You're right, there are teams consistently in the lotto and make bad decisions but theres also teams who do a great job of rebuilding the way the lotto was meant for them to. Look at Portland who looks to be a PO contender next season after having the worst record in the league last season, they did all of that in 2 or 3 good drafts. Teams like the Warriors and Hawks make horrible decisions but at least they have the chance to get that franchise player. Making it so all of the teams have an equal opportunity makes the worst teams have the most to lose potentially and they can only improve marginally. There have been some great players drafted later in the draft like you said but look at a lot of the other guys- Duncan, LeBron James, Deron Williams, Rasheed Wallace, Chauncy Billups, Chris Webber, all still in the POs this year, all drafted in the top 5 of their respective drafts, all are or were franchise players or near franchise players unlike the guys you mentioned (Boozer is arguable and still young). Boozer, Manu, Parker, Okur and Varejao are all very good players but they're not guys who win you championships like the other top 5 draftees I mentioned, they're great secondary players who compliment your franchise player. Guys like Arenas, Michael Redd, Boozer, Ginobili, Parker, Ilgauskas. etc. who were drafted late first/ second are good players, all-stars, but not franchise players which is ultimately why we have the worst teams have the best chance to take a franchise player at a top pick.
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The problem is assuming the bad teams are going top always pick the best players. How many years did the Warriors go through the lottery? How about the Hawks? How many times did either of them pick the right player? Through poor cap management, taking high risks, and drafting redundant players, these teams continue to have losing seasons. They are constantly trying to find a new franchise player instead of piecing a team together. Drafting on potential instead of need, sets these franchises back when they guess wrong. There's a laundry list of teams who have been in the lottery over and over, but don't seem to get anywhere except back in the lottery. The current system is flawed. Seperating the lottery teams in two groups doesn't stop teams from tanking. Those teams who are going to miss the playoffs will try to tank just get into that bottom 5. I don't see how this solves the problem, because you're still rewarding teams for tanking. How does a team who barely made the playoffs and then gets a top 3 pick, all of sudden become a championship contender? There's very few players entering the draft (especially underclassmen) who could have that type of impact. Look at the remaining teams in the playoffs now. A lot of key players were drafted late. Carlos Boozer 2nd rounder Mehmet Okur 2nd rounder Tony Parker 2nd rounder Manu Ginobili 2nd rounder Anderson Varejao 2nd rounder There's a lot of productive players drafted in the late 1st round or in the 2nd round. An All-American like Carlos Boozer shouldn't end up in the 2nd round of any draft. All-ACC player of the year Josh Howard shouldn't fall to the bottom of Round 1 in a draft. These type of collegiate standouts should be going to the bottom teams, because they can make an immediate impact in the win/loss column. I'd rather see a player who's raw, but has a lot of talent end up with a veteran team who's already winning. It allows them to develop into an impact player instead of putting unrealistic expectations on them and watching their confidence disappear. There's just too, many players who have gone to the wrong situation and they end being a disappointment, plus they handicap a franchise for 4 to 5 years.</div> The facts that you use are pretty accurate, however not necessarly the best arguments. Surely Ginobli and Valejao were second rounders who now help out their teams. However the players that makes them so good were both number one draft picks in LeBron and Duncan. Boozer is a second round gem, which is common in many drafts, like Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd, etc. Tony Parker was a first round draft pick, granted a late first round draft pick. Derek Fisher was a contributor to a championship team but we saw here how that doesn't really corrolate towards helping worse teams succeed. Was Fisher ever drafted even? If we remember why these teams tank, it's because of the tout for these big-time players. Nobody is going to care about tanking with a type of draft there was last year, granted that first round pick did help out the Raptors. This year and this draft is different and everybody has known this for a long time. Not only were Durant and Oden highly touted out of high school but they also were two of the best players in the NCAA last season. When you get drafts with guys like Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Yao Ming, Oden, and Durant coming out, then you are going to see teams like the Spurs letting David Robinson take it easy more than the team would otherwise allow, you're going to see the Grizzlies and Celtics play their younger prospects more, etc. Also most teams are tanking in the last month (more or less) of the season to get position either for the draft lottery, while other teams are still looking to get draft position. And it is true that some teams are going to be in the bottom of the league no matter where or whom they draft. However it has more to do with teams having management people who have trouble getting things done. I think this is the same for the NFL, or it was before the league expanded to so many teams that parity now dominates there. In general, I must confess that I have no problem with the current set up for the draft. I wouldn't mind going to a normal draft format solely based on record. I don't agree with each team having an equal chance at the top picks though. There has to be some type of mercy for the bad teams. I do feel somewhat bad for Boston and Memphis though. Adding Oden/Durant to Pierce/Gasol would make them much better teams imo. AlleyOops' idea sounds interesting. Isn't there already some type of system built in like that though? Like the worst two or three teams can't fall below the 5th or 6th pick? Maybe I just made that up though...Anyway I guess I can see what David Stern is doing with this.
RUN BJM - There are plenty of 1st rounders still in the playoffs, but a majority of them were not drafted by the team they play for now. It's an interesting debate, perhaps having all 30 teams is extreme, but the middle ground appears to be evening out the lottery for non-playoff teams. My main point of view is you don't build a team by depending on the draft. You find two or three core players, and then you use free agency or trades to build around your core. The draft has turned into a crapshoot for teams, because each year teams are trying to find that one breakout player instead of focusing on their blueprint. In fact I'd argue most GM's and organizations don't even have a blueprint to follow. The key to success in the NBA is stability. How can a losing team achieve stability when they are constantly changing their plans and core players? I think losing teams need to infuse more NBA ready players, rather than stockpiling talent and hoping things workout 5 years down the road. Here's another radical idea, a supplemental draft. How about Round 1 teams have to select 4 year seniors or International players at the equivalent age of 22? Round 2 can be treated as your chance for developing your NBADL roster of players or the International players you plan to keep overseas. This is the part of the draft where you can select the Johan Petros, Patrick O'Bryants, Andrew Bynums, etc. Prospects with TUP (tremendous upside potential), but not ready to contribute right away. Teams would have the option to keep them in their NBADL franchise or if they can earn a spot on the 13 man rotation then more power to them.
<div class="quote_poster">Run BJM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I completely disagree with you Shape and agree with alley oop. I think giving all the lotto teams the same chance would make the NBA less competitive. Terrible teams would have an extremely low chance of getting a top 3, franchise changing pick, therefore oppressing them and basically giving them no escape from their situation. They have to just keep on going to the lotto until they luck out on their 1-14 chance and get a legit player. Teams who barely missed the POs get a top 3 pick and they are all of a sudden favorites for the championship. It could cause a more uneven distribution of talent throughout the league, keeping bad teams horrible for extended periods of time while decent teams are acquiring top notch talent. I was thinking about something similar to Alley Oop's proposal. Make the worst 5 teams in the league have a lotto where they all have an even chance of getting the top pick. That way the worst 5 teams are assured the top 5 picks Alley Oops idea of a separate lotto for the remaining lotto teams is a good idea as well IMO. That way the tanking is minimal and limited to the 5/6 worst teams and the worst 5 teams get the top 5 picks.</div> Actually, that was Walker's proposal, Run. I proposed that all 14 non-playoff teams have an equal shot at the top 14 picks. If you make the playoffs, congrats, you are ordered by record. If not, you get one pingpongball regardless of whether you're #14 worst record or #1 worst record. Nobody will try to "tank" out of the playoffs (usually only bottom few teams tank), if you're in the POs you want to be there! This makes it much more interesting, IMO. Whoever gets the #1 pick, if that player is truly a superstar, then you should probably make the POs the next year, and thus will get out of the bottom 14. So it's not like one team will get stacked with top-tier talent every year. Also, I just don't buy that there are perrennial horrible teams. I mean, look at GS -- 12 year PO drought, and the draft didn't help them through much of it (well, it didn't completely solve the problem, it was the Pacer trade that finally did it). I don't buy that Memphis or Boston or Atlanta will hands down SUCK year after year if they DON'T get a #1 or #2 pick soon. Even if they get a #7 here and a #12 there, through free agency, trades, the NBDL, etc, good teams run by good GMs will find a way to become competetive. I don't believe we need complete parity for every team in the league, every single year. With the way the draft goes, too, you never know -- Monta and Boozer were both second rounders, and they are turning out to be franchise guys. Think about this: if you're Boston, and you know that come draft time, there's no telling which of the top 14 picks you're going to get, you had better damn well get busy to find other ways to improve your team. Hire new coaches. Hire a free throw shooting coach. Hire a dietitician. Bring in a hall-of-famer to teach your guys low post moves. Hire 2 additional scouts to travel with th e NBDL. Hire two additional scouts to start scourging over the international scene. Start making cap room to sign that prize FA in the summer. You can't just start tanking and placing all your bets on a #1 pick. I dunno. Walker's "bottom 5" solution sounds okay too, but then you'll have all teams on the cusp of "suckiness" perhaps trying to tank to get into the "golden 5," so to speak. I guess bottom line is, if it's true that teams "tank," that's a damn shame. It's a disgrace to the game if you have players on the floor who are intentionally not doing whatever they can to win. Yet, it makes sense "economically" for the draft -- even yur own fans would want you to lose so they can get Oden. That must feel like crap to be a player on the court who can't just give 110% and dive for every loose ball and give every ounce of your being to try to compete and overcome adversity because your fans would be happier if you lose. That's just weird.
I think that if the NBa were to actually have a salary cap.... not the soft crap they have now .... but a NFL version.... a hard cap ...... where all teams have to adhere to it.... it would create more balance.... and perhaps eliminate some tanking..... I would love to see Lakers, Knicks etc have to play by the same rules as all teams..... then again i would love to see that in baseball as well....
<div class="quote_poster">boogielew Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think that if the NBa were to actually have a salary cap.... not the soft crap they have now .... but a NFL version.... a hard cap ...... where all teams have to adhere to it.... it would create more balance.... and perhaps eliminate some tanking..... I would love to see Lakers, Knicks etc have to play by the same rules as all teams..... then again i would love to see that in baseball as well....</div> I would also love to see a hard cap and also eliminate the guaranteed contracts the NBA players have. There are countless examples of players stepping up their production in a contract year, get overpaid, and then give half-ass effort afterward. It's frustrating to watch, and it inflates the contracts for future free agents.
<div class="quote_poster">boogielew Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think that if the NBa were to actually have a salary cap.... not the soft crap they have now .... but a NFL version.... a hard cap ...... where all teams have to adhere to it.... it would create more balance.... and perhaps eliminate some tanking..... I would love to see Lakers, Knicks etc have to play by the same rules as all teams..... then again i would love to see that in baseball as well....</div> A hard cap would create too much movement of players. The one thing I really dislike about the NFL right now is how so many players are moving all the time. You get previous all-pros like Randy Moss and Jeff Garcia going to multiple teams in consecutive years. Plus it's always frustrating seeing a team like the 49ers draft some good players like Julian Peterson, but not being able to keep him around because of the cap reasons. Of course player movement would be easier to track since NBA rosters are greatly smaller than NFL rosters, but I am not a fan of a hard cap. The NBA has added that luxury tax thing which should help to penalyze teams. Now eliminating the guaranteed contracts could be an appealing addition to the NBA system. I highly doubt that the players agree to it though. There would probably be another lockout if that happened (or was attempting to become part of the NBA). As a fan I wouldn't be upset if Foyle's contract wasn't guaranteed. I also believe many people see NBA players as selfish, greedy, and what have you with all the money they make. Such a change could transform this perception.
<div class="quote_poster">Clif25 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">A hard cap would create too much movement of players. The one thing I really dislike about the NFL right now is how so many players are moving all the time. You get previous all-pros like Randy Moss and Jeff Garcia going to multiple teams in consecutive years. Plus it's always frustrating seeing a team like the 49ers draft some good players like Julian Peterson, but not being able to keep him around because of the cap reasons. Of course player movement would be easier to track since NBA rosters are greatly smaller than NFL rosters, but I am not a fan of a hard cap. The NBA has added that luxury tax thing which should help to penalyze teams. Now eliminating the guaranteed contracts could be an appealing addition to the NBA system. I highly doubt that the players agree to it though. There would probably be another lockout if that happened (or was attempting to become part of the NBA). As a fan I wouldn't be upset if Foyle's contract wasn't guaranteed. I also believe many people see NBA players as selfish, greedy, and what have you with all the money they make. Such a change could transform this perception.</div> There's always going to be a lot of player movement regardless of a hard or soft cap. It's just the nature of the business these days. Owners are impatient and are quick to make radical moves when they don't get the results they want. You're right, the NBA Player's Union would fight tooth and nail to retain their guaranteed contracts. I don't blame them either, but Ithink it's really hurt the competitive spirit of the game. There's a lot of immature knuckleheads in the NBA, who don't appreciate the opportunity of being paid millions of dollars to play a kids game. There's no accountability for their actions, because they know the paychecks are going to keep coming and their job is secure with a guranteed deal. In the NFL, if you screw up the team can cut you loose. There's a lot of knuckleheads in the NFL still, but at least the team isn't handcuffed by them.
<div class="quote_poster">Clif25 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Now eliminating the guaranteed contracts could be an appealing addition to the NBA system. I highly doubt that the players agree to it though. There would probably be another lockout if that happened (or was attempting to become part of the NBA). As a fan I wouldn't be upset if Foyle's contract wasn't guaranteed. I also believe many people see NBA players as selfish, greedy, and what have you with all the money they make. Such a change could transform this perception.</div> You're totally right -- I would have to imagine there would be a lock-out if the league tried to mess with these 5-year $80 mils contracts. I mean this is absurd -- these guys are making WAY too much money not to be trying hard ALL the time, but rather it seems that the more they are paid, the softer they become! What did Rick Barry and Dave Cowens get paid? Nickels!! Yet they scrapped for it. I'm not saying every high-paid player is a wuss, of course, it just seems like there is a direct correllation between A absurd rise in $mils for ludicrous contracts and B absurd rise in ludicrous behavior like whining, holding out, refusing to come to practice, refusing to play, demanding to be traded, and otherwise not appreciating that you make more money than an entire third-world contry's net worth. I mean, as an NBA player making $50 mils, how can you possibly square with yourself the idea of becoming a rapper on the side? How can you possibly spend an entire off-season (and even many hours during season) trying to become a rapper and record a rap album? I have no problem with artistic endeavors (I love music), but if I were getting paid that much money to play a game I love, I know I would be devoting my offseason to basketball! I would think I owe it to the fans. Then, when my short moment of glory comes to an end, and I walk away from the game with truckfuls of money, then I would go into being a rapper. Anyhoo -- yeah, non-guaranteed contracts is the way to go! But it will never happen. Look at Adonal Foyle -- his contract is worth more money than one year of the entire Pittsburgh Pirates roster. Yet he is horseshit. Complete garbage. A disgrace to the game. I know 6th grade girls with better hands. But nonetheless, there it is. He's getting the money. And what is he doing? Not practicing the game enough! He's spending all his time promoting Democracy Matters, traveling, speaking, involving himself in the political arena, reading and writing and engaging that sphere... This is a noble pursuit, mind you... But he should have gone into POLITICS!! When he signed that absurd contract, he committed himself to this organization, these fans and this community, to try to do everything he can to make himself a better BASKETBALL PLAYER and earn his paycheck every day. Instead, he's just collecting a check while he could care less about basketball. WTF is going on here!?!
Must feel good to get that off your chest AlleyOop. LOL. There is definitely a correlation with A & B in your example above. Players lose that edge and start worrying about what they have to lose, instead of committing even more of themselves to the game. This is why you hear about fans complaining about the league and players. Labeling them selfish, whiney, etc. The normal fan who has a job does not relate to the luxuries an NBA player has been afforded. Fans who work understand the concept of "earning" and if they don't produce they lose their job or they earn less. For the NBA player it's the exact opposite. I work hard for one season and then I can put it in cruise control. It's really sickening if you think about it. A fan has to fork out at least $100.00 these days for decent seats, parking, etc. You expect to get a good showing from your team and watch them compete at a high level. You invest your hard-earned money and your time to watch these athletes, and most of the time you come home feeling ripped off, because your superstar making superstar money has decided to take the night off. I should be entitled to a refund on those nights.
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Must feel good to get that off your chest AlleyOop. LOL. There is definitely a correlation with A & B in your example above. Players lose that edge and start worrying about what they have to lose, instead of committing even more of themselves to the game. This is why you hear about fans complaining about the league and players. Labeling them selfish, whiney, etc. The normal fan who has a job does not relate to the luxuries an NBA player has been afforded. Fans who work understand the concept of "earning" and if they don't produce they lose their job or they earn less. For the NBA player it's the exact opposite. I work hard for one season and then I can put it in cruise control. It's really sickening if you think about it. A fan has to fork out at least $100.00 these days for decent seats, parking, etc. You expect to get a good showing from your team and watch them compete at a high level. You invest your hard-earned money and your time to watch these athletes, and most of the time you come home feeling ripped off, because your superstar making superstar money has decided to take the night off. I should be entitled to a refund on those nights.</div> Amen!
I just noticed that the Warriors are slated to get three picks this year: #18, #36 (from Minnesota), and #46 (from New Jersey). Do they get to keep all three? If so, this will be another fun draft to watch... with Nellie in the fold, the Warriors' draft picks should be exciting if nothing else...
I do not think that there is anything wrong with the current system of the lottery. This is the first year in the lottery's history that none of the bottom three teams got into the first three picks. It seemingly erased the notion that the lottery is rigged considering that two of the least marketable teams got the first two picks. I doubt that you will see teams tanking in the future to secure more ping pong balls when there is a 75 percent chance that you will not get the first pick when you have the worst record. Those aren't the best odds in the world. If I had to make any changes to the league I would require that all contracts exceeding four years would have an team option to terminate after the third year and the following year would have a player option to test the free agent market. This would give owners a smaller window of error in the cases of players who are not reaching their expectations but would also give players more incentive to front load their contracts in the event that they feel their organization could choose to terminate their contracts. Players would have more incentive to play hard b/c they could potentially be free agents every third year in the league. I believe that their should be no restrictive free agency. If after the fourth year of a contract a rookie wants to test the free agent market he shouldn't feel compelled to resign with the team he played for just b/c they have the right to match a contract that they sign for another team. It is difficult enough that a player really doesn't have the right to pick the team that they want to play for out of college. If they prove themselves in a situation that they may not have wanted to be in after four years they should have the right to choose what team they will play for without the worry that the team they are on will match the offer. That is giving an organization too much power--b/c I have yet to see a player sign a qualifying offer and have a breakout season. Teams should also be able to restructure the deals of any existing player on their team at any time after they have completed one year of the initial signed contract without that player becoming a free agent in the process. For instance, what happened to Carlos Boozer should not have hurt the Cavaliers. If a team feels that a player on their roster market value far exceeds what they are getting paid, at the end of the season they can restructure that contract if the player agrees and pay them more (or less) money without them becoming a free agent in the process. For instance if Kevin Durant in his first season puts up outrageous numbers, he could, if the Sonics would choose and Durant would agree, tear up his rookie contract and be offered a max deal in his second season. Most teams wouldn't want to do that considering they would save a lot of money, but that player when he was a free agent could remember that he wasn't compensated for his hard work and choose to go to another team. It would make GM's work excessively hard to keep the core of their team together, while also giving college players more incentive to continue to work on their games so that they could possibly restructure their contracts before they were free agents.. You wouldn't have to worry about anyone holding out as a draft pick (one of the best things about the current CBA agreement) b/c all rookies first year salaries would be based on where they were drafted. An existing player who wants to win a championship could, if they choose, give up guaranteed money to ensure that the team could pursue worthwhile free agents and remain under the salary cap. Obviously there could be drawbacks to these proposals. A team could insist that a player restructure their contract or else they would not play the minutes that they would hope the next season. If the player would choose not to they would still get their money, regardless of the pressure from the organization. Other players may get upset that a team wouldn't tear up their contract when they had a breakout year and could demand a trade to a team that was willing to restructure their contract. There would then be a clause that said that only after a player was on a roster for an entire year would they be able to restructure their contract with the team that they are on. Lot of provisions, lot of loopholes, but it would allow players to be compensated for a job well done, and owners to not be fiscally responsible for a player who is simply trying to cash in a pay check. It wouldn't be like the NFL, but a 3 year contract is much less imposing than a 5 or 6 year deal -- if a player is not performing. And if he is, it would benefit the player to have the right to opt out after four years of service--and not have to worry about restricted free agency either. And the rookie salary cap would only take precedence if a team chooses to use it--if they wanted to max out a rookie after his first year they could choose to do so. Just my views of how the NBA could improve their product.
<div class="quote_poster">AlleyOop Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You're totally right -- I would have to imagine there would be a lock-out if the league tried to mess with these 5-year $80 mils contracts. I mean this is absurd -- these guys are making WAY too much money not to be trying hard ALL the time, but rather it seems that the more they are paid, the softer they become! What did Rick Barry and Dave Cowens get paid? Nickels!! Yet they scrapped for it. </div> I don't think you're remembering Rick Barry correctly. He was one of the first to hold out and show how truly selfish he is. One of my favorite stories about him is when Nike was starting, they approached him to be one of 4 guys in their marketing plans, I don't remember who the others were but they weren't that great. He thought it an insult to be grouped with the other 3 players who weren't as good as him so he turned down the deal. The others were paid in Nike IPO shares. They're all millionaires, Barry has regretted it since
<div class="quote_poster">ryanfish Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think you're remembering Rick Barry correctly. He was one of the first to hold out and show how truly selfish he is. One of my favorite stories about him is when Nike was starting, they approached him to be one of 4 guys in their marketing plans, I don't remember who the others were but they weren't that great. He thought it an insult to be grouped with the other 3 players who weren't as good as him so he turned down the deal. The others were paid in Nike IPO shares. They're all millionaires, Barry has regretted it since</div> My bad -- you're right -- I do remember him actually going to a different team over a few measly dollars, now that I think of it. I guess I was recalling all of his long-winded diatribes on KNBR about how he and his fellows got paid mere pennies to play the game. Then I added that to his hall of fame career, and saw a guy who got paid pennies to be a hall of famer. But yeah, you're right, he wasn't happy about it at all.
I'm a johnny-come-lately on this topic, but there is no perfect solution. All you can do is soften the impact of tanking which the current lottery system does. Now, the averaging of a team's record over three years does make tanking have less effect. But teams are still going to tank. That is a good strategy to use imo. Now, some fans can't stand tanking because it's against their moral code or something, but it's the smart strategy. After all, what is left for a team do to improve themselves when they're out of the running and the trade deadline has passed? Charles Barkley had some comments on tanking. "Good things don't happen to people who cheat." It's bad karma. Some of you may feel the same way, but tanking is the SMART strategy : http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tv24frDECA4
<div class="quote_poster">jason voorhees Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'm a johnny-come-lately on this topic, but there is no perfect solution. All you can do is soften the impact of tanking which the current lottery system does. Now, the averaging of a team's record over three years does make tanking have less effect. But teams are still going to tank. That is a good strategy to use imo. Now, some fans can't stand tanking because it's against their moral code or something, but it's the smart strategy. After all, what is left for a team do to improve themselves when they're out of the running and the trade deadline has passed? Charles Barkley had some comments on tanking. "Good things don't happen to people who cheat." It's bad karma. Some of you may feel the same way, but tanking is the SMART strategy : http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tv24frDECA4</div> I couldn't disagree more. What's the point of the game? Why play it? Since we were little kids we've been playing this game -- and I'll tell you what, I only know one way to play -- that's to give it my all. This is just my personal opinion -- but I don't give a crap about contracts, drafts, rankings, or anything else -- if I put my sneakers on, and step on the court, you better TAKE that ball from me because otherwise I'm going to score again, and again, and again. And again. Now, I can understand if you think the season is lost, and so you start playing the reserves to find out what they can give you. To me that's totally different. I'm all for giving the prospects PT if the POs are mathematically over and you want to develop for next season. As long as whatever 5 is out there, they are giving their all. They owe it to the fans and the integrity of the game. And as long as the coach is trying to get those reserves to crush the other team with all they have. Otherwise, why even step onto the court?
<div class="quote_poster">AlleyOop Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I couldn't disagree more. What's the point of the game? Why play it? Since we were little kids we've been playing this game -- and I'll tell you what, I only know one way to play -- that's to give it my all. This is just my personal opinion -- but I don't give a crap about contracts, drafts, rankings, or anything else -- if I put my sneakers on, and step on the court, you better TAKE that ball from me because otherwise I'm going to score again, and again, and again. And again. Now, I can understand if you think the season is lost, and so you start playing the reserves to find out what they can give you. To me that's totally different. I'm all for giving the prospects PT if the POs are mathematically over and you want to develop for next season. As long as whatever 5 is out there, they are giving their all. They owe it to the fans and the integrity of the game. And as long as the coach is trying to get those reserves to crush the other team with all they have. Otherwise, why even step onto the court?</div> Two things. First, tanking is not throwing the game on purpose. Those are two different concepts completely. You're still playing to win. I was talking about the last 20 or games of the season after the trade deadline. Second, yes, the season is LOST. With tanking, you still play to win, just with different players. Maybe somebody is banged up and needs rest. So you rest him instead of starting him. It's the opposite of playoff teams resting their key players down the stretch. Most people don't say anything about that practice.
