Adam Silver on Tanking

[bballnoob1192]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12056123/adam-silver-nba-commissioner-says-no-team-trying-tank

"No Player is trying to Lose" - Adam Silver

"Legitimate Rebuilding Process", sure thing Mr. Commissioner. I guess tanking is a legitimate rebuilding process in the NBA now. Pretty much confirmed by how he dodged around using the word tanking.

[navy]

He's right, no player is trying to lose. But what he forgot to mention is that GMs put together bad rosters and coaches develop players with no intention of winning as many games as possible, ie tanking.

[Nash]

that is why the best team that missed the playoffs should be rewarded and get #1 pick. Make it difficult for GM's to get the #1 pick, nobody is going to miss out on the playoffs for a #1 pick. Players wouldn't stand for it and fans would riot.

[hawkfan]

There are changes that can be made concerning the minimum salary cap - if teams don't meet it, then they have to pay a luxury tax. And also, the amount counted towards the cap has to go to a certain percentage of players who actually actively play (so Richardson's contract would be reduced or not count at all).

[BurningHammer]

How many #1 overall picks actually win anything for the teams that drafted them in the past 2 decades anyway? Tim Duncan, and that's it?

Tanking is very fine with the current system since high draft picks never guarantee tanking teams' future successes anyway.

[Mr. Jabbar]

He's right, no player is trying to lose. But what he forgot to mention is that GMs put together bad rosters and coaches develop players with no intention of winning as many games as possible, ie tanking.

This

[hawkfan]

How many #1 overall picks actually win anything for the teams that drafted them in the past 2 decades anyway? Tim Duncan, and that's it?

Tanking is very fine with the current system since high draft picks never guarantee tanking teams' future successes anyway.

Let's see what happens with Minnesota - two overall no. 1 picks. Too early to tell, but let's see.

[Nash]

How many #1 overall picks actually win anything for the teams that drafted them in the past 2 decades anyway? Tim Duncan, and that's it?

Tanking is very fine with the current system since high draft picks never guarantee tanking teams' future successes anyway.
It gives them good assets, both in the draft but also through other teams when they have their yard sales to prepare for a tank.

[MavsSuperFan]

Tanking is the smart thing to do in cases where you have zero chance to win a championship.

There is nothing worse than always finishing just out of the playoffs.

[LAZERUSS]

Tanking to get an "Exum"...

[Fire Colangelo]

Tanking is the smart thing to do in cases where you have zero chance to win a championship.

There is nothing worse than always finishing just out of the playoffs.

Name one successful team that actively "tanked" during the past decade or two. Tanking is different than being bad. It's one thing to put together the best team possible and lose, it's another to try to lose on purpose.

Lakers don't tank.
Celtics didn't tank to win their chip.
Mavs didn't tank
Spurs didn't actively tank for Duncan, they were just missing their best player in Robinson.
Heat didn't tank.

That's more than half of the championships right there, how is tanking smart? Not only it discourages losing, you're not developing/disciplining players correctly. It's much smarter to sign good players and develope chemistry together. Obviously be smart with signings and don't overpay players, but that's what you've got to do to succeed in this league.

The Sixers are going nowhere, with their 3 years of tanking they're not really looking good. Neither are the wolves.

As soon as the Heat got Wade in 03 they put a team around him to win.
Same with Lebron (though the cavs management sucked). At least they didn't "tank" another few years to pair them together with another prospect which almost never lead to good results.

Good teams don't tank. Not to mention the owner is basically throwing away the season and probably losing profits during a tanking season. Nothing good really comes out of it.

[GOBB]

I see nothing wrong with what teams are attempting to do. I find it funny so many are up in arms, want drastic changes.


that is why the best team that missed the playoffs should be rewarded and get #1 pick. Make it difficult for GM's to get the #1 pick, nobody is going to miss out on the playoffs for a #1 pick. Players wouldn't stand for it and fans would riot.

That's retarded.

[Miss Bella]

that is why the best team that missed the playoffs should be rewarded and get #1 pick. Make it difficult for GM's to get the #1 pick, nobody is going to miss out on the playoffs for a #1 pick. Players wouldn't stand for it and fans would riot.

That would just make it chaotic at the end of the season with teams sitting out player or "tanking" to just miss the playoffs.

[Kblaze8855]

that is why the best team that missed the playoffs should be rewarded and get #1 pick. Make it difficult for GM's to get the #1 pick, nobody is going to miss out on the playoffs for a #1 pick. Players wouldn't stand for it and fans would riot.

Id say maybe make the lottery for picks 1, 2, and 3 with the teams with the bottom 3 records slightly more likely to win. Maybe give each of them 10% of the balls. But even among those 3...with the rest of the lottery teams given 6.5 or so%. Then all teams that dont win the top 3 go into a new drawing that is weighted in order of best record out of the playoffs. So all non playoff teams are in for 1-2-3....then 4-14 by drawing...team with the best record gets the most balls...down to the team with the worst getting the least. And remove the rule where the top 3 cant drop out of the top 4 picks.

The worst teams would have a better chance than the marginal at #1-3...but not by as much as they do now(Right now its 25, 20, and 15.6% far as the 3 worst teams chance to get #1). Then id reward the barely out of the playoff teams by giving them a better shot at the high lottery picks.

Any lottery team could still win the top pick...but the worst team has a worse chance....and the best teams have a chance to rise instead of being locked into order if they dont win like they are now.

You would see a lot of teams like last years suns get the 4th pick....

And the lottery would actually be exciting. Id laugh my ass off if some team tanks all year only to get the 11th pick while a team trying to win...that just isnt good...gets #4.

I wouldnt mind that at all.

[CJ Mustard]

How many #1 overall picks actually win anything for the teams that drafted them in the past 2 decades anyway? Tim Duncan, and that's it?

Tanking is very fine with the current system since high draft picks never guarantee tanking teams' future successes anyway.
It's not just about the 1st overall pick. Getting a top 5 pick gives you a shot at a future all star. Most teams don't have the luxury of signing superstar free agents and it's pretty hard to get a star through trade. The draft is how small market teams have any shot of competing.

[GOBB]

It's not just about the 1st overall pick. Getting a top 5 pick gives you a shot at a future all star. Most teams don't have the luxury of signing superstar free agents and it's pretty hard to get a star through trade. The draft is how small market teams have any shot of competing.

It's how most teams are actually competing/good. Just the way the system is designed. Franchise players are key to success in most cases. The best players in the NBA come from the top of the draft. Teans wants that.

[Audio One]

Tanking isnt a problem at all. Just ignore the tanking teams. The greater problem in the NBA is that franchise stay terrible for long periods of time

Eg. lack of parity

and 2 the NBA does a poor job scheduling attractive games for national television.

The NFL has tanking too. its the most popular and profitable american league by a wide margin.

The NBA should move away from max contracts and towards a hard cap and a salary floor. (this alone would eliminate super teams, and better distribute talent around the league)

Its easy for great players to take less money if they know that they have a maximum they can make. With no maximum an indivdual can make and only a maximum for a team, it will be harder for them to team up.

..

[Foster5k]

In general, I think people over estimate the need for parity. Look at the MLB. They seem to have decent parity. However, the ratings still are lack luster. Super teams are great for the league. They add new fans and new haters. They give people a target to point at and discuss their likes and dislikes, etc. If anything, the NBA needs more star players and more super teams.

[sammichoffate]

This is just my opinion. Top 5 Picks of the last 10 years:

2004
All-Stars:
Dwight Howard
Devin Harris

Busts:
Emeka Okafor(Taken #2, otherwise he's had a good career)
Ben Gordon
Shaun Livingston(We can only imagine how good he could've been)

2005
All-Stars:
Deron Williams
Chris Paul

Busts:
Marvin Williams

2006
All-Stars:
LaMarcus Aldridge

Busts:
Andrea Bargnani
Adam Morrison
Tyrus Thomas
Sheldon Williams

2007
All-Stars:
Kevin Durant
Al Horford

Busts:
Greg Oden(Injuries)

2008
All-Stars:
Derrick Rose
Russell Westbrook
Kevin Love

Busts:
Michael Beasley
O.J. Mayo

2009
All-Stars:
Blake Griffin
James Harden

Busts:
Hasheem Thabeet
Ricky Rubio

2010
All-Stars:
John Wall

Busts:
Evan Turner
Derrick Favors
Wesley Johnson

2011
All-Stars:
Kyrie Irving

Busts:
Derrick Williams

2012
All-Stars:
Anthony Davis

Busts:
Thomas Robinson
Dion Waiters

2013
All-Stars:
None

Busts:
None

15 All-Stars to 19 Busts, the odds are about 50% depending on whether or not you think certain players here are busts. Based on this, top 5 picks don't always guarantee success. Hell, developing younger talent while trying to win would be better than tanking and restricting the growth of your players. Many players who became all-stars from these drafts actually came OUTSIDE the top 5, like Curry and Derozan. Losing in the first round isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be, it gives younger players the chance to get playoff experience(Jimmy Butler, Paul George).

[sportsfan76]

Name one successful team that actively "tanked" during the past decade or two. Tanking is different than being bad. It's one thing to put together the best team possible and lose, it's another to try to lose on purpose.

Lakers don't tank.
Celtics didn't tank to win their chip.
Mavs didn't tank
Spurs didn't actively tank for Duncan, they were just missing their best player in Robinson.
Heat didn't tank.

That's more than half of the championships right there, how is tanking smart? Not only it discourages losing, you're not developing/disciplining players correctly. It's much smarter to sign good players and develope chemistry together. Obviously be smart with signings and don't overpay players, but that's what you've got to do to succeed in this league.

The Sixers are going nowhere, with their 3 years of tanking they're not really looking good. Neither are the wolves.

As soon as the Heat got Wade in 03 they put a team around him to win.
Same with Lebron (though the cavs management sucked). At least they didn't "tank" another few years to pair them together with another prospect which almost never lead to good results.

Good teams don't tank. Not to mention the owner is basically throwing away the season and probably losing profits during a tanking season. Nothing good really comes out of it.


Which confirms it's not a such thing as tanking and wish everybody shut the f*ck up about it.