Have not seen this (rather simple) solution to NBA tanking suggested, have you?

[AHF]

9 hours ago, Diesel said:

The three plan.

Year 1  30-52

Year 2  21 - 61

Year 3 20-62    - This gets them the #1 pick overall. 

Year 4:  41 - 41....  Because they have 2 seasons prior with a record of 41-123...  this team is still at the top of the lottery board.   Maybe not #1 but probably top 5...

They are top 5.. but they were a .500 team.   Whereas there may be a legit 4-78 team, who had a bad season and a major injury.. and because they were better than average the two seasons previous, they probably picking in the teens.

 

 

I actually don't really see that as a problem.

The example you are giving about a terrible team with a major injury is basically the Spurs when they got Duncan so yeah they probably shouldn't get the #1 pick when they are a good team that had one big down year.

 

Here is how the draft order (or lottery odds) works out last year using the 3 year method:

Draft Slot / ...  Team ... / 3 Year Wins

 

[sturt]

On 1/23/2024 at 11:20 AM, sturt said:

Backing up, having thought about it while driving today... might want to think about something to balance the equation since top tier players routinely will be more attracted to the highest visibility franchises. So, the thought being, if you're going to provide disincentive for teams being content to stock their rosters completely through drafting, wanting them to always attempt at minimum to be mediocre, give all the lesser-visibility franchises some mechanism for competing more aggressively in the market.

 

So, building on this...

We need a new way to compensate players that rebalances the free agent market somewhat to compensate for the intrinsic attraction of marquee, high-visibility franchises/markets where potentially more money can be made... and actually, if that's the objective, why wouldn't you also compensate for state tax laws?

Last part first, the tax law part is the easy part because it's straightforward. But to the first part, how does one come up with how you draw that line between "marquee, high-visibility" and everyone else? I have ideas, but I'm not yet convincing myself that any one of them works well... interested in others.

But once that's defined... what if the "everyone else" teams had the option to carve out some equity in their ownership, and actually convey what amounts to preferred stock options that become valid at retirement, allowing the player to purchase equity in a team at a predetermined advantageous price?

I know the first reaction may be, "what ownership is going to do that?" But indulge me. Let's say for the sake of argument that that's a path to advantage in obtaining a highly regarded free agent that they would welcome. Why else wouldn't you take interest in this if you were Adam Silver?

 

 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

 

I know the first reaction may be, "what ownership is going to do that?" But indulge me. Let's say for the sake of argument that that's a path to advantage in obtaining a highly regarded free agent that they would welcome. Why else wouldn't you take interest in this if you were Adam Silver?

What does this do for Silver?  There is no free agent who is walking away from the game because of a lack of ability to get options in a team.  They are all signing somewhere so what is the problem from the league's perspective that you are trying to solve with this?  (This also doesn't solve for the big market imbalance but exacerbates it to the extent owners are willing to buy in because a 0.2% interest in the Timberwolves is worth so much less than a 0.2% interest in the Lakers.)

On the contrary, I can see some reasons not to want to have a bunch of new minority owners (talking minority in terms of % of ownership of the team).  If you allow former players to get an interest in the team now you have a significantly expanded pool of owners that do not go through any league vetting or approval process.  We've seen the problems that can happen when owners fight among themselves and the odds of that happening increase as the number of owners increase.  Moreover, you can have the Bill Cosby type of impact where a retired player has their reputation brutalized and now they are one of your owners and maybe showing up to games in the owner's box while they are being charged with sexual assault, etc.  This isn't purely hypothetical.  We've seen allegations and sometimes legal charges like that against players who would presumably be most likely to get these ownership stakes like Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, Karl Malone, Derrick Rose, etc.   

So I don't see any upside for the league with this and do see some real downsides.  I could see some owners being interested in this, but not Adam Silver.

[sturt]

31 minutes ago, AHF said:

(This also doesn't solve for the big market imbalance but exacerbates it to the extent owners are willing to buy in because a 0.2% interest in the Timberwolves is worth so much less than a 0.2% interest in the Lakers.)

 

2 hours ago, sturt said:

So, building on this...

We need a new way to compensate players that rebalances the free agent market somewhat to compensate for the intrinsic attraction of marquee, high-visibility franchises/markets where potentially more money can be made... and actually, if that's the objective, why wouldn't you also compensate for state tax laws?

Last part first, the tax law part is the easy part because it's straightforward. But to the first part, how does one come up with how you draw that line between "marquee, high-visibility" and everyone else? I have ideas, but I'm not yet convincing myself that any one of them works well... interested in others.

But once that's defined... what if the "everyone else" teams had the option to carve out some equity in their ownership,

 

(I'm guessing you may have read too fast... as I am a chief offender, history will show.)

 

Pretty sure no matter how we would settle on a line of demarcation between high-visibility and everyone else, the Lakers would never come down on that side of everyone else.

 

And so, by "everyone else" having that additional lever to push/pull, the theory is it gives them one more way of persuading a player beyond salary and playing time. (Sorry if I didn't make that clear.)

[AHF]

13 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

 

(I'm guessing you may have read too fast... as I am a chief offender, history will show.)

 

Pretty sure no matter how we would settle on a line of demarcation between high-visibility and everyone else, the Lakers would never come down on that side of everyone else.

 

And so, by "everyone else" having that additional lever to push/pull, the theory is it gives them one more way of persuading a player beyond salary and playing time. (Sorry if I didn't make that clear.)

You made it clear - I just read too quickly as you suggested.  I don't think there is a chance in the world that the NBA will only allow some teams to offer an ownership interest but bar the biggest markets from doing so.  From the league's perspective, I don't think there is a problem if more big stars end up in New York and LA because those markets get more attention, higher ratings, and more money in the long-term than would be the case if LeBron passed on LA to go to Oklahoma or something.  

Add that to my other reasons why the league wouldn't want former players coming in as minority owners without the league vetting and blessing that arrangement as they did with Jordan, Hill, etc. 

[Watchman]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:51 PM, Diesel said:

Wouldn't that just penalize you for being bad?

What if you're Detroit.  Right now you're like 4 win and 37 loses.. (I don't know)...

And you're eliminated at game 50.. when your say 5 and 45...

You have 32 games left with this bad team.  You're saying that all your loses are now wins?

so they can end up...  35-47?

They were legitimately bad... they are getting penalized for it. 

 

Is Detroit is losing on purpose by making bad decisions? I hate tanking.  It means some lazy GM or owner or both, is throwing games as far as I am concerned.

[Watchman]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

You made it clear - I just read too quickly as you suggested.  I don't think there is a chance in the world that the NBA will only allow some teams to offer an ownership interest but bar the biggest markets from doing so.  From the league's perspective, I don't think there is a problem if more big stars end up in New York and LA because those markets get more attention, higher ratings, and more money in the long-term than would be the case if LeBron passed on LA to go to Oklahoma or something.  

Add that to my other reasons why the league wouldn't want former players coming in as minority owners without the league vetting and blessing that arrangement as they did with Jordan, Hill, etc. 

If that's the case, why have a league outside of NY and LA?  The league should not favor any team.  

[Watchman]

12 hours ago, Diesel said:

IF you feel that way... then why not just have a rotation of who gets what pick.   I'm sure that there's a fair rotation that can be made. 

Here's the thing.. and this is why the Draft lottery is rigged:

Above everything else, the commish has to make sure that every team puts a good product on the floor.  i.e. No market can die.  If a Market dies, the commish shares part of the blame.   

To overcome that, the commish has to make sure that every team has an opportunity to get good players.   That's why there is a draft in the first place.   Usually, the draft takes the worst team from the previous season and gives them the chance to get the best player out of college.   Since Basketball is a 5 man team on the court at one time, 1 great player can make a team go from worst to first.  Unlike other sports.  So tanking is a real thing. 

The point of the Lottery was to keep teams from tanking.. but it doesn't.  I mean, if I purposely lose games, the worst I can get is 4th.  However, what has happened is that 14 teams get to be handpicked by the commish to receive one of 3 picks every year.  In doing so, the commish can guarantee that a team stays competitive, he can work out diplomatic solutions for players, he can pay off debts owed to teams.   

Having a rotation of picks will take away the commish's power to change the landscape of teams. 

 

The Commish shouldn't have that kind of power anyway.  It allows him to favor the biggest market teams to keep on being good, and everyone else is a perennial doormat, like our illustrious Hawks.

[AHF]

59 minutes ago, Watchman said:

If that's the case, why have a league outside of NY and LA?  The league should not favor any team.  

I agree which is why I expect any rules the NBA adopts will apply to all teams not just teams in certain markets to give them tools to sign players that teams in the other markets don't have.  While the Commish wants what will end up with the most money for everyone, there is also a powerful incentive to have fair and uniform rules across all teams and markets.  That may leave some markets with advantages over others but that is inevitable imo.  The advantages one market enjoys over another should not come from the rules themselves.

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, Watchman said:

The Commish shouldn't have that kind of power anyway.  It allows him to favor the biggest market teams to keep on being good, and everyone else is a perennial doormat, like our illustrious Hawks.

That doesn't make the most sense.   He has to keep the other smaller markets afloat.  Otherwise, they would just die off.  So every now and then, he allows a smaller market team to prosper.