per Zach Lowe, NBA floating a proposal that would end tanking

[sturt]

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas, indeed... hehe...

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86940/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel

...We can also search for solutions, and there are lots of folks in the league office and among the 30 teams who find tanking abhorrent — who bristle at the idea that the league has incentivized teams to be anything but their best every single season. One detailed proposal, submitted by a team official, has gained initial traction among some high-level NBA officials — to the point that the NBA may float the proposal to owners sometime in 2014, according to league sources. Other top officials in the league office have expressed early opposition to the proposal, sources say.

The Proposal

Grantland obtained a copy of the proposal, which would eliminate the draft lottery and replace it with a system in which each of the 30 teams would pick in a specific first-round draft slot once — and exactly once — every 30 years. Each team would simply cycle through the 30 draft slots, year by year, in a predetermined order designed so that teams pick in different areas of the draft each year. Teams would know with 100 percent certainty in which draft slots they would pick every year, up to 30 years out from the start of every 30-year cycle. The practice of protecting picks would disappear; there would never be a Harrison Barnes–Golden State situation again, and it wouldn’t require a law degree to track ownership of every traded pick leaguewide.

The system is simpler to understand in pictorial form. Below is the wheel that outlines the order in which each team would cycle through the draft slots; the graphic highlights the top six slots in red to show that every team would be guaranteed one top-six pick every five seasons, and at least one top-12 pick in every four-year span:

Edited December 25, 2013 by sturt

[ATLHawks3]

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas, indeed... hehe...

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86940/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel

...We can also search for solutions, and there are lots of folks in the league office and among the 30 teams who find tanking abhorrent — who bristle at the idea that the league has incentivized teams to be anything but their best every single season. One detailed proposal, submitted by a team official, has gained initial traction among some high-level NBA officials — to the point that the NBA may float the proposal to owners sometime in 2014, according to league sources. Other top officials in the league office have expressed early opposition to the proposal, sources say.

The Proposal

Grantland obtained a copy of the proposal, which would eliminate the draft lottery and replace it with a system in which each of the 30 teams would pick in a specific first-round draft slot once — and exactly once — every 30 years. Each team would simply cycle through the 30 draft slots, year by year, in a predetermined order designed so that teams pick in different areas of the draft each year. Teams would know with 100 percent certainty in which draft slots they would pick every year, up to 30 years out from the start of every 30-year cycle. The practice of protecting picks would disappear; there would never be a Harrison Barnes–Golden State situation again, and it wouldn’t require a law degree to track ownership of every traded pick leaguewide.

The system is simpler to understand in pictorial form. Below is the wheel that outlines the order in which each team would cycle through the draft slots; the graphic highlights the top six slots in red to show that every team would be guaranteed one top-six pick every five seasons, and at least one top-12 pick in every four-year span:

Lost me at The Proposal.

[ViperXX79]

So bad teams are at the mercy of the draft class. Not sure I like that. If teams want to tank then let them. There's many ways to turn a franchise around and if a GM wants to take that route then why not. What's going to stop a new big three forming on a team and where they know the next "Lebron" will be drafted on. This just feels like it will lead to more tampering from the players standpoint.

[kerrypack]

this would never happen so not even worth discussing. could make sense to change the stats to favor tanking less, though. ie, remember when orlando got a top pick when they had shaq. that should not be friggin impossible!!!

[Guest]

So say Toronto or the Bucks have the 1st pick that year with The Lakers having the #1 pick the next year - aaahhh I'm a diaper dandy slotted to be picked number #1.....mmmmmmm, I think I will stay in school for another year and let the Lakers pick me....nice very nice.

This has diaster written all over it.

Edited December 25, 2013 by JayBirdHawk

[ViperXX79]

So say Toronto or the Bucks have the 1st pick that year with The Lakers having the #1 pick the next year - aaahhh I'm a diaper dandy slotted to be picked number #1.....mmmmmmm, I think I will stay in school for another year and let the Lakers pick me....nice very nice.

This has diaster written all over it.

Great point. It gives players leverage they shouldn't have.

[NBASupes]

So say Toronto or the Bucks have the 1st pick that year with The Lakers having the #1 pick the next year - aaahhh I'm a diaper dandy slotted to be picked number #1.....mmmmmmm, I think I will stay in school for another year and let the Lakers pick me....nice very nice.

This has diaster written all over it.

I remember when the Hawks were bad and we couldn't get players like Brandon Roy to workout with us and Kenyon Martin took less to sign with Denver as did Eddy Curry to NYK. Man, we were a big joke.

[sturt]

Not sure it's that simple, guys. One season's preemptive number one may or may not be next season's preemptive number one.

But let's say it is that simple. Is there a framework here that, with some tweaking, might avoid the criticism?

Maybe.

What if, for instance, instead of being specifically slotted into one position for each draft and alternating each year, you had three teams slotted this year into 1-3, another three slotted into 4-6, and so on... ten groups. And, pertinent to the criticism, there would be a mini-lottery held to assign the specific draft slot for each team in a group. So, in effect, you would know if you were drafting 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-24, 25-27, or 28-30 in a given year (and alternating each year), but until the ping pong balls fall, if you were in the 1-3 group, you wouldn't know if you would be #1, #2, or #3.

So, with that modification, I could see it working pretty well.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Draft Lottery Tournament* Play it right after regular season is over* Seed non-playoff teams 1 - 14 ( in 1st year )* Group into 7 sections. 1 vs 2 .. to 13 vs 14 ( coin flip determines home team )* Winners go to a neutral non-NBA city to play in a 3 day tourney( 1 v 2 winner .. vs .. 3 v 4 winner ) - Group 1( 13 v 14 winner gets bye to semifinals ) - Group 2( 5 v 6 winner .. vs .. 7 v 8 winner ) - Group 3( 9 v 10 winner .. vs .. 11 v 12 winner ) - Group 4* 1st round winners guaranteed one of top 4 picks in draft* Winner of tourney gets #1 pick in the draft* Rest of draft is slotted according to record ( first by final 4 losers .. then by rest of the field )* Winner is not eligible to be in tourney the following yearCurrent matchups:Denver v LA Lakers ( 1 v 2 )Minnesota v New Orleans ( 3 v 4 )Milwaukee v Utah ( 13 v 14 )Memphis v Chicago ( 5 v 6 )Cleveland v New York ( 7 - 8 )Brooklyn v Sacramento ( 9 - 10 )Orlando v Philly ( 11 - 12 )

[vdunkndunk]

I like a Chad Ford proposal I saw recently - basically, the three teams with the three worst records averaged out over the last three years before each draft are entered into a three team lottery for the top three picks. So basically, you'd have to be bad for three straight years just to get a 33.3% chance at the top pick - thus eliminating most of the incentive for tanking.

[sturt]

I used to think the 3-year average was a good idea, but then I realized that, in any given year, you're still going to have at least a half-dozen teams, if not more, in contention for those three slots at the beginning of a given season. Teams are already accused of tanking just to have a shot, even a long shot. And if you end up in 4th, that's a pretty sweet consolation anyhow.

The more I think about it, the only way to deal effectively with the tanking philosophy is to address it in the way this proposal does--i.e., a pre-determined structure.

By taking that angle, GMs have to focus more than ever on free agency... but... that then can have its own negative ripple effect, putting more pressure on GMs to overpay for free agents.

So, if I'm NBA czar, I implement the new draft structure, and in addition to the new salary cap deterrents, I would add an additional restriction on roster size. That is, for the first player on the roster that is in the top quarter (25%) of all NBA salaries, a team loses one roster slot... a second in the top quarter means they lose two more... a third means they lose three... and a fourth (as if that would ever happen, and I don't think it would even be mathematically possible) would mean they lose four more... thus, a team like Miami would have to expect to survive a season with only 9 roster slots. You can see how this forces a GM to seriously think more than ever about the utility of a strategy centered on obtaining three high-salary players.

[curtmcgirt]

This would kill small markets. In addition to staying in school, you'll see players run to European teams for a year or two.

[sturt]

nah... I don't see that even with the basic proposal... but if I'm wrong... and of course, I never am, but let's pretend ( :D )... the tweak I've suggested would ensure that it would be at least as unlikely as it is currently

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

So bad teams could get stuck as a bad team for decades w/o any help from the draft. The top pick should go to the worst team to help them become better. Good teams don't tank. I'd hate to see a situation in which a team wins a title or at least gets to the CF's and turns around and also has the #1 pick in the draft. A situation of where the rich get richer. Also, drafts are much weaker nowadays... I understand that teams would rotate in and out of the top 5 and wouldn't have to wait 25 years to get back into the top 5. It's a great attempt at ending tanking, but I don't like this proposal at all. Just make it where the three worse teams are blockaded from receiving a top 3 pick.

[Diesel]

I like a Chad Ford proposal I saw recently - basically, the three teams with the three worst records averaged out over the last three years before each draft are entered into a three team lottery for the top three picks. So basically, you'd have to be bad for three straight years just to get a 33.3% chance at the top pick - thus eliminating most of the incentive for tanking.

In thinking about Ford's proposal, it's made for a team that's "rebuilding". Think about it. When we did our last great rebuild, we were a lottery team for the CHillz, Marvin, Shelden, and Horf drafts. Now with just a little tank... we could have had 2 shots at that lottery spot at the least and if we didn't make it, we're still either 2 or 3? It rewards teams for being bad.

Instead, I say you decentivise teams for being bad. I say you allow teams that are the worst in the league to get the picks in the order of their record. However, You apply a Luxury tax to the top 3 teams in the draft (20%, 10%, 5%) and with that LT it also affects the player's salary the same way.

So if you're making 8 Million dollars and your team finishes in the top spot of the lottery, You personally lose 1.6 Million dollars of that 8 for that year. Even if you're in the last year of your deal.

If you're a team and you have 60 Million in salary, the Luxury tax hits you for 12 Million dollars. Since there's no hard cap, your team cannot be hit on the Luxury tax twice.

What this says is that losing is a team effort and a team that's losing is making the league look bad. So, that team gets it's star but they pay dearly in the year that it gets the star.

I've considered injury... but even in injury, a team gets a double profit so they would still have to pay the tax.

[coachx]

It might end tanking but it would be the death nail for many franchises. I think it would eventually lead to league contraction and less league revenue.

[Guest]

Or we could just get rid of the draft. Then there would be no incentive to tank.Or what if we keep adding on arbitrary rules that solve one minor problem but create even more problems because people are bad at seeing unforeseen consequences? Yeah! Lets do that!

[AtLaS]

Why not just give all lottery teams an equal shot at the #1 pick? Have a true drawing for each of the first 14 picks. This will prevent tanking amongst the league dwellers while also preventing a top team from gaining the #1 pick.

[coachx]

Why not just give all lottery teams an equal shot at the #1 pick? Have a true drawing for each of the first 14 picks. This will prevent tanking amongst the league dwellers while also preventing a top team from gaining the #1 pick.

That makes even less sense to me.

Why fight for the 8th, 7th, 6th, or even 5th playoff seed when you could lose a couple of more games and get a 7% chance at the #1 pick.....and a 7% at pick #2, and a 7% at pick #3, etc.

I think that would make the league even more top heavy then it is now. Teams would just go into medium tank mode trying to be right at a 50% win team.

[AtLaS]

That makes even less sense to me.

Why fight for the 8th, 7th, 6th, or even 5th playoff seed when you could lose a couple of more games and get a 7% chance at the #1 pick.....and a 7% at pick #2, and a 7% at pick #3, etc.

I think that would make the league even more top heavy then it is now. Teams would just go into medium tank mode trying to be right at a 50% win team.

I agree there may be some of that but I doubt a 5th seed would start tanking to secure a spot in that lottery. Home playoff games generate a lot of revenue for teams and they'd have to get the owners on board as well. There may be SOME amongst the 8-9 teams but that's debatable. Didn't we enjoy the 2008 playoffs? Or Golden State in 2007? Young, up and coming teams typically want to make the playoffs, and fans want to see them in the playoffs. It would be teams on the downswing, so to speak that may fall into this category.

I'm just saying it's a lot harder to convince ownership of tanking when you have a chance to make the playoffs then when you're already a bottom team and just looking to improve your odds by losing a few more.