Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"How to cure tanking"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Xixak wrote: View Post
    The only solution I can think of besides the tournament would be contracting teams. What you're suggesting with "superstars get paid like superstars" sounds to me like you want no cap? The NBA would turn into pro soccer except without the vast number of teams to balance things out. Prokhorov, the Knicks and Lakers would just buy everyone... There would be even less parity.
    Not necessarily. Keep the soft cap as is, but take away this ridiculous idea of player maximum salaries.

    LeBron James is worth $30 million, that's just a fact.
    If Lebron gets 30 that means a team can't go out and get two other $20M superstars without bleeding money through the tax.

    When you force a cap on how much players get you get situations like you have today in Miami, Lakers (last year), NJ, etc.

    Comment


    • #32
      @ Xixak: Nope. Keep the cap. The way their salaries are capped below what they're worth makes the path to a championship accumulating as many as possible and fill out the roster. If you uncap superstar salaries but keep a salary cap in place, I see a few benefits. If you've ever played a salary cap fantasy league, you'll kind of know what I'm talking about (obviously things are a lot simpler in fantasy basketball, but I digress). The thing is, I don't think the union would ever allow it because it punishes teams hard for overpaying non-superstars and the salary disparity would be a lot greater between the have and have-nots talent-wise.

      I think it also makes it a lot more viable to try to win a championship with no superstars. If you have a superstar on your team, he may very well eat over half your cap. One, it'd be near impossible to have more than one superstar and two, you'd have a much harder time getting quality players to surround him with since the superstar would hypothetically no longer be underpaid.

      My thoughts are a bit scattered and I'm probably not expressing them well, but I hope some of it got across the way I intended, lol

      EDIT: Well, Letter N said a lot of the same things as I did already, haha

      Comment


      • #33
        Letter N wrote: View Post
        Not necessarily. Keep the soft cap as is, but take away this ridiculous idea of player maximum salaries.

        LeBron James is worth $30 million, that's just a fact.
        If Lebron gets 30 that means a team can't go out and get two other $20M superstars without bleeding money through the tax.

        When you force a cap on how much players get you get situations like you have today in Miami, Lakers (last year), NJ, etc.
        TRX wrote: View Post
        @ Xixak: Nope. Keep the cap. The way their salaries are capped below what they're worth makes the path to a championship accumulating as many as possible and fill out the roster. If you uncap superstar salaries but keep a salary cap in place, I see a few benefits. If you've ever played a salary cap fantasy league, you'll kind of know what I'm talking about (obviously things are a lot simpler in fantasy basketball, but I digress). The thing is, I don't think the union would ever allow it because it punishes teams hard for overpaying non-superstars and the salary disparity would be a lot greater between the have and have-nots talent-wise.

        I think it also makes it a lot more viable to try to win a championship with no superstars. If you have a superstar on your team, he may very well eat over half your cap. One, it'd be near impossible to have more than one superstar and two, you'd have a much harder time getting quality players to surround him with since the superstar would hypothetically no longer be underpaid.

        My thoughts are a bit scattered and I'm probably not expressing them well, but I hope some of it got across the way I intended, lol

        EDIT: Well, Letter N said a lot of the same things as I did already, haha
        This is a really, really good idea... Why the hell didn't they do this during the CBA discussions? Although Letter N, I'd make an adjustment to what you said. They'd need a hard cap not a tax threshold.

        Say they set a 60M Hard Cap. A team like the Lakers would have to choose between signing LeBron for 40M and surrounding him with mostly garbage. Or maybe getting two lesser stars for 15M a pop and filling out the rest of the team quite nicely.

        I think you would need to keep the minimum salary though or some guys might be playing for like 40K a season lol.

        This would make building through the draft impossible though, because if you were a team like OKC there's no way you'd be able to afford to re-sign Westbrook AND Durant w/o having complete crap surrounding them.

        Comment


        • #34
          Xixak wrote: View Post
          This is a really, really good idea... Why the hell didn't they do this during the CBA discussions? Although Letter N, I'd make an adjustment to what you said. They'd need a hard cap not a tax threshold.

          Say they set a 60M Hard Cap. A team like the Lakers would have to choose between signing LeBron for 40M and surrounding him with mostly garbage. Or maybe getting two lesser stars for 15M a pop and filling out the rest of the team quite nicely.

          I think you would need to keep the minimum salary though or some guys might be playing for like 40K a season lol.

          This would make building through the draft impossible though, because if you were a team like OKC there's no way you'd be able to afford to re-sign Westbrook AND Durant w/o having complete crap surrounding them.
          Simple answer - some owners are willing to take stupid risks (pay players who don't deserve it even more ridiculous sums than they already do), and things out of their control will happen (eg. injuries), so they wanted to limit the risk threshold.

          This way you don't cripple the franchise with a 30+ mil dollar player who can't play due to injury (think Gilbert Arenas), and Ernie Grunfeld can't give established sub superstar players contracts well above real superstars and drive up the price of those other sub superstars (think Gilbert Arenas again lol)

          Comment


          • #35
            Xixak wrote: View Post
            Bill Simmons had a great idea to fix tanking during the lockout, iirc it was something like this:

            Take all the non-playoff teams at the end of the season and put them in a Sweet 16 tournament. Single-elimination. The winner would get the #1 pick, 2nd place would get #2, etc. This basically gives a team 0 incentive to tank games. They're going to want to have a good roster available for the tournament so that they have a chance of winning. And the last place team would have just as good of a shot of getting the #1 pick as the 16th last team, because of the single-elimination, any team could get the better of another on any given night.

            This would also increase revenue for the league as well, and make for some very entertaining basketball so doesn't hurt in that respect either. The playoffs would just end later.

            Imagine a Toronto team finishing in 9th (I pray to God we're not actually 9th lol) during the regular season. Heading into the tournament as the top seed in the East and wasting Philly, Charlotte and Milwaukee on their path to playing the Lakers in the finals. A triple OT game, winner takes Wiggins. Raptors down 1, 5 seconds on the clock. Rudy Gay has the ball in his hands, dribbles past Kobe, pulls-up for the J...... BANG RAPTORS WIN RAPTORS WIN! Rudy Gay has just cost himself his starting spot!

            K got a bit carried away...
            I also love this idea for draft picks. Was going to suggest it myself if no one else did.

            Letter N wrote: View Post
            I may be wrong but I think the "Fun As Hell Tournament" was actually for the 8th spot in the playoffs rather than the draft order. But damn that's a good idea that needs to be implemented.
            Xixak wrote: View Post
            This is a really, really good idea... Why the hell didn't they do this during the CBA discussions? Although Letter N, I'd make an adjustment to what you said. They'd need a hard cap not a tax threshold.

            Say they set a 60M Hard Cap. A team like the Lakers would have to choose between signing LeBron for 40M and surrounding him with mostly garbage. Or maybe getting two lesser stars for 15M a pop and filling out the rest of the team quite nicely.

            I think you would need to keep the minimum salary though or some guys might be playing for like 40K a season lol.

            This would make building through the draft impossible though, because if you were a team like OKC there's no way you'd be able to afford to re-sign Westbrook AND Durant w/o having complete crap surrounding them.
            It wouldn't make building through the draft impossible it just means that you'd see more teams trading their dollars for 4 quaters (as bill simmons would say). Basically there'd be more Melo type trades.

            I don't think you need to change much other than start a draft tourney. Teams that are poorly managed will still suck, but I think that it incentivizes owners to demand more from their gms. They won't be able to put shit together and then hope to land a superstar in a draft that will bring them money for 5-7 years, and then be terrible again until they land the next player they can market.
            "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

            "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

            "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

            Comment


            • #36
              I also think you'd see more teams jump from the middle to the top, making the playoffs even that more exciting. More instances of the number 8 seed beating the number 1 seed. Like what happens in hockey.
              "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

              "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

              "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

              Comment


              • #37
                Xixak wrote: View Post
                This is why my tournament idea works though. Only the worst teams in the league would be competing for the top picks. Playoff teams would be entirely exempt from the process.

                I realized an issue with it though... traded draft picks. Why would a team compete hard just so another team can take their pick and pick higher? I'm not sure what a solution would be for this though...
                If that is the case, you still have the scenario of the worst teams still being the worst because they will never get closer to the top picks.

                Imagine Charlotte having to go through but never winning the first round, thus getting the worst pick.

                Imagine the 9th place team in the West winning the tourney, now the advantage is flipped to those teams who are just good an not good enough.

                I see the potential but I think the weaker teams will never get that break they need.

                I came across an idea that I thought was pretty good. The last place team doesn't get the most balls , the most balls would go to the 3rd worst team, followed by the 2nd worst team getting team, then the worst team, then 7-16th get the usual picks. The rational behind this is that at the end of the season the teams will be scrambling for wins and not losses.. something to that effect... only things is adjusted is who gets how many balls.

                Comment


                • #38
                  ezz_bee wrote: View Post
                  It wouldn't make building through the draft impossible it just means that you'd see more teams trading their dollars for 4 quaters (as bill simmons would say). Basically there'd be more Melo type trades.

                  I don't think you need to change much other than start a draft tourney. Teams that are poorly managed will still suck, but I think that it incentivizes owners to demand more from their gms. They won't be able to put shit together and then hope to land a superstar in a draft that will bring them money for 5-7 years, and then be terrible again until they land the next player they can market.
                  Very true with the dollar for a quarter statement. That would create a lot of balance as well, I think almost every team would either have a star caliber player and a good supporting cast, two stars and a bad cast, or just a very very strong all-around squad.

                  imaginelino wrote: View Post
                  If that is the case, you still have the scenario of the worst teams still being the worst because they will never get closer to the top picks.

                  Imagine Charlotte having to go through but never winning the first round, thus getting the worst pick.

                  Imagine the 9th place team in the West winning the tourney, now the advantage is flipped to those teams who are just good an not good enough.

                  I see the potential but I think the weaker teams will never get that break they need.

                  I came across an idea that I thought was pretty good. The last place team doesn't get the most balls , the most balls would go to the 3rd worst team, followed by the 2nd worst team getting team, then the worst team, then 7-16th get the usual picks. The rational behind this is that at the end of the season the teams will be scrambling for wins and not losses.. something to that effect... only things is adjusted is who gets how many balls.
                  Well if you keep putting out an unbelievably bad team then yes you could probably expect to be picking 16th for the foreseeable future. That's unlikely to happen though. There's no incentive for teams to field pitiful rosters. Also it's single-elimination not a 7 game series. Any team could get the better of another on any given night.

                  EDIT: I also really don't like that idea you proposed at the end. Teams would just tank their way to the bottom 6, I don't see how that stops them... Even if you finish last you still are most likely to pick 7th or higher.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    @imaginelino: You'd have to be severely mismanaged to stay the worst team in the league year after year after year, I would think. Why should the worst team in the league, both on the court and off, get the best pick? They're never incentivized to get better and people continue to confuse just plain bad management with a viable tanking/rebuilding strategy. The whole point is to incentivize teams to try to stay out of the basement and build smarter.

                    As valuable as draft picks are, to incentivize bad teams to get even worse seems counter-intuitive to a lot of people. It's not like teams end up last, despite making smart moves; they're last year in and year out because they make terrible moves and figure they'll get a good draft pick anyway. The way this tournament would work, you would have to get smarter/better and help yourself to get a helping hand, which makes a lot more intuitive sense to a lot of people.

                    I'm all for giving teams a break, but they have to be well managed teams that just need a short term boost.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The Fun As Hell Tournament doesn't work well for lottery, it gives the high draft picks to teams that don't deserve it. It works brilliantly for the 8th spot in each conference though (the number of teams is even perfect for a tourny for each conference).

                      I think the idea suggested by the youtube link in the OP message is a pretty solid concept. The only change I would make is that it counts elimination from playoffs based on the league rather than the conference, so that just because the Suns are eliminated in the West they don't get to start, they have to be eliminated from coming 8th in either conference.

                      Ties would go to team with the crappier record. And theoretically there would be a lot of ties.

                      I think it's a very good system and exploiting the system would be very tough as it would usually only leave even the worst team in the league with less than 20 games to go on their winning streak and get the 25% chance of drafting first (which still doesn't guarantee first overall).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Letter N wrote: View Post
                        The Fun As Hell Tournament doesn't work well for lottery, it gives the high draft picks to teams that don't deserve it. It works brilliantly for the 8th spot in each conference though (the number of teams is even perfect for a tourny for each conference).

                        I think the idea suggested by the youtube link in the OP message is a pretty solid concept. The only change I would make is that it counts elimination from playoffs based on the league rather than the conference, so that just because the Suns are eliminated in the West they don't get to start, they have to be eliminated from coming 8th in either conference.

                        Ties would go to team with the crappier record. And theoretically there would be a lot of ties.

                        I think it's a very good system and exploiting the system would be very tough as it would usually only leave even the worst team in the league with less than 20 games to go on their winning streak and get the 25% chance of drafting first (which still doesn't guarantee first overall).
                        But why would the worst teams deserve the best pick? Internal growth and other savvy GM moves can get you out of the basement without a high pick. Memphis did it when they didn't get Lebron in 2003.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          tkfu wrote: View Post
                          Alba Berlin (who I currently support)
                          I've lived in Berlin for 10 years and I've never heard anybody say that.

                          I'll go see an Albatross game eventually... My daughter is in their under 11 program. That's what I like about European sports, team are more like sports clubs, with youth programmes and stuff.

                          I agree that relegation would be great for North American sports.


                          Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 4
                          Last edited by Quirk; Fri Aug 9, 2013, 02:47 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            planetmars wrote: View Post
                            But why would the worst teams deserve the best pick? Internal growth and other savvy GM moves can get you out of the basement without a high pick. Memphis did it when they didn't get Lebron in 2003.
                            That's a fair point. I guess it's just what I've always been used to.

                            The whole tourny idea would get us closer to euro sports where crappy teams slowly work their ways up to middle of the line before they even think of making the jump to championship caliber. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Awesome idea!

                              This is an awesome idea!!!

                              Xixak wrote: View Post
                              Bill Simmons had a great idea to fix tanking during the lockout, iirc it was something like this:

                              Take all the non-playoff teams at the end of the season and put them in a Sweet 16 tournament. Single-elimination. The winner would get the #1 pick, 2nd place would get #2, etc. This basically gives a team 0 incentive to tank games. They're going to want to have a good roster available for the tournament so that they have a chance of winning. And the last place team would have just as good of a shot of getting the #1 pick as the 16th last team, because of the single-elimination, any team could get the better of another on any given night.

                              This would also increase revenue for the league as well, and make for some very entertaining basketball so doesn't hurt in that respect either. The playoffs would just end later.

                              Imagine a Toronto team finishing in 9th (I pray to God we're not actually 9th lol) during the regular season. Heading into the tournament as the top seed in the East and wasting Philly, Charlotte and Milwaukee on their path to playing the Lakers in the finals. A triple OT game, winner takes Wiggins. Raptors down 1, 5 seconds on the clock. Rudy Gay has the ball in his hands, dribbles past Kobe, pulls-up for the J...... BANG RAPTORS WIN RAPTORS WIN! Rudy Gay has just cost himself his starting spot!

                              K got a bit carried away...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Came out on nba.com yesterday:
                                http://www.nba.com/2013/news/08/12/m...ery/index.html

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X