NBA Teams Looking Into New Ways To Prevent Teams From Tanking

[Moranis]

These are some of the dumbest things I've seen. 

If you want to stop tanking, just fine the owners and do it in very large sums of money.  Tanking will stop immediately.

[KungPoweChicken]

Impose a tax penalty on teams with consecutive bottom finishes in the standings. There are a lot of creative ways this could be structured.

[Who]

Impose a tax penalty on teams with consecutive bottom finishes in the standings. There are a lot of creative ways this could be structured.

Do something like they do in English soccer where money distribution in the league is (1) 50% of it equally shared (2) 50% based on league standings. On merit.

That will force teams to try to win.

[bdm860]

Teams also would not be able to protect picks in the 12 to 15 slots going forward.

What does this mean? Because the way I read it, it's not making any sense.

You can protect picks 1-11, but not 1-12/13/14/15?

If you're drafting in spots 12-15, any protection on traded picks is voided?

If you finished in spots 12-15, you can't make any trades where you protect picks?

I feel like none of these makes sense, so someone help me understand please.


On the proposal as a whole, I think relegation is the most interesting, I really want to see how that plays out, I think that alone could work wonders.

[Kernewek]

Teams also would not be able to protect picks in the 12 to 15 slots going forward.

What does this mean? Because the way I read it, it's not making any sense.

You can protect picks 1-11, but not 1-12/13/14/15?

If you're drafting in spots 12-15, any protection on traded picks is voided?

If you finished in spots 12-15, you can't make any trades where you protect picks?

I feel like none of these makes sense, so someone help me understand please.


On the proposal as a whole, I think relegation is the most interesting, I really want to see how that plays out, I think that alone could work wonders.

'Going forward' presumes any protections on trades already made (e.g. someone's protected pick in 2027 or whatever) will be grandfathered into the rule, I think.

I also suspect the change to 12-15 protections is there because of the expanded lottery odds detailed before:

16 teams in the lottery.
*3 lottery balls for Teams that do not qualify for the playoffs or play-in tournament but finish 4-10
*2 lottery balls for teams with a bottom-three record (worst possible pick is 12th)
*2 lottery balls for 9th and 10th play-in seeds
*1 lottery ball for the 7th/8th play-in losers

Full disclosure, I'm a little hungover so I might be missing something, but they seem to be trying to disincentivise protecting bottom-of-the-pile picks (which would impact, usually, the better teams that are now eligible for the draft lottery).

[Donoghus]

Here's a visual for those interested.

[Moranis]

If this was in place in the past, the Spurs would not have Dylan Harper.  The Pistons would not have Ausar Thompson (they actually went 4 in row - Cade, Ivey, Thompson, Holland). Houston also went 4 in a row with Green, Smith, Thompson, Sheppard.  The Cavs would not have Mobley (Garland, Okoro, then Mobley).  The Cavs also had 4 in a row with Irving/Thompson,  then Waiters, Bennett, Wiggins. The Thunder of years past wouldn't have had Harden as he was after Durant then Westbrook.  The Lakers wouldn't have been in position for Lonzo so who knows if thst team takes him or Tatum.  And the year prior, the Sixers couldn't have taken Simmons after Embiid and Okafor (they also had a top 5 the next year when they traded 3 with Boston so they could take Fultz at 1).  The Suns wouldn't have had Ayton after wasting picks on Bender and Jackson the 2 prior years.  Orlando wouldn't have gotten Hezonja in 2015.   

I believe that is all of the times a team has had top 5 picks in 3 consecutive years in the last 15 years or so. And the only teams that actually got 3 good players is the Sonics/Thunder with Durant, Westbrook, Harden and Spurs with Wemby, Castle, Harper.  It just doesnt happen often and typically when it does, it is because at least 1 of the first 2 doesnt work out if not both of them.