Printable View
Here's an excellent article about tanking from TrueHoop. The Bobcats are mentioned a few times, and though I'll never agree that getting rid of Tyson Chandler was some sort of colossal, franchise-altering mistake that those at ESPN seem to believe, this lays out why many go this road. It appears future articles this week will offer suggestions about how to distribute talent so that teams don't feel required to tank to get better.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post?id=39318
I just don't see an alternative to make the NBA competitive. Somebody mentioned a consensus rookie salary scale and then letting teams sign them as free agents. But, that still favors the big franchises. They could get a stud rookie almost every year. If I'm a rookie, why wouldn't a sign with a great team that can then give me a massive Bird-rights contract in a few seasons?
It would become extremely difficult to field talent for the smaller franchises. Sure, you'd get to overpay for marginal stars, but that's about the best you'd get.
Also, I think the article overlooks that teams don't make a lot of money-- and lose money, if the owners were honest this summer-- if they lose for an extended period of time. It's in the best interest of a franchise to eventually become a great team, as that's what really makes you a lot of money, assuming you are doing a fair job on the business side of things.
As the league economist said, the economy of professional sports is a different beast to standard economics. You must have competitive balance while still allowing flexibility and encouraging teams to beat each other. It's tough for teams to manage, and it generally runs in cycles. (That same Sacramento organization had some very nice years in the early 00's)
I just don't see much of an alternative. The only thing that might make sense (and it wouldn't be practical at this point) is to have something like the British Premier football league, where the worst team is relegated to the minors and the best minor team joins the majors. Given the draft, NBA roster construction, and other reasons, I don't think that would work at all, but that type of thing might be worth looking at-- a penalty that comes with being the worst team. Maybe the worse five teams are ineligible for the playoffs the next season or two.
This was an interesting read, but I didn't catch any solutions to the problem posed. This seemed more a commentary on how teams should get more competent GMs who aren't lazy and just trying to get a quick fix, rather than how you fix tanking.
Everybody points to the "Thunder Model" of building a franchise, but seem to ignore the fact that yes, the Thunder did indeed tank too.
Quote:
...did they want to win so badly that they'd be willing to follow in the footsteps of Cho's former employer, the Thunder
Quote:
Cho was asking, were they willing to lose? "Are you willing," Cho remembers asking, "to take a step back to take two steps forward?"
This is the definition of tanking. But it isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the idea of tanking is a complex/slippery slope kind of concept. The term has such a negative connotation due to incompetent GMs, but what gets lost is that it can be more about vision and competing long term if used right (which the Thunder have done), instead of thinking that collecting a few high picks creates a winner (i.e. the Clippers before Blake). Fans abhor the idea of not competing game to game during a season. But in this instant gratification/"what have you done for me lately" world, fans don't often have the foresight or patience to see that some GMs are actually being very competitive in trying to create a winning brand.Quote:
Cho and company -- is not doing all it can to win right now. If there are cheap free agents they could add to make this team better, they have not added them. If there are better coaches available, now would not be the time to hire them.
I actually think that some GMs such as Cho and Presti are more competitive than other GMs by fighting the urge to sign a cheap free agent bandaid, so that they instead can get better position for draft picks. Trying to win extra games during a losing year doesn't suddenly make you a more competitive team, just as wasting all your resources to win a battle doesn't help you win a war.
It basically comes down to a couple things for a team: 1) getting lucky and hitting a grand slam (franchise player) or a couple home runs (two upcoming all-stars), and 2) being shrewd with your cap space and signing competitive, complimentary players to grow with them, and not try to waste money on a high priced free agent to get you over the top. But the onus is on the GM to work hard and smart enough to figure out who and how to fill out a winning roster. And I believe we finally have that guy.
As for the draft, I think they should change the lottery so that the worst team doesn't have the potential to be punished all the way back to the 4th pick, because that sets that team back another year and can continue an ugly cycle. Maybe they could change it so that if the worst team doesn't win the 1st pick, they automatically are awarded the 2nd pick. Then there would be an open lottery for the 3rd pick, and if the second worst team remaining doesn't win the drawing, they are automatically awarded the 4th pick. Then there would be one final drawing for the 5th pick in the draft. So basically, if a bottom three team is jumped, they get the next selection, and the lottery continues for the subsequent pick.
The relegation system would be the way to avoid tanking, but it works in Europe because there are multiple divisions. It wouldn't create competitive balance however, the rich clubs in Europe stay up because they can afford it. But some form of penalty could work. At the same time, issuing penalties would create even more boneheaded trades and moves by GMs. We would see Rashard Lewis type contracts much more often.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnbman