Its bad for development, its bad for the consumer who shells out thousands of dollars to come to a game, bad for culture, bad for environment, bad for veterans, bad for coaches. All that for a 10% chance at a top 3 pick that may turn out to be a trash of a player.

Its just so much bad in tanking

Mike Stobe / Getty Images Sport / Getty
Report: Silver memo stresses tanking will not be tolerated
John Chick Feb 28, 2018 10:46 AM
On Feb. 21, NBA commissioner Adam Silver sent a memo to all 30 franchises regarding tanking, according to USA TODAY's Sam Amick. The message was apparently clear: Teams not giving their best will not be tolerated.

"If we ever received evidence that players or coaches were attempting to lose or otherwise taking steps to cause any game to result otherwise than on its competitive merits, that conduct would be met with the swiftest and harshest response possible from the league office," Silver said in the letter, according to Amick.

The memo comes on the heels of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban opining that "losing is the best option" for his struggling team. Cuban was promptly fined $600,000 by the NBA, while players like Dirk Nowitzki decried the remarks.

"We have no basis at this time to conclude that the Mavericks team is giving anything less than its best effort on the court, and Mark has assured us that this is not the case," Silver said in the memo. "But even a suggestion that such conduct could be occurring is obviously damaging to our game, as it creates a perception of impropriety."

The league has taken preventative steps over the years to combat the theory that teams out of the playoff hunt will not give 100 percent in games to increase their draft lottery odds. The most egregious example, the Philadelphia 76ers from 2013-16, clearly suited up non-NBA caliber players at times - ultimately leading to former general manager Sam Hinkie's exit.

While it won't start until next year, the three teams with the worst records will share a 14 percent chance of winning the top pick in the draft. Up until and including this season, the NBA's worst team has a 25 percent chance of landing the No. 1 pick through the lottery.

"The integrity of the competition on the playing court is the cornerstone of our league," Silver said. "We must do everything in our power to protect the actual and perceived integrity of the game."

Vmart wrote:I’m still a proponent of throwing all the teams in the lottery. It’s the only way to not rewarding tanking. The reason is if a good team gets a top pick they are more likely to trade the pick. Which stimulates trade. On the other hand if a top team likes the drafted player more than what they have it still creates trade. I’m really tired of this draft order BS. Put all the 30 teams in a bin and start from bottom up.

Totally disagree. The worst teams should get the best picks because that is what they NEED. Its not about rewarding tanking. Its about trying to balance the league. Teams that are losing, tanking or not are doing so because they lack the talent to compete. Awarding that talent to teams that already has it makes sense? I dont think so at all.

The subject at hand is "Tanking" and there is no reality to change a team from doing what knicks are doing. Cuban got cute and opened his mouth. Wrong.
Fact is unless there is a clear no 1 generational pick that year tanking itself is not always a good pay off.
Personally I think a team that tanks or is so awful bad is a drag on attendance at home, but also on the road.
If a team, say avg's 17k a game and the sucky Mav's come in and just 12k show up they should compensate the team and its vendors for the short fall.
What Philly did for a few years was not cool. Perhaps teams with extended winning problems like Philly did should face league financial penalties.
Silver did insist on a change of "Process" as Stern did with dolan when it seemed he insisted Isiah go and Walsh be bought in.

BigDaddyG wrote:

Nalod wrote:NO doubt the Gleague is moving towards a true minor league system. What that does to the NCAA feeder system if the Gleague ups its money I don't know.
Basically we talking about 10 kids max a year that could make an NBA team? 20 after a one and done?
Will the Gleague truly develop kids like they do in College?

I remember hearing from a Woj podcast with Jonathan Givony that it was night and day when comparing the lifestyle of a high level D1 prospect and a G-Leaguer. Let's say a guy commits to Kentucky. His nutrition, training routine etc. are already there for him at a high level. Plus, you have a guy like Calipari who knows what it will take to prepare him for the next level. Unless you're a two-way player or draft pick, a G-LEAGUER is dealing with a per diem that might make it hard to eat properly and travel schedule might make it hard for player development. These guys aren't on charter planes, but busses and commercial flights. If you're picking up a player from a team that's not your affiliate, you have no idea what the coach has told them. You might have re-train them. The G-League still needs to be tweaked before it's considered as a real alternative. I think most NBA execs would prefer it if a kid played high level D1.

For years I thought it would be best for an NBA team to draft a kid out of high school and then PAY FOR HIS COLLEGE AND A SET AMOUNT OF MONEY! Maybe have more than two rounds of the draft.
Maybe only allow college teams to have a set amount of kids at that time. Companies pay (reimburse) employees to get masters degree. If players get injured or don’t make it, they get a set amount of money which pays for a degree. Basically in the summer he can do “an internship” and play summer league and train.
I know there are conflicts of interest with coaches, the school, etc, but is there some wa to figure this out?

knicks1248 wrote:I'm am so glad that ADAM SILVER has made this a serious issue. I think its absolutely the worse thing you can do is to tell your team to tank, and put a product on the floor that has no chance to win.

Its bad for development, its bad for the consumer who shells out thousands of dollars to come to a game, bad for culture, bad for environment, bad for veterans, bad for coaches. All that for a 10% chance at a top 3 pick that may turn out to be a trash of a player.

Its just so much bad in tanking

He didn't make it a serious issue

1) He pointed out if he had EVIDENCE. Which means it will be nearly impossible to stop a team from tanking

2) He wrote a harshly worded MEMO. That's like writing a Post It and slapping it on the fridge. A MEMO. Are you kidding me? It's NOT A CHANGE TO THE CBA, so it's toothless.

Here's the thing about professional sports that many people just don't get. EVERY PLAYER can be, if you dig hard enough, hurt enough to not play. Every last one of them. If a team wants to "tank" they just have to pull players with minor/phantom injuries. Silver can't force an injured guy to play. He can't even force a guy faking an injury to play.

The lottery odds aren't changing because of tanking, they changed BECAUSE OF MARKET RESALE VALUATION OF NBA FRANCHISES.

Steve Ballmer paid 2 billion plus for the Clippers. In doing so, he spiked the valuation of ALL NBA FRANCHISES. Do you think in the near future, once the Clippers regain their picks again, that they are just going to magically win the lottery very soon? If you spend enough to spike the value of all NBA franchises, well, good chance you'll win the lottery very soon if you have a pick at all.

Raise the odds means it's less eyebrow raising when a team with a low percentage gets a hometown hero to market (Derrick Rose to Chicago)

Nothing actually changed. "Evidence" Do you know how hard it would be to get that and enforce that?

If Silver actually was going to do something, he would have explained what the penalties would be and how to define tanking from all the other years the NBA turned a blind eye to it.

Vmart wrote:I’m still a proponent of throwing all the teams in the lottery. It’s the only way to not rewarding tanking. The reason is if a good team gets a top pick they are more likely to trade the pick. Which stimulates trade. On the other hand if a top team likes the drafted player more than what they have it still creates trade. I’m really tired of this draft order BS. Put all the 30 teams in a bin and start from bottom up.

Isn't that kinda of what they do now with the bottom 10? They just add some more lotto balls to the worst teams.
Dont think putting ALL the teams in a lottery is a good idea. Is it fair to give a top team like GS or Houston the top pick? The the point of the draft was to give smaller markets a chance at a top player and to level off the playing field. Think those are both a good thing. Teams resting their stars at the end of the year takes place in every sport. Baseballs draft does not have as much impact as the NBA yet teams rest all their stars once they are out of playoff run. Think the complaint is over blown.

Mike1989 wrote:The best way to solve tanking is to....

.... change the dynamic of the entire talent pool.

No matter how you change the odds, there is a real and consistent talent scarcity at the NBA level.

1) The league talent pool is HEIGHT DEPENDENT. How many American males are even 6 feet tall or over? ( 12 percent) Eliminate all those out of the baseline need age range. Eliminate those with health issues, people in jail, mentally ill, etc.

2) The league talent pool is ATHLETICISM DEPENDENT AGAINST A HARD FLOOR. So take the pool from Category 1, which is narrow, less than 1 percent. Then wipe out anyone who cannot function athletically at the NBA level.

Changing the odds doesn't change the fact that maybe 1-2 impact players show up every draft. Maybe. Most teams don't have access to those players.

You cannot make people grow taller or faster , not at the rate needed by the NBA.

Here's a social problem no one wants to talk about. The core of the talent in the NBA, look at the demographic. When they marry or have children, are they picking the most athletically gifted woman they can find? No, like all men, they want a chick who is young, fit and hot and isn't too much of a pain in the @ss. Sorry, guys, a 6'7 super male athlete who marries and has kids with a 5'6 chick ( probably white) who looks good in a bikini, that's not producing the next super athlete. JaVale McGee is an example of what happens when you have two super athletes having kids. Well most of the time.

You must structure the game to be more efficient with the current structure of the talent available.

That means a Landry Fields, a Adam Morrison, a Jimmer Fredette. These guys would do better if

A) There was a 4 point shot. Then a 5 point shot for half court shots
B) There were 7 man starting lineups
C) The rim was raised
D) The floor was longer and wider
E) The shot clock was reduced
F) The officiating crews had 8 man teams
G) Hand checking to return
H) Widespread use of non guaranteed contracts and a hard cap
I) Expanded rosters
J) A compensation system for lost free agents

You need functional ways for teams to build and win with MULTIPLE AVENUES of approach.

The current system is busted. It has no market inefficiencies. It's too punitive to GMs and coaches.

Changing the lottery odds does nothing. You need to change the structure of the game to fit a wider use of the potential talent pool. You need to drive out the 7 foot plodder and much functional heights by positional value lower. The NFL and MLB function because they can fit different physical types on their rosters. The NBA is super limited into only a very few archtypes for their talent pool.