Tanking for picks??? (Sports)

[Springfield]

29 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I understand cap space decisions but to actively CHOOSE to lose is an anathema to me. It is absolutely against the spirit of compettition as I understand it. 

As I said earlier, this discussion ONLY happens in American sports where the pro-teams are awarded permanent and irrevocable tenue. They don’t have to play for anything because they risk NOTHING. The Browns, Lions, and Redskins have been factories of sadness for decades and yet their season ticket sales are constant. 

Because we have chosen to reward pathetic performance. 

 Relegation would be an interesting aspect if we could somehow work that into American sports.

[FanboyOf91]

Thirding promotion/relegation systems. Snyder would have been forced to sell the team when the Skins got relegated to NFL-2/NCAA.

[abdcskins]

I honestly don't even know how to answer this one. I think ultimately I would say no because I think intentionally losing a game is ethically wrong. It defies the competitive spirit and shows fans they don't care.

 

I think it also depends on how you define, "intentionally lose." Is the coach not starting the best players and fielding a subpar lineup? Is the owner telling him to sit certain players? Or are players not giving in their all on the field/court and deliberately playing bad defense and letting the opposing team score? I think that last example would be inexcusable. 

[Mr. Sinister]

 

 

6 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

You can do all of that and still acknowledge that you can win by losing in the NBA. 

 

I mean, listen. I want the Wiz to win every game. I want to see Wall and Beal and Otto and the rest play to their potential. But if I want them to win despite the GM they need to have more talent than the other teams either coaching or player wise. They aint getting it through the draft outside of top 3 selections. And no one who is anyone wants to come here and play in this city. They just dont. But they are too far along in the process to tank it now imo. Now they have to do what they can the best they can and accept the results. However if/when this fails I totally want to see them tank if for a few seasons if the right guys are coming out. 

 

Also you say this as a Heat fan. I would like to see you say this as a fan of say....THE REDSKINS (jokes lol) 

 

Sheeeeeeit, I'm  the same age as the Miami Heat.... ?

 

Been here before the beginning of this run

 

Much as as y'all cut yourselves over the Wizard's playoff woes, they don't come even remotely close to me. Y'all haven't even graduated to ECF losses yet lol.

 

Gotta climb the Rung of Pain

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

10 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

You can do all of that and still acknowledge that you can win by losing in the NBA. 

 

 

You start to punish teams for sucking and you are going to end up with a few permanently ****ty teams at the bottom of your sport of choice. As long as you are cool with that then I guess there is not problem with it. 

 

We should totally punish teams that tank. If they did that we wouldn't even be having the conversation. Problem is how do you prove it? 

 

 

 

I'll hear you out if you explain why you think punishing teams for failing to be competitive will some how cause constant bottom of terrible teams.  

 

Are you saying they will be the same ****ty teams over and over again?  We already have bad teams every year, they aren't all tanking.  @PeterMP Mentioned dipping in their collective bargining share if a team loses are certain number of games for a certain period of time.  I'd say something like three years straight of 4 wins or less in the NFL and 20-25 wins or less (like what Philly did), ya, their share of revenue from the other franchises should be threatened, and whittled down until they start to get over that limit.  They certainly aren't contributing, that's for sure.

 

I absolutely agree that we should be punishing teams we can prove are intentionally tanking for chances at higher draft picks.  The leagues absolutely have methods for doing their own investigations on teams for stuff like PEDs, Tampering, and Domestic Violence, so they can totally catch teams in the act, and if they do, teams should be losing first round draft picks (at minimum).  Good example of what you're talking about is that Lions team that went 0-16 (first NFL team to do that).  They were 7-9 the previous season with the same head coach, and he got fired after that.  That wasn't a tank job.

 

 

Quote

You really think that? Lol

 

You are trippin. What makes you think he legit came here thinking this was the ring stop over Cleveland. Or OKC. Or the Spurs. Or the Lakers. Or the Warriors. Seriously you have on Wiz kid glasses. Even I didn't think they legit had a chance WITH him. Our max was pushing Cleveland to a game 6 thats it. No way he came here thinking he was going to win it all. Of course he said it. But no way he came here for just a ring and you know that. 

 

 

Ya, so the rumor is Pierce came here not just because he believed in our window, but took less to make sure we could get KD.  He probably realized he wasn't coming before Ernie did, that's why he bailed.  Dude was making like $3 million a year with the Clippers, you think he really needed that?  He didn't go to the clippers for the money, he just didn't want to admit he was done yet and wanted to be in a comfortable, competitive situation with his former HC up the street from his hometown (he took even less in the Clippers then he did that one year with us).

 

 

Quote

What was the point then? That Foxboro won before Tom and Bill? Ok and? Why does that mean tanking it doesn't work? 

 

 

This was addressed, its 2018, players are millionaires and can put themselves in a fenced off mansion anywhere in the country.  You can argue the factor of stuff like state taxes (which for a millionaire, I just shake my head), but again, there are franchises throughout history and even now that are successful in non-ideal locations and turn it around despite the odds.  The location factor for the most part is dead, its either money or rings 90% of the time, and if you build something from scratch the right way, people notice, no matter where you are.  You don't see anybody flocking to the Miami teams right now, do you?  Heatles happened there because Wade didn't want to leave Miami, they very well coulda done that anywhere that could afford them, all three were UFAs.

 

 

Quote

Im not saying you have to tank. Im saying its a valid strategy in some cases. Just as valid as waiting for a once in a generational talent to walk through the door and change everything. Im not sure people dont want to play for the Lakers. I dont know where you are getting that from. Im not sure that people dont want to play for the Kicks either. I think both teams have made many poor management decisions and thats been their biggest issue. 

 

That's why people don't want to play there.  I mean, I don't get this sentence, its oxymoronic.  You're calling tanking "valid", what's the success rate here?  And by success I mean winning championships.

 

 

Quote

No. We are in a spot that we have one of the better talents in the game in his prime. Wasting a season is wasting a shot and a year of a great talent. We may never see someone like John Wall in DC ever again. you dont waste those years even if only to look back and say what we could have done. 

 

Thank God we agree on this.  I don't understand people saying we should tank right now, like what, to get a center?  To make a new core?  It's utter nonsense, I'm tired of seeing it.

9 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

Time to give him The Rock meme. 

Just bring it. 

I'm still waiting on you to come back into the Religion Thread, Mr. "I got nipples, can you milk?".  

 

I mean that in fun, that thread is more touchy then this one is.

[Renegade7]

7 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Why are we even discussing the Patriots.

 

This thread is lame and I'm not re-reading back that far.

Somehow "Location" came up, like professional athletes that can fly to any island they want in the offseason care if they're driving distance to a beach during he regular season.  Not in 2018.  

 

I made the point about that not stopping franchises in the past either, and mentioned Pats pre-Parcells as an example of place that at one point had a polar opposite reputation to today and in the middle of nowhere, but still found a way to turn it around, then next thing you know a new Owner, Front Office, Coach and QB come in and one of the greatest dynasties of all time.  That coulda happened anywhere, if all four happened in any location you'd probably get a similar result, they just know what they're doing, that's what it boils down to.  

 

Colts had Manning and got 1 super bowl and completely collapsed the one year he finally got hurt, so just having one of the best QBs of all-time isn't enough.  Ask Marino, who was playing in Miami (a place you'd think professional athletes would flock to because of low taxes, weather, women, etc).

 

btw, eat a snickers, man.  Everytime you snap on us, I wonder if its because of something stupid like you chaffed yourself wearing your Harden onsie and just taking it out on us.  

[Renegade7]

4 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Because we have chosen to reward pathetic performance. 

 

Fun Fact: The Cleveland Browns are worth almost $2 Billion right now.  

[AsburySkinsFan]

22 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Fun Fact: The Cleveland Browns are worth almost $2 Billion right now.  

And for what?

I don’t know if the Browns are the perfect example of tribalism or something else.

[Renegade7]

12 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

And for what?

I don’t know if the Browns are the perfect example of tribalism or something else.

They're so used to losing they almost take pride in it now.  I've never met a Browns fan that was on the line of finally calling it quits.  How they still have season ticket holders is the real inspiration, and also outright criminal.  Whoever said a team admitting to losing as much as possible for high draft picks shouldn't be charging for admission deserves a mf'n medal.

 

Btw, are we going to get to what the Las Vegas Golden Knights are doing right now?  I mean, wow.

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 hours ago, Springfield said:

 Relegation would be an interesting aspect if we could somehow work that into American sports.

 

4 hours ago, FanboyOf91 said:

Thirding promotion/relegation systems. Snyder would have been forced to sell the team when the Skins got relegated to NFL-2/NCAA.

The biggest difficulty is that the owners will NEVER go for it. There’s no way they’ll willingly submit to their billion dollar enterprises being knocked out of the top tier professional ranks.

 

But, there are in my mind teams that simply do not field teams worthy of top tier professional ranks; and the worst part is that EVERY league has them and they are tolerated by the league and the fans.

[Llevron]

10 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

I'll hear you out if you explain why you think punishing teams for failing to be competitive will some how cause constant bottom of terrible teams.  

 

Are you saying they will be the same ****ty teams over and over again?  We already have bad teams every year, they aren't all tanking.  @PeterMP Mentioned dipping in their collective bargining share if a team loses are certain number of games for a certain period of time.  I'd say something like three years straight of 4 wins or less in the NFL and 20-25 wins or less (like what Philly did), ya, their share of revenue from the other franchises should be threatened, and whittled down until they start to get over that limit.  They certainly aren't contributing, that's for sure.

 

I didnt read Peters post so I definitely wasn't thinking about it as a market share hit. I was thinking more of a cap hit or something that would effect the team not the managements pockets. I actually agree with your (and peters) line of thinking. I actually think it sounds like a good idea and would make the sports better now that I have read it. You win....this round lol

 

Quote

I absolutely agree that we should be punishing teams we can prove are intentionally tanking for chances at higher draft picks.  The leagues absolutely have methods for doing their own investigations on teams for stuff like PEDs, Tampering, and Domestic Violence, so they can totally catch teams in the act, and if they do, teams should be losing first round draft picks (at minimum).  Good example of what you're talking about is that Lions team that went 0-16 (first NFL team to do that).  They were 7-9 the previous season with the same head coach, and he got fired after that.  That wasn't a tank job.

 

I still dont know how you catch people doing that but tell me it wouldn't be a fun job to be a Tank Investigator for the Redskins. Better yet the Cowboys so I can screw them over and get paid for it. 

 

Quote

Ya, so the rumor is Pierce came here not just because he believed in our window, but took less to make sure we could get KD.  He probably realized he wasn't coming before Ernie did, that's why he bailed.  Dude was making like $3 million a year with the Clippers, you think he really needed that?  He didn't go to the clippers for the money, he just didn't want to admit he was done yet and wanted to be in a comfortable, competitive situation with his former HC up the street from his hometown (he took even less in the Clippers then he did that one year with us).

 

Dunno man. That sounds like bullhockey to me. We could totally win with Pierce and KD and Wall and Beal. But I dont think anyone really in the know thought KD was actually coming here, though this hole area wished for it. Dude said it multiple times and I would assume hes alot less filtered when not on TV. I guess you could be right in this case, though I dont believe it.

 

But my over all point is that best players, the ones that get to chose who they play for, typically avoid the Wizards just like they do for the Skins in many cases. The Wizards have a problem of not having a fan base until the playoffs start, bad management, and a tiny NBA market. All of that counts and all of it is true. That **** doesnt help us. And when faced with the option of getting lucky and finding a player late in the draft, great coaching or Tanking it. I think our best bet would be to tank it once this John Wall era is over unless things change in that time. 

 

Quote

This was addressed, its 2018, players are millionaires and can put themselves in a fenced off mansion anywhere in the country.  You can argue the factor of stuff like state taxes (which for a millionaire, I just shake my head), but again, there are franchises throughout history and even now that are successful in non-ideal locations and turn it around despite the odds.  The location factor for the most part is dead, its either money or rings 90% of the time, and if you build something from scratch the right way, people notice, no matter where you are.  You don't see anybody flocking to the Miami teams right now, do you?  Heatles happened there because Wade didn't want to leave Miami, they very well coulda done that anywhere that could afford them, all three were UFAs.

 

You dont need flocks of guys going to Miami to prove my point. You only need one. Like Kelly Olynyk for example. Dude is better than both our centers combined. We have the better team. He would have fit with us perfectly. We were closer to winning AND we could have made the money work. Look at that dude and tell me he wouldn't enjoy Miami better than DC. And this one guy with us would have been such an upgrade that we could be talking about a completely different outlook on the season right now. 

 

And I aint saying its the only factor. But you would be fooling yourself to say it doesn't count at all. Be real. You know given the choice of the two cities Miami would call to a rich 26 year old male wayyyyyyyyyy more than DC would. You know that in your heart and in your pants lol

 

Quote

That's why people don't want to play there.  I mean, I don't get this sentence, its oxymoronic.  You're calling tanking "valid", what's the success rate here?  And by success I mean winning championships.

 

It works. Ima let someone else do the research. 

 

https://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/5-nba-teams-that-successfully-tanked-for-the-draft.html/?a=viewall

 

Quote

Lucas would later tell ESPN that then-owner Gordon Gund had purposefully traded away players who could contribute in order to foster a losing record, draft LeBron James, and increase the value of the franchise before selling the team. “Get Buckets” Davis, one of the few spots of entertainment on the roster, agrees with him. Gung has publicly denied tanking. He sold the team for a profit in 2005.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/nov/30/nba-tanking-dallas-mavericks

 

Quote

You cannot deny that tanking works, though. Examples are littered throughout the league. The Lakers have one of the most intriguing young cores in the league because of their very sly tank/Kobe farewell combo meal, plus the late-round wizardry that brought them Jordan Clarkson and Larry Nance Jr. The Celtics, for all their weird draft pick hoarding and inability to draw a superstar via free agency (no, Al Horford is not a superstar), refused to let nostalgia for 2008 prevent them from rebuilding. Never forget that the most consistent, enviable franchise in the league, the San Antonio Spurs, were built from the ashes of an epic one-season tank that allowed them to draft Tim Duncan.

 

https://thesportspost.com/nhl-edmonton-tanking-works/

 

Quote

Take the Pittsburgh Penguins, for example. Pittsburgh missed the playoffs every year from 2001-02 to 2005-06. During that time they were able to draft Marc-Andre Fleury, Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby, and Jordan Staal. All were key pieces to their eventual resurgence in their Stanley Cup victories in 2009 and 2016.

 

It works. It does you cant deny that. Its not fair sure. But it works. 

 

 

Quote

Thank God we agree on this.  I don't understand people saying we should tank right now, like what, to get a center?  To make a new core?  It's utter nonsense, I'm tired of seeing it.

 

We are too close. We can still lure someone here that wants to win but doesn't want to join a super team. But im not sure who or how. But I have faith. Either way I wouldn't want to waste the prime of one of the best point guards to play the game. 

 

 

Edit: Im not gonna proofread either so take that

[Spaceman Spiff]

I will also say, I saw something on Sportscenter the other day about the last regular season game between the Suns and...can't remember the 2nd team, it might have been the Mavericks or the Nuggets.  Two teams with nothing to play for.  I think they might have actually been vying for the worst record.

 

They showed their starting lineups and they were garbage.  It was the role players.

 

But I can't imagine running Devin Booker out there for the last game of the season with nothing to play for and running the risk of him tearing an achilles or blowing out an ACL.  I think that might be something that hasn't been brought up yet...last game of the season, nothing to play for....are you going to risk the long term health of your star athletes?  What if Devin Booker tears his ACL that game and misses almost all of next season?  

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I will also say, I saw something on Sportscenter the other day about the last regular season game between the Suns and...can't remember the 2nd team, it might have been the Mavericks or the Nuggets.  Two teams with nothing to play for.  I think they might have actually been vying for the worst record.

 

They showed their starting lineups and they were garbage.  It was the role players.

 

But I can't imagine running Devin Booker out there for the last game of the season with nothing to play for and running the risk of him tearing an achilles or blowing out an ACL.  I think that might be something that hasn't been brought up yet...last game of the season, nothing to play for....are you going to risk the long term health of your star athletes?  What if Devin Booker tears his ACL that game and misses almost all of next season?  

 

 

I have zero problem with personel decisions there. It SUCKS for the fans who paid to be there, but if the team is at the bottom and in a meaningless last game of the season then put your high dollar players on the bench and use it as a scrimmage for further evaluation of your bench.

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I have zero problem with personel decisions there. It SUCKS for the fans who paid to be there, but if the team is at the bottom and in a meaningless last game of the season then put your high dollar players on the bench and use it as a scrimmage for further evaluation of your bench.

 

Right, I don't totally have a problem with it either.  It does suck for the fans that are there, this is true.  

 

But it also plays a part into the tanking conversation.  They're obviously not putting their best players on the floor.

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Right, I don't totally have a problem with it either.  It does suck for the fans that are there, this is true.  

 

But it also plays a part into the tanking conversation.  They're obviously not putting their best players on the floor.

I agree it plays a part in the convo, but as long as the team wasn’t aiming for last place prior to benching their players once their fate was sealed then IMO it is VERY similar to a first place team sitting players after they’ve won their division and secured home field through the playoffs. At that point there simply isn’t anything else to play for other than another W when the fate is already set. 

Now, if that team is facing a team that is still trying to get into the playoffs then I think the lead team owes it for the sake of competitive spirit to play. Same with the last place team if their facing a team who needs a W to get in.

[PleaseBlitz]

The reason for operating a sports franchise is to win championships.  Period.  

 

If that is clearly not going to happen this year, then tank it and improve your team as much as possible going forward.  

 

I'm happy to see that most people agree with this position, i thought I was an outlier here.  

[Renegade7]

15 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

I didnt read Peters post so I definitely wasn't thinking about it as a market share hit. I was thinking more of a cap hit or something that would effect the team not the managements pockets. I actually agree with your (and peters) line of thinking. I actually think it sounds like a good idea and would make the sports better now that I have read it. You win....this round lol

 

: )

 

 

 

Quote

I still dont know how you catch people doing that but tell me it wouldn't be a fun job to be a Tank Investigator for the Redskins. Better yet the Cowboys so I can screw them over and get paid for it. 

 

I think the goal isn't to nitpick teams, but to prevent what the Sixers just did from ever happening again.  I don't agree with tanking in general, but you're right, that could turn into a witch hunt.  If we catch somebody actually flying on a broom, that's different.  Starting there will make a world of difference.

 

Quote

Dunno man. That sounds like bullhockey to me. We could totally win with Pierce and KD and Wall and Beal. But I dont think anyone really in the know thought KD was actually coming here, though this hole area wished for it. Dude said it multiple times and I would assume hes alot less filtered when not on TV. I guess you could be right in this case, though I dont believe it.

 

But my over all point is that best players, the ones that get to chose who they play for, typically avoid the Wizards just like they do for the Skins in many cases. The Wizards have a problem of not having a fan base until the playoffs start, bad management, and a tiny NBA market. All of that counts and all of it is true. That **** doesnt help us. And when faced with the option of getting lucky and finding a player late in the draft, great coaching or Tanking it. I think our best bet would be to tank it once this John Wall era is over unless things change in that time. 

 

 

We're arguing about stuff we can't prove, but at some point KD wasn't saying it was impossible, then all of the sudden it was clear as day he was so pissed at Ernie that the situation turned into a snowballs chance in hell and likely told his agent to block his phone calls.  That looked bad enough that I'd argue KD won't come here until he's gone.  I saw it, the rest of the league saw, Wall and Beal even commented on it the last game he played in DC as part of the Thunder.  DC is also the 9th largest TV Market in the country, so I'm not feeling your "tiny market" comment and our fanbase will explode if they win a championship (especially if they do it before the other 3 teams do).  

 

 

Quote

You dont need flocks of guys going to Miami to prove my point. You only need one. Like Kelly Olynyk for example. Dude is better than both our centers combined. We have the better team. He would have fit with us perfectly. We were closer to winning AND we could have made the money work. Look at that dude and tell me he wouldn't enjoy Miami better than DC. And this one guy with us would have been such an upgrade that we could be talking about a completely different outlook on the season right now. 

 

And I aint saying its the only factor. But you would be fooling yourself to say it doesn't count at all. Be real. You know given the choice of the two cities Miami would call to a rich 26 year old male wayyyyyyyyyy more than DC would. You know that in your heart and in your pants lol

 

You coulda used any example in the world, but you picked the guy that looks like a GD billygoat claiming he's slinging dick to those Latin honeys down there?  

 

 

I promise you, if he has a Tinder account, the word "NBA Player" is in his name with **** around it when you do a search for him to make up for that gawd awful profile pic.  Homie looks like Sloth from the Goonies, he ain't no playa : /  And he's mediocre at best, same as the rest of the south florida big four teams.  Did you miss my Dan Marino example or are you ignoring it to try to keep your point valid?

 

Remember, Al Horford basically flipped a coin between us and Boston because there were more Dominicans there.  That would've changed the outlook of our season more then that clown ever could.

 

Quote

It works. Ima let someone else do the research. 

 

https://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/5-nba-teams-that-successfully-tanked-for-the-draft.html/?a=viewall

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/nov/30/nba-tanking-dallas-mavericks

 

https://thesportspost.com/nhl-edmonton-tanking-works/

 

It works. It does you cant deny that. Its not fair sure. But it works. 

 

 

It can work, but the numbers are not as much in your favor as you'd think.

 

http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/losing-is-not-a-winning-strategy-in-the-nba/

 

 

Quote

But it appears that teams that win 25 or fewer games have a hard time joining this elite.  Of the teams that won 25 or fewer games since 1984-85,

• 2.3 percent won 54 or more games the next year
• 3.9 percent won 54 or more games two years later
• 5.7 percent won 54 or more games three years later
• 10.1 percent won 54 or more games four years later
• 10.6 percent won 54 or more games five years later

In sum, nearly 90 percent of teams that win 25 or fewer games are not contenders five years later.  This suggests that “tanking” is a strategy that is very unlikely to lead to NBA success.

 

Odds are if you suck, you tend to stay there, regardless of how many lottery picks you get.  And as bad as being "mediocre" sounds, that's actually not worse:

 

 

Quote

So are teams better off avoiding the “mediocrity treadmill”?  Let’s define a mediocre team as one that wins between 34 and 49 wins.  Of the teams in this group,

• 9.1 percent won 54 or more games the next year
• 13.9 percent won 54 or more games two years later
• 14.8 percent won 54 or more games three years later
• 16.5 percent won 54 or more games four years later
• 19.8 percent won 54 or more game five years later

 

You lower your chance of getting a lottery pick to put you over the top, but you double you chance of winning 50+ games and being a contender and that can help attract the talent to put you over the top.

 

I asked you how many teams that have purposely tanked won championships for a reason.  That's actually rare, and the reason why is because you need to have competent people making those picks and filling in the blanks.  Most teams that do this don't know how to do that.  Sixers GM got fired because "The Process" wasn't a process to win rings, that's why the new guy immediately stopped that **** and started focus on fostering a winning culture with veteran pickups and player development.  That Spurs Duncan example is debatable, but him alone didn't win them their rings, that culture Pop put in place did.

 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this article I had a pay for because of the math involved, but I'll post the summary to help illustrate the conclusion all their research came to:

 

 

Quote

As in other North American sports, the NBA entry draft is a great source of excitement and hope for losing franchises and their fans. The importance of individual players in basketball may intensify the hopes placed in the draft, perhaps encouraging teams to lose to secure a higher draft position. There are certainly cases of teams improving greatly ex post with draft picks. A more complete look suggests that those success stories are the exception rather than the rule.

 

Fixed effects analysis covering 549 NBA team seasons from 1995 through 2013 finds that having more draft picks, even ones who have had time to develop, does not promote improvement over the 4-year rookie contract time frame. Better draft position also fails to improve performance. Groups of picks from 4 to 6, 7 to 10, and 14 to 17 are particularly associated with less improvement, while later picks show no effect.

 

While more and higher picks do not generally help teams, having better pickers does. Specific franchises and GMs generate up to 20 or 30 additional wins per season, greater than the impact of additional picks holding other factors constant.

 

A similar story applies to ordered probit analysis of draft picks’ contributions to playoff success. Having more lottery picks or giving them more playing time is not helpful. Developing good players who use their court time productively promotes success. That includes developing players who might not have been highly regarded entering the NBA. Again, the organization matters more than having earlier or more draft choices.

 

The most likely explanation for these results is that very good organizations and GMs develop successful franchises that win more, even if they pick late in each round. Other franchises get good picks after losing or mediocre seasons but do not take advantage of them. The draft may not promote competitive balance without good GMs to revive losing franchises.

 

With the highly uncertain ex ante impact of new NBA players, having top decision makers seems more important than getting top picks. Building through the draft depends on having builders who excel at their jobs.

 

I've attached the article to this post (nba_drafting.pdf), and highly recommend it (even if its challenging to get through).  Everyone wants to be the Warriors, but the #1 seed in the West traded for their two best players.  It's nearly 50/50 in terms of drafting an all-star with a top 6 pick, and you can hurt the development of other players by trying to force those top 6 picks on the court if they don't deserve the minutes. And like I figured, nobody touched my comment about what the Vegas Golden Knights are doing right now, an expansion team that is the first in history to sweep their first playoff series.  The Mystics didn't tank to become relevant, they traded for a former MVP and that got Toliver's attention that they were serious.

 

But lets stick with NBA since that's where this is more likely to happen and the biggest threat of getting out of control.  Of the #1 overall picks since your Hakeem Olajuwon example, only 4 have won a ring with the team that drafted them:

 

David Robinson and Tim Duncan with the Spurs (coincidence?), LeBron (who left because it wasn't working and came back), and Kyrie, who flopping around in irrelevancy until LeBron came back.

 

At this point we agree that we should not be letting teams be tanking to the level the Sixers just did.  What we also need to agree on is the very low success rate of going that route and how having a quality GM is more important then having multiple lottery picks.  You want to argue jumpstarting your franchise this way helps, fine, but you need a solid front office to get over the top.  And a solid front office doesn't need to tank to turn it around because they know how to build a championship contender without doing that (that's why they're solid).

 

 

Quote

We are too close. We can still lure someone here that wants to win but doesn't want to join a super team. But im not sure who or how. But I have faith. Either way I wouldn't want to waste the prime of one of the best point guards to play the game. 

 

 

Edit: Im not gonna proofread either so take that

 

 

I'm not a grammar nazi, you made your point even if I don't agree with it, lolz.  As for the Wizards, we might have to go all in for Cousins and expect that some people on our bench are going to get their feelings hurt.