League Unveils some Anti-Tanking Proposals

[Donoghus]

From ESPN, more details on the third proposal:

The third proposal is a "five-by-five" method, sources told Charania. In this one, the same 18 teams from the first proposal -- the bottom 10 that miss the play-in, plus the eight that make it -- would be entered into the lottery. The teams with the five worst records would then all have the same odds, with them descending from there, and there would be a lottery drawing for each of the top five picks in the draft.

After those five picks are selected, there would be another lottery drawing for the remaining 13 teams. If any of the teams with the five worst records didn't land one of those top five spots -- like last season, when the teams with the first (the Utah Jazz), second (Washington Wizards) and fourth (New Orleans Pelicans) worst records all moved back to fifth, sixth and seventh, respectively -- the lowest they could wind up in the second lottery drawing would be 10th, preventing a bad team from falling too far down the draft board.

Holy crap.  Nick!

[nickagneta]

From ESPN, more details on the third proposal:

The third proposal is a "five-by-five" method, sources told Charania. In this one, the same 18 teams from the first proposal -- the bottom 10 that miss the play-in, plus the eight that make it -- would be entered into the lottery. The teams with the five worst records would then all have the same odds, with them descending from there, and there would be a lottery drawing for each of the top five picks in the draft.

After those five picks are selected, there would be another lottery drawing for the remaining 13 teams. If any of the teams with the five worst records didn't land one of those top five spots -- like last season, when the teams with the first (the Utah Jazz), second (Washington Wizards) and fourth (New Orleans Pelicans) worst records all moved back to fifth, sixth and seventh, respectively -- the lowest they could wind up in the second lottery drawing would be 10th, preventing a bad team from falling too far down the draft board.

Holy crap.  Nick!

Hey, Dons!

[nickagneta]

Something to think about in that third proposal....

There is a chance the top ten picks could end up like this:

#1 pick: Some team outside the bottom 5
#2:  Some team outside the bottom 5
#3:  Some team outside the bottom 5
#4:  Some team outside the bottom 5
#5:  Some team outside the bottom 5
#6: Team with 5th worst record
#7: Team with 4th worst record
#8: Team with 3rd worst record
#9: Team with 2nd worst record
#10: Team with the worst record.

Ugh. That would be disasterous for that team with the worst record. Luckily the chances of that has to be in the billions to 1. Which of course, knowing the NBA, would mean it would happen the third year after it goes into effect.

[Goldstar88]

From ESPN, more details on the third proposal:

The third proposal is a "five-by-five" method, sources told Charania. In this one, the same 18 teams from the first proposal -- the bottom 10 that miss the play-in, plus the eight that make it -- would be entered into the lottery. The teams with the five worst records would then all have the same odds, with them descending from there, and there would be a lottery drawing for each of the top five picks in the draft.

After those five picks are selected, there would be another lottery drawing for the remaining 13 teams. If any of the teams with the five worst records didn't land one of those top five spots -- like last season, when the teams with the first (the Utah Jazz), second (Washington Wizards) and fourth (New Orleans Pelicans) worst records all moved back to fifth, sixth and seventh, respectively -- the lowest they could wind up in the second lottery drawing would be 10th, preventing a bad team from falling too far down the draft board.

Nick, is that really you!? Welcome back!

It's really me. Been reading regularly while not logged in.

I read the Anti-tanking proposals and loved the subject so thought the extra info on the third proposal made it one I really liked. Wanted to share the extra info to see if it made a difference to anyone on that proposal

I hope you continue to post. You have been such a big part of the community over the years! We appreciate your perspective and thoughtful posts.

[nickagneta]

From ESPN, more details on the third proposal:

The third proposal is a "five-by-five" method, sources told Charania. In this one, the same 18 teams from the first proposal -- the bottom 10 that miss the play-in, plus the eight that make it -- would be entered into the lottery. The teams with the five worst records would then all have the same odds, with them descending from there, and there would be a lottery drawing for each of the top five picks in the draft.

After those five picks are selected, there would be another lottery drawing for the remaining 13 teams. If any of the teams with the five worst records didn't land one of those top five spots -- like last season, when the teams with the first (the Utah Jazz), second (Washington Wizards) and fourth (New Orleans Pelicans) worst records all moved back to fifth, sixth and seventh, respectively -- the lowest they could wind up in the second lottery drawing would be 10th, preventing a bad team from falling too far down the draft board.

Nick, is that really you!? Welcome back!

It's really me. Been reading regularly while not logged in.

I read the Anti-tanking proposals and loved the subject so thought the extra info on the third proposal made it one I really liked. Wanted to share the extra info to see if it made a difference to anyone on that proposal

I hope you continue to post. You have been such a big part of the community over the years! We appreciate your perspective and thoughtful posts.

Thanks for the kind words!

[slamtheking]

From ESPN, more details on the third proposal:

The third proposal is a "five-by-five" method, sources told Charania. In this one, the same 18 teams from the first proposal -- the bottom 10 that miss the play-in, plus the eight that make it -- would be entered into the lottery. The teams with the five worst records would then all have the same odds, with them descending from there, and there would be a lottery drawing for each of the top five picks in the draft.

After those five picks are selected, there would be another lottery drawing for the remaining 13 teams. If any of the teams with the five worst records didn't land one of those top five spots -- like last season, when the teams with the first (the Utah Jazz), second (Washington Wizards) and fourth (New Orleans Pelicans) worst records all moved back to fifth, sixth and seventh, respectively -- the lowest they could wind up in the second lottery drawing would be 10th, preventing a bad team from falling too far down the draft board.

Nick, is that really you!? Welcome back!

It's really me. Been reading regularly while not logged in.

I read the Anti-tanking proposals and loved the subject so thought the extra info on the third proposal made it one I really liked. Wanted to share the extra info to see if it made a difference to anyone on that proposal

I hope you continue to post. You have been such a big part of the community over the years! We appreciate your perspective and thoughtful posts.

Thanks for the kind words!

saw you posted and almost had a heart attack.  glad to hear you're still poking around here.  hope to see you post more. threw you a TP as an incentive to keep coming back   

[aefgogreen]

What about if they flatten the odds and let play-in teams in the lottery?  Flat odds prevent teams from losing out and maybe even fighting for a play-in spot.  I think teams that are around 5th or 6th in their conference would not want to tank into the play-in.  Of course people thought the play-in would incentivize teams near the mid-bottom to fight for a chance to go to the playoffs and that didn't work, so who knows?

It seems like this is what Shams is reporting in Option #1.  18 teams in the lottery, which I presume would go up to 20 after expansion.

I'd like flat odds across the board.  In addition, I'd give teams that underperform an easier schedule the next year - Everyone plays each team in the other conference twice (30 games total) and teams from their conference 3 times (total 42).  The final 10 games are determined by record.

[Goldstar88]

I think they should just do what they did last year. Let Silver and the gang decide behind closed doors who wins the lottery. Worked out really well for the league. Lakers will now be relevant post LeBron. The Mavs were rewarded the #1 pick with their 1% lottery odds, netting another generational talent, plus all the picks from the trades. 

Additionally, if a team, under new rules, was still found by NBA commissioner Adam Silver?s office to be tanking, the commissioner would either be able to take away that team?s draft pick, move it to the end of the lottery or first round and also increase fines into the millions of dollars.
New York Times

[Csfan1984]

Only way to stop tanking is by giving bad teams another way to aquire talent.

Give teams a player exception that doesn't count against the tax based on if they were bordering playoffs. Call it the "playoff push exemption".

Playoff push Exemption would be claimed once per three years if a team finishes 7-12 in conference. It's contract of up to 3 years with a dollar value twice the amount of the going Full MLE exemption. It is not taxed.

This will make bad to mediocre teams not want to fall out the top 12 as they know it's a good player they could add and they bypass the tax.

Only negative is Id stick a no trade clause for two years on who ever they sign with the exemption.

[Roy H.]

Only way to stop tanking is by giving bad teams another way to aquire talent.

Give teams a player exception that doesn't count against the tax based on if they were bordering playoffs. Call it the "playoff push exemption".

Playoff push Exemption would be claimed once per three years if a team finishes 7-12 in conference. It's contract of up to 3 years with a dollar value twice the amount of the going Full MLE exemption. It is not taxed.

This will make bad to mediocre teams not want to fall out the top 12 as they know it's a good player they could add and they bypass the tax.

Only negative is Id stick a no trade clause for two years on who ever they sign with the exemption.

I think that might, in certain circumstances, encourage teams to tank.  For instance, if the Celtics were somewhere between 4th and 6th in the standings, I'd absolutely want them to tank to finish in the 7th spot.  A $30 million tax-free salary slot would be game-changing.

[Roy H.]

In terms of penalties:

The possible changes to the lottery, which were introduced this week at the league?s Board of Governors meeting and will be voted on ? with likely amendments ? in May, widen the lottery from 14 to either 18 or 22 teams, those sources said.

Advertisement


Additionally, if a team, under new rules, was still found by NBA commissioner Adam Silver?s office to be tanking, the commissioner would either be able to take away that team?s draft pick, move it to the end of the lottery or first round and also increase fines into the millions of dollars.

Daily Pick'em
Can you call the winner?


?Without stricter penalties, you could still have crazy behavior,? said one league source, granted anonymity so they could freely discuss concepts under consideration. ?You have to have something in place that is so drastic, a team would actually think twice about tanking. And if a team tries it and gets caught, then the other teams need to see the penalties and realize it isn?t worth it to try.?

Of course, just like with tampering, flopping, etc., penalties don't mean much if there's no enforcement.  And with enforcement, the question is always proof. 

[BitterJim]

In terms of penalties:

The possible changes to the lottery, which were introduced this week at the league?s Board of Governors meeting and will be voted on ? with likely amendments ? in May, widen the lottery from 14 to either 18 or 22 teams, those sources said.

Advertisement


Additionally, if a team, under new rules, was still found by NBA commissioner Adam Silver?s office to be tanking, the commissioner would either be able to take away that team?s draft pick, move it to the end of the lottery or first round and also increase fines into the millions of dollars.

Daily Pick'em
Can you call the winner?


?Without stricter penalties, you could still have crazy behavior,? said one league source, granted anonymity so they could freely discuss concepts under consideration. ?You have to have something in place that is so drastic, a team would actually think twice about tanking. And if a team tries it and gets caught, then the other teams need to see the penalties and realize it isn?t worth it to try.?

Of course, just like with tampering, flopping, etc., penalties don't mean much if there's no enforcement.  And with enforcement, the question is always proof.

If those penalties are implemented, then why is there any need for flattening odds or expanding the lottery? Just go back to the top 3 spots with the pre-flattening odds and penalties on tanking.

The entire point of these changes is to stop teams from tanking, but if they actually follow through on punishing tanking teams then that should accomplish it without the side effects of legitimately bad teams getting stuck in limbo because they keep losing the lottery.

[CFAN38]

These options all seems way to complex. After reading/listening too way to many opinions on this matter I have a simple solution.


Worst record gets the #1 pick

Other lottery teams have even odds for picks 2-14

All pick protections are either lottery, 1st round, or none.


This would force any team tanking for the 1st pick to tank really uncomfortably HARD! How many teams are really going to tank all season for the 1st pick? I'm guessing in a generational draft you get 4 out of 30 soon to be 32.


The league is going to have tanking as long as they have a wins/losses based draft. The commissioner shouldn't care to totally eliminate it but rather he should look to minimize it. This year is a worst case scenario for tanking because teams know they are getting a really good player even if they miss out on #1 and fall to #4/#5.