What's new
By:

The Utah Jazz and Tanking

Gameface said:
I like the idea of a more random lottery, and including 1st round playoff losers in the mix.
Click to expand...
Yea, I thought of that too, but then you might have teams tanking in the playoffs , which would look much worse then them tanking in the regular season... That is why I was thinking of a more complicated variation.

How about this:
Let the 14 teams that don't make the playoffs get a random chance at the first 14 picks.
Then the teams that don't make the finals get a random chance at the next 14...
or break it down further, 14 8 4 2 2 ...or 14 random, and then go by playoff advancing and regular season record.
I wouldn't want an 8th seed in the playoffs tanking to get a 1 in 3 chance at a top 5 pick, which would be tempting in some years.
I don't think they'd tank for a 15th pick.
 
Gameface said:
Interesting, but I think there's too much potential for problems.
Click to expand...

I agree. There needs to be some tweaks to the system but I like the idea overall. I love that the two examples that were used were both picks that were 8 or 9 that moved up to the #1. In the draft that the Bulls landed Rose I always felt like the NBA was trying to make the city of Chicago valid again. I lived there for a couple of years and everyone that I talked to didn't really care about the Bulls at all.
 
Gameface said:
I like your thread better. I want a solution to tanking. I think tanking is beyond unethical, bad for the game, bad for fans. The fact that it is talked about so openly disgusts me and makes me not want to watch any NBA ball.

To me it's like saying "If I do my sister, then my mom, then let my dirty uncle have his way with me I might get invited to thanksgiving at my 3rd cousins house...and she's hot, so that's my best chance to hit that."

Just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Click to expand...

Agreed, this one is way better than my lame thread.

I don't get the analogy. All that stuff sounds awesome. Tanking sounds crappy. What am I missing?
 
northeast said:
Yea, I thought of that too, but then you might have teams tanking in the playoffs , which would look much worse then them tanking in the regular season... That is why I was thinking of a more complicated variation.

How about this:
Let the 14 teams that don't make the playoffs get a random chance at the first 14 picks.
Then the teams that don't make the finals get a random chance at the next 14...
or break it down further, 14 8 4 2 2 ...or 14 random, and then go by playoff advancing and regular season record.
I wouldn't want an 8th seed in the playoffs tanking to get a 1 in 3 chance at a top 5 pick, which would be tempting in some years.
I don't think they'd tank for a 15th pick.
Click to expand...

Here are my thoughts:
The top 5 teams in each conference are out of the chance for the top 3 picks.
If you get a pick in the top 3 then you are not able to get another one for at least 10 years. (I am still unsure about the 10 year thing)
If injuries obliterate your top pick while still on their rookie contract (Greg Oden), then there will be an appeal process in order to get another top pick before the 10 year period.
 
I'm all for a system where any team (except the lakers--$%&^ the lakers) can win the lottery. But I'd like to see the ping pong selection live. Doing it behind closed doors leaves a feeling of impropriety.
 
The Spurs are the only championship team that I can think of that primarily built through the draft. The lakers traded for Kobe, signed shaq as a FA, traded for Pau, the Celtics traded for everyone but Rondo and he was a steal for where he was picked, the Mavs drafted Dirk fairly late and traded or FA the rest of their pieces, the Pistons were all through FA, when the Heat win it will be through FA. The Thunder have drafted insanely well, like ****ing ridiculously awesome, to expect anything even close to that is "BluesRocker" ( a synonym for idiotic). So ya lets tank and hope and pray we make the exactly perfect pick each and every time. I think that will work well.
 
kenny you are frustrating me, I have made this point before....
what are they trading? their own picks!
the small market teams need picks to trade for other players
 
BluesRocker said:
What pick was Favors again?

What picks were Durant, Lebron,Wade, CP3, Dwill, Rose, Dwight Howard, Duncan, and many others?

Oh that's right, they were really high picks. How did those teams get those picks? Oh that's right, they had to suck.

How many championships has the Utah model won? Oh that's right. Zero. I know you aren't guaranteed a championship with a top guy but you are guaranteed not to win one without one or two of them.

You clowns have been drinking too much Koolaid from the Jazz front office. Being mediocre all the time isn't a good thing. They are just selling you tickets of a small amount of hope.

No one here in there right mind would suggest we try to suck all the time. Right now is just the right time to do it. Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. We have a golden opportunity right now to create an OKC model. But that doesn't mean that should be the exact model every time. Attempting to suck every year until we found the guy would probably prove to be futile. But our situation is much different right now. We have a nice start going and wouldn't hurt to add a couple more lottery picks for some insurance. This opportunity is going to come around again.
Click to expand...

My thoughts are it's never the "right time" to tank a season or two. You're thought is that if we tank we will have a 100% chance to get 1 or 2 players that will 100% be superstars. Then, once we get those guys, we just magically won't tank because we won't suck any more....

The problem with that thinking is, statistically, it's more likely that if we tank, we get a pretty darn good player that you would hope like hell doesn't get hurt (EVER!) and even if that happens, there's no guarantee that the media/league will latch on to the guy as a bonafide superstar and anoint them the next best thing. Because, lets face it, if the media/league entity, that does exist, whether you want to believe it or not, doesn't like the guy for whatever reason, they will be overlooked time and time again. Hello! We just had that with DWill and CP3. The media/league, for whatever reason, didn't "like" and didn't want YOU to "like" DWill as much as they wanted you to "like/love" Chris Paul. Still, all you hear about is how good CP3 is and how DWill is a step slow, a step behind, and can't help a team win like a CP3 can. Yet, when they're matched up, who always ALWAYS came out on top? DWill.

See, my point is, even if we get a guy that's a beast, he's gotta be given the superstar status not only from above-stellar play or god-like numbers that gets everyone's attention, but he also has to be marketable for him to push through the stigma that is "Utah" and become a real-life superstar.

I'd rather not have to hope for the planets to align like that, and put my faith in good GM moves that are always forward thinking and good coaching (TBD on Ty), THAT is how this team is going to break the mold and get to contender.

Luckily, I think with Hayward, Favors, Burks, and Kanter + GS's pick (hopefully), we'll be sitting pretty for a 5-10 year run at it all!
 
The Thunder wouldn't have got those picks without getting a bunch of top picks... Ibaka is the only one of their top players that wasn't a really high pick.
 
It was the right time at the beginning of the season... a once in a decade opportunity.
It is a bit late now,,, they could tank to get a 14th pick, but they are way out of the running for a top 5 no matter what they do.
Although in this draft, maybe a 14 will be a good one.
 
Plus, learning how to be a winner is a LOT harder than teaching a player how to lose, THEN trying to teach them how to win, after the first 3-4 years in the league they were told to suck so the team could draft a guy that may or may not replace them in the lineup.

(See Big Al Jefferson): Besides the one year in B-town, the guy was a perpetual loser. He got the stats, but his teams didn't win, because in Minnesota, it was always about, "ok guys, we're out of it. let's suck so we can get a high draft pick"...so he comes to Utah, and you see he has a hard time learning how to win.

He's getting it now, but i think it was part of what pushed Sloan and DWill to the edge. They had this new guy, that wanted to win, but just didn't know what it took to put the nail in the coffin so to speak...the team spirals, players and coaches fight, and it gets ugly.

I'm actually surprised when I think about it, how quickly Al has turned it around (thanks partially to his "bromance" with Millsap) and figured out how to be more clutch and help his team (not just himself).
 
you can have guys playing to win, but with guys on the floor that need more experience to learn to do it consistently.
 
northeast said:
you can have guys playing to win, but with guys on the floor that need more experience to learn to do it consistently.
Click to expand...

right, but what if those guys do that, and feel like they're doing everything they can to win...but don't. Every night you work your tail off but come up short. You start thinking, as a player, that no matter what you do, you're not going to win.

that's what happened to Jefferson. So, what would he do...he becomes a black hole, because he thinks he needs to take it upon himself instead of trusting his team to help him win. Players need to see that they can trust their teammates to help make them better—and no matter how hard you talk, it's not going to sink in until you see results.

I like the mix this team has now, and I love that they're seeing how fun it is to win and that it's not all a business.

If every time a rat tries to get some cheese, he gets shocked, he's going to stop trying to get the cheese.
 
kennykyle said:
Nope, tanking is a bad idea unless you are in the NFL.
Click to expand...

God damn it Kenny
You can't trade for players unless you have someone to trade.
The way teams trade for good players is to have their own good players that they got through the draft.
What do you propose to trade with if you don't have your own players, cracker jacks?
 
Dont the Wizards and Kings tank it every year hoping for a star? And then they get one (Cousins/Wall) and develop him into crap?
Then they start re-tanking to get another star? By that time, the old star on their team is so crap and selfish nobody cares about them any more?

The only thing wrong about tanking is what it does to fans.....it's really not a good strategy.
 
No one wants to tank every year. But teams that win championships do it once in a while.
Good Lord, we are going around in circles with the same arguments you guys have been having over and over again every day for the last 20 years.
 
chawx said:
right, but what if those guys do that, and feel like they're doing everything they can to win...but don't. Every night you work your tail off but come up short. You start thinking, as a player, that no matter what you do, you're not going to win.

that's what happened to Jefferson. So, what would he do...he becomes a black hole, because he thinks he needs to take it upon himself instead of trusting his team to help him win. Players need to see that they can trust their teammates to help make them better—and no matter how hard you talk, it's not going to sink in until you see results.

I like the mix this team has now, and I love that they're seeing how fun it is to win and that it's not all a business.

If every time a rat tries to get some cheese, he gets shocked, he's going to stop trying to get the cheese.
Click to expand...

No , you are going with your bias instead of science. From a scientific viewpoint, the reality is that an intermittent reward is a more powerful motivator than a constant one. As long as the young players can experience some success, they can be motivated to try to get more of it.
 
northeast said:
No , you are going with your bias instead of science.
Click to expand...

ron-burgundy.jpg


It's science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top