Blazers Edge on Tanking

[Quetzalcoatl]

Tanking is annoying, but usually when a well run team tanks, they rebound within a couple of years.  Additionally, if there is no tanking, then there is basically no chance for any small market team that is mismanaged to get a game changing player.  Yeah, we shouldn't make things easy for a bad ownership, but it still kills the fans there.  Last time we tanked we immediately won the title and I like where we are now.  Tanking is annoying for a year, but it's better than having a bad team with no hope whatsoever.

Also, if there were a wheel system, it would paralyze trades for picks.  They would still happen, but the randomized nature of it now I feel allows for more trades than a locked in system where someone knows they are getting a top 5 pick no matter what.

[D.o.s.]

You can shake up the lottery however you want, the NBA unlike any other sport is a sport weak on parity and absolutely reliant on a handful of superstars.

Honestly even though it would never happen, I believe the league would be served well to cut 2 teams and increase the talent pool.

I think you're not watching enough sports if you believe the NBA is the only sport that's weak on parity.

NFL, NHL, and to a lesser extent MLB all have much more parity than the NBA. MLB would probably have the MOST parity if they set up a better salary floor/ceiling.

If those are the only sports you're paying attention to, then I stand by what I said.

Those are and for the foreseeable future are the big 4 of sports...? Am I supposed to reference the parity of professional lacrosse? If that's even a thing?

I don't know. I don't follow lacrosse. From a sheer size perspective, though, not paying attention to soccer -- which has an incredible lack of parity, to the point where, as has already been pointed out, you risk being demoted if your team is awful -- seems silly to me.

I agree with LC and Mike though -- you'd need a whole lot more revenue sharing for something like The Wheel to work (although I disagree with Mike about the player immaturity being a problem--I think that sort of thing falls much more on the GM and organization's shoulders).

[LooseCannon]

Additionally, if there is no tanking, then there is basically no chance for any small market team that is mismanaged to get a game changing player.

Small market or not, a mismanaged team doesn't need to tank to suck and have a shot at drafting a game changing player.  It just has to avoid being so mismanaged that it has traded away its draft pick.

[JBcat]

The article seems to be calling out the Bucks for tanking.  I don't think they purposely tanked at the beginning of the year.  They signed Sanders to that big deal, signed vets like Mayo and Butler.  They had some unfortunate circumstances.

Philly on the other hand...