LABron James Discussion: The Final Year?

They would get pick #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 a nearly equal % of the time as #9, they just wouldn't get an outsized chance at the top 4 and be guaranteed #5. The deck isn't stacked against them, it just wouldn't be in their favor. It would be equalish for the bottom 7-8 or so. They would still get a healthy share of top picks with a normal distribution, but there's no incentive to tank.

Besides, the Utah stuff this season and the stuff pika references is worse than Washington Generals stuff anyway imo*.

This happens due to luck anyway, like with Dallas and San Antonio last year. Or due to injury status like when GSW got the #2 pick in 2020. The current tanking issue is worse than those things happening imo*.


*And to much of the NBA, which is why we are where we are now, with current draft proposals.

Love it. Would never get through ownership, obv.

Agree. That's what the league office does though, try to keep the product afloat despite bad ownerships working against themselves and us. Given that, we seem to be not that far off, except that many of the proposals you suggest and that I agree with are extremely unlikely to get voted through by ownership.

So although I favor many of your suggestions, I'm curious - what would you pick, if the only options on the table were (1) the current system or (2) the new proposal about to be voted on by owners tomorrow?

As a side note, I'm also curious if you would pick one of those, or (3) my proposal above with teams #24-30 getting 9.5% then scaling down to team #17 getting 1.2%. Although that's academic, as it's not on the table.

 

the third one over current or the new proposal. i probably prefer current over the new proposal, though, as much like you're foreseeing things balancing out (i.e., rich not getting richer), i actually think the current system is already randomly punishing enough teams (see: indy's lost bet this year).

i'm also quite wary of whatever this power they're giving to silver is as part of the new proposal. we don't need any more david stern stuff.


it's frustrating to me what we discuss this when financial changes could probably solve it all, but the owners are too greedy and nervous about their own stupidity to agree to them.

 

Cool! Let's push it through!

Well, not the rich (teams 1-16) getting richer, but more like mid-tier teams 17-23 occasionally getting richer. I'm not sure why this is a problem, and if it is, it's been happening anyway, as evidenced by Dallas and San Antonio last year.

Do you think that this potential issue of the #17-23 teams occasionally getting a top pick, is worse than the tanking issues this past year?

Well, teams obviously don't think so, as they are tanked more than ever this year. I'm also not sure how Indy got punished, as they knowingly made a 52/48 trade bet and lost.

Agree

Again, agree, but I guess I just accept this because I know this part will not change.

 

yeah, ultimately, i think it's really bad for the league to have teams be perennially bad (like really bad), and i think further flattening or even regressing (as is planned)--by design--actually enhances that likelihood. smaller tweaks like extending the lotto to where you're not guaranteed top 5 in any circumstance and you can't say, get consecutive top 5 picks would probably help as much as this will and leave a little less room for some of the worse unintended consequences.

so our only point of disagreement is that i think the maximal harm that being a truly bad team and having an even smaller shot at the top pick can cause is probably worse than the worst stuff now.

but we'll see. maybe it will work exactly as people are saying, and the very worst teams will have to try to win games, which will cut down on tanking. i just think it will shift tanking to different spots with potentially more problematic outcomes.