EwingsGlass wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:Plus, it pisses off guys like Luka and LeBron 😂

Just gotta do a little more to remove the bottom end tanking. I really think all lotto teams should be equal.

I see a lot of people talking about how play-in has reduced tanking. I’m not really sure that play-in affects tanking too much because the teams that do that aren’t on the verge of entering the playoffs but at the very bottom of the league.

What you are proposing is not exactly in the spirit of what the draft should be. I don’t have a problem with the weakest teams getting the best players, but I would limit it to the way that the same team can’t pick in the top 3 or even the top 5 two years in a row.

So if you are bad, you get the best players as an opportunity for a "better future". But also, it would make it impossible to collect top picks for many years in a row.

And another very important thing. Hard cap. It’s clear what the idea is behind the soft cap, but it doesn’t really make much sense to ultimately have teams that have a payroll high over the cap.

xavier wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:Plus, it pisses off guys like Luka and LeBron 😂

Just gotta do a little more to remove the bottom end tanking. I really think all lotto teams should be equal.

I see a lot of people talking about how play-in has reduced tanking. I’m not really sure that play-in affects tanking too much because the teams that do that aren’t on the verge of entering the playoffs but at the very bottom of the league.

What you are proposing is not exactly in the spirit of what the draft should be. I don’t have a problem with the weakest teams getting the best players, but I would limit it to the way that the same team can’t pick in the top 3 or even the top 5 two years in a row.

So if you are bad, you get the best players as an opportunity for a "better future". But also, it would make it impossible to collect top picks for many years in a row.

And another very important thing. Hard cap. It’s clear what the idea is behind the soft cap, but it doesn’t really make much sense to ultimately have teams that have a payroll high over the cap.

I think "coasting" and "tanking" are being used interchangeably. Toward the end of the season, a lot of teams were resting players. I think the play-in aspect prevents "coasting". I think this is just resting players for the playoffs - not intentionally losing games. Maybe just indifferent to the outcome.

Tanking is an atrocity that is 'kind of' allowed. I don't fault teams for doing what is permitted - I just think it shouldn't be "kind of permitted" and any statistical benefit to losing should be removed. Personally, I think anyone in the lottery is in the same category. They didn't make the playoffs. I don't really understand the benefit of rewarding a team for winning less.

There are certainly merits to both sides - I get the theory that the worst teams may need a push to get out of the basement. Its a little self-serving for me to make this argument - but doesn't Thibs prove that good coaching is a better way to get out of the basement?

I think that anything that discourages teams from winning games should be attacked. The league should be focused on making marginal teams competitive instead of making bad teams suck less. GSW's performance last year was bad for the league. That they added the #2 pick to that squad isn't good for the NBA. I don't really appreciate superteams anymore either (may also be the getting burnt aspect).

What I really meant to say was "Playoffs baby, Playoffs!!!"

Nalod wrote:Makes most games relevant. When teams rest star players at seasons end it cheats the fans. Buy tickets for a kids birthday or plan a visit to city based on a game and come to find star is sitting the game out.
Its like going to a broadway show in part to see a certain actor to find they are being replaced by the understudy. Not that they lack talent, but some players are the attraction. The "show" might still be great but its disappointing .

That statement. Not about avoiding the tanking, it's about expanding the more relevant games.

15 teams in each conference. We can generously say that out to #12 seed had viable games up until about the last week and days of regular season (instead of #9 in east and #10 in west in normal circumstance).

Lots of ongoing, heated battles til the very last day up to #4 seed in east and #5 seed in West to avoid play-in.

Play-in games themselves will also generate a lot of momentum to the main portion playoffs while also giving the #1-6 seeds a good amount of rest. You want load management during the season? Do it at risk of not having it before playoffs.

xavier wrote:What you are proposing is not exactly in the spirit of what the draft should be. I don’t have a problem with the weakest teams getting the best players, but I would limit it to the way that the same team can’t pick in the top 3 or even the top 5 two years in a row.

The only problem I have with your idea about limiting teams from having a top pick in consecutive seasons is every draft class doesn't have equal talent. So if you had the first pick in a bad draft (i.e. 2013 draft when Anthony Bennett was the #1 pick) it would suck if you couldn't get a top pick the next year if it happens to be a strong draft.