Speaker 1: Is up, Fella sickos. I am Dana Valley coming at
you with my one, my only, my certified fans fabulous
co host of the Hardwood Knocks podcast, mister Grant Hughes.
We're back hashtag WJAQ. We're just asking questions. We cannot
be held responsible for what type of discussions or answers
they lead to the question of the day, Keny, NBA
fixed tanking is tanking? Its biggest problem? Is tanking even
a problem? I think the first before we get into
the potential solutions that are floating around out there, because
the Competition Committee recently meant which is met and tried
to hash this out, that's the trigger for it. Excuse me, Grant.
Why is tanking considered such a big issue in the
NBA where a lot of these other leagues are still
Let's just choose the NFL as an example. The worst
teams there is no lottery like the worst teams just
automatically they get the best picks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, this is all we've We've hit on
some aspect of everything we're gonna hit here as a preamble,
But like the core issue is it seems fairly well
established that the best way to build a contending roster
is to draft a superstar that around whom you center
your whole operation and you win championships that way. It's
easier to do it that way than trading for that player.
It's certainly easier to do it that way than signing
that player in free agency. Just look around the league.
I mean, there are exceptions to every rule, but you're
Tim Duncans, you're Steph Curry's, you're Jason Tatum's, you're Nikola
Jokic's like drafted right, not all with super high picks,
which is relevant, but that's just that those that's the
way to do it. I think if you're trying to
have the most effective strategy, So if the reason you
pick high in a draft is because you were had
a bad record, then teams are gonna at least look
at the upside of having a bad records. That's the
short answer, right, Like, it's just there's an incentive to losing,
and so some teams that are not capable of winning
at the highest level decide rather than be in the middle.
And we support this a lot of the time. By
the way, they try to win the race to the
bottom because they want their Wamba Yama, Curry, Jokic, whoever
they want that guy. The reason it's a really big
discussion if unless you have something to add to the
why is it an issue? Is its uniqueness too, because
the NFL doesn't have a tanking problem. Major League Baseball
does not have a tanking problem. International soccer really does
not have a tanking problem because you get relegated, you
get sent to a lower league and make less money
if you are on a team that quote unquote tanks.
Like so, I think the reason it's a discussion is
because this isn't a pro This is an NBA issue,
you know, really among the major sports, both American and internationally.
It's like, we don't talk about this for other sports.
And so that's why it's so interesting is because it
speaks to like the different incentive sets that exist in
the NBA that don't really exist in a lot of
other sports. So I don't know that what do you do?
You have a different take on it? Like what? Like
it seems pretty clear to me why tanking is an
issue just because there's plus to losing.
Speaker 1: I am fascinated by it by the focus on it.
Though when it comes to the NBA because some of
the leagues are would it be better, Like, wouldn't it
be worse if the worst team's just got the picks.
I feel like it kind of comes back to why
is the NBA season so long? And they're trying to
figure out a way, which is this is fair? Is
if you're not going to shorten the season, because in theory,
if you shorten the season, a curbs tanking. But they're
never going to shorten the season. But I do agree
with the sentiment of March and April basketball in the
NBA is just not it. I don't I learn the
least amount basically about the league and its teams then
or during that spending you can probably even say post
All Star break maybe. And we're also at a point
to where you say, never mind the fines from teams
you talk I fined a bunch last year. We've seen
Philly get fined with certain injury reporting. But you've also
just sort of reached a point where teams that play
well or breakout players, you're thinking, well does that really count?
Like there what was the joke that you used to
have about Jalen Green, Like he's the post All Star bricks?
So he's just like aphemeral, the best version of himself.
And to what you already said, the fact that one
player can make such a difference, So you are even
if you remove the lottery from the equation, you're just
incentive like one even more than a QB in the NFL,
just one person makes all the difference. In hockey, you're
playing these shorter stints on the ice, like you're not
going to rack up as many consecutive minutes to where
you can impact the game. I don't what I am
hesitant before we get into like some of the solutions
that we're thrown out there, and we can pick and
choose which ones we want to talk about because the
competition committee came up with some we have our own,
we called from others. I really think that we need
to remember that there's a reason why, Like some teams
are just bad, and I sometimes feel like badness gets
conflated with tanking, or they're rebuilding gets conflated with tanking.
The Wizards as an example, they can pull shenanigans at
the end of the season, but I don't know that
any one player they remove from their lineup is going
to impact the results as much as you deal with
certain other teams, and like that's where I kind of
struggle with it. And the other thing that I will
say I find this more criminal than tanking is the
existence of the Bulls or the Kings as an example,
that are just aiming to be Like I guess they're
trying through and through so it matters, but they're not
actively trying to contend either. Is there integrity in doing
what Chicago specifically does not really.
Speaker 2: Well, that's what makes it interesting and that's what so
like this is a unique NBA issue I feel like
because we give the Kings and Bulls a really hard
time because well, I mean for a lot of reasons,
but one of them is they won't just rip the
band aid off right, And to me, like if you
really do step back, that is a weird thing, Like
from from our side, like we're annoyed by them or
think they're being dumb because they're trying to win more
games than we think is smart and like that's a
weird system. Like it's a competitive sport. The object is
to win, but we think they should lose on they
should do things so that they lose on purpose. Now
it's not just lose on purpose. It's like have a plan,
Like the goal of losing now is to win later, right,
Like it's not totally divorced from like the object of
the sport, but like it always strikes me as strange
that it's like the correct decision and when teams don't
make it, we give them shit about it is to
try to be bad like that. That's like that's a problem.
That's like a structural issue to me, and and I
just other sports just don't deal with it and nearly
don't have it in anything close to the same way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's a good point. But also I
would ask you, though, it is like what is the
what's more honorable if you're tanking to try and get
a player that will allow you to contend for titles
or to actively check Like there's no Internally, there's no
way the Bulls can have looked at themselves at any
point since the Derreck Rose era and said we are
actually a contender. Yeah, is that like that that sort
of leans towards they're just trying to keep the lights
on to where we want to make as much money.
We want that playing gate revenue, we want the first
round playoff, the three or four games that we might
get revenue two or three games, depending on how long
the series last.
Speaker 2: So it's kind of like you said, honorable, It's almost like,
I mean, there is some honor in trying to win
the game that night, basically regardless, but it's like it's
they're doing it unambitiously because they're not They're just hanging
out in the middle for Gate rev or whatever. They're
not going all the way to the bottom or like
making win now trades to be a top four seed today.
Speaker 1: And I'm not trying to say I'm a I'm a
tanker sympathizer. It's just that there are certain like the
what the bulls do specifically just to keep coming back
to them that really grinds my gears more than actual
tanking does, because at least it feels like tanking is
more purposeful. Now. I don't think it should be happening.
I think it's bad for the product. It's like, but
I'm just and I feel between that and then conflating
it with just rebuilding teams that how do you get good?
You do have to rebuild at some point and you're
not going to be good for a while. Sometimes conflating
those teams if it like that sort of peeves me
a little bit too, because it's, okay, so you want,
let's use the Wizards as an example, what if they
were chock full of veterans beyond CJ. McCollum and Chris Middleton.
They should play all those guys because it gives them
a better chance of winning games, even though it comes
at the expense of the development of the younger guys
who at some point do need to play and get reps.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just kind of like this is why it's
hard to be You can be like annoyed with the
state that the game gets to in in March and
April and stuff, and I am too, but it's almost
like you gotta acknowledge that something like teams are just
like here's the rules of the game, you know, and
they're trying to strategize in a way that gives them
the best outcome, and that's losing some time. So it's
like I'm never like mad at the team in particular,
because it's like, yeah, I get it, like you've decided,
you've probably correctly assessed like what your incentives are, and
you're just doing the thing that gets you closer to them,
but it is like, well, I'm let me kind of
related to that. Don't you think that the worst type
of tanking is not I think that the type of
tanking that the league is very concerned about is like
a process sixers thing that's like, there's no end in
sight to this. We're just gonna do this until we
do hit the lottery figuratively and metaphorically or and literally.
But to me, the the the otherwise pretty competitive team
that like this is the play in was introduced to
curb some of this, but that is like, not we
don't want to make a we don't want the playoffs.
We would prefer to lose, so we get a lottery pick,
like those middle of the road tankers that just shut
it off at the you know, they got thirty six
wins and they just just totally like you know, put
everything away for the last fifteen games or even longer.
Like that's like and what we always keep saying, Utah
should do, you know, has to do because they start
too hot? Like that feels like an almost bigger problem
because then it's not just a bad team that's always
going to be bad staying bad. It's it's a team
that like, I don't know, you shouldn't you want to
make the playoffs like that? That to me is what's
the craziest version of it.
Speaker 1: Well, I think, and so if we get into solutions,
what you kind of hit on and this is so
let's go through the ones that the competition can make.
Had talked about most recently this was limit the pick
protections on trades to top four or post lottery. This way,
you're not having what you just mapped out with the
Jazz last year and maybe this season because they owe
that protected pick to the thunder what the Sixers did
last year to keep there that was top six protected right,
and it ends up getting them j Edgecombe. The what
the Dallas Mavericks did in the year that they ended
up trading and getting Derek Lively where they just punted
on getting into the plane altogether. This I don't know
how you feel about this solution. Obviously that's why we're
having this. I'm okay with this. It would it would
probably simplify trades a little bit. I don't know, what
do you think it would maybe hurt the level of
activity in trades.
Speaker 2: That that is The related question is like, is whatever
you do there's gonna be on unintended consequences whatever the
league decides to do. But I think one that it
should be very concerned about is curbing like transactional activity.
So if you think that limiting pick protections in this
way will reduce the number of trades we see, then
it's like, I don't know, because the NBA thrives on
like trade speculation, and that's just like what everybody pays
attention to. I'm kind of the mind that it wouldn't
curtail trading. I think there's a good argument to be
made that it would simplify it. It's just like because
you're not trying to think of an example of what
you don't hear about it, but because they're closed door discussions.
But like I don't know the you know, the Hawks
Pelicans pick isn't a good trade, isn't a good example.
But like teams that haggle over pick protections, maybe that
makes it so some deals don't happen. And maybe now
if like there's kind of two that you can put
on a pick and that's it, and it simplifies things.
So I don't I don't know what would happen. I'm
not super convinced that it would hurt or like like
decrease trade activity, which is like a big concern.
Speaker 1: No, I don't think it would. I guess my if
I had a concern or a point is I don't
in any given year, how many teams are doing something
to keep a pick that's protected outside the top four.
And if you're the Sixers, let's just say last year's
pick was top four protected instead of top six, do
you think they go about their post All Star slide
any differently because we knew they couldn't get the bottom
like a as like they weren't been able to be
fourth in a lot of right, we knew that by
that point, but you would still have a statistical chance
of jumping into the top four, which is, by the way,
what they ultimately did.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, no, that's a good question. I think, like, well,
the the examples this year are Utah and Washington both
have what top eight protected picks top eight protected twenty
twenty six picks, and so like Washington, not an issue.
They're gonna they're gonna be, they're gonna have, well, they're
winning some games as we record this. Well, okay, less
of an issue than for Utah, whose pick famously is
gonna go to the Thunder if they don't hold on.
I mean, we were talking about the Clippers earlier this
year too, when they were really on in the dumps
conveying a pick.
Speaker 1: Here's here's a thought just BA spin off based off
this idea. What if you just weren't allowed to trade
any sort of protected picks or picks it all to
the Thunder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think that's a that's one the league
might need to look at. But like so, I'm just
trying to think so if you had top four, so
if these top eights weren't there, so the Jazz and
Wizards are either top four or top fourteen protected on
the picks they have out going what.
Speaker 1: Those are teams that would they wouldn't would it change?
Those are still teams that would want a top four
like neither You could say maybe Ace Bailey in Utah.
Do they look at it as Okay, we have Ace
ken't the George and Lowry marketing if that pick was
top four protected instead of top eight, I don't think
it would change the trajectory of how this season will
play out for them at all. If anything, I would
argue that they would be more likely still to kind
of if they do throw in the towel. Austin Ainge
age To has said that they won't do anything like that.
I think would make it more likely that they're more
aggressive about being bad. That's just I don't know that
that makes the problem worse. I just don't know if
it fixes this mid season issue entirely.
Speaker 2: So do you think that the examples that we went
through of like the Sixers getting with the edgecomb pick
or the Lively pick or I guess Cason Wallace that
became Derek Lively for Dallas a couple of.
Speaker 1: Years now, it would weed out the MAVs one for sure,
because they had.
Speaker 2: Yes, But are you saying then that or do you
think that those incidents are few enough and far enough
between that like the limited limiting pick protections is not
It's like solving a problem that actually doesn't come up
as much as we think. Is that at that kind
of the argument.
Speaker 1: Right, it goes It's a step above trying to solve
a problem you don't have, because it is a problem.
I just don't know if it's a huge problem, because
if anything, I think what it does is shift the
behavior of teams earlier into the schedule slash season. Maybe
if the picks are top four protected.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, right, because you got to if you're trying
to land in there, you've got to from day one,
You've got to be built to lose, right if you're
trying to get in the top four where like top
eight is if I don't know, I I think I
think the concern would be that top fourteen section. You
might just have teams that are even better. If it's
if it's okay, this pick's top fourteen protected, that's when
isn't that when you would have the worst issue of like,
well do we want to make the play in or
do we want to just call it? Right? Is that
because whenever you.
Speaker 1: Last time, you saw teams going all out to keep
the number four team pick.
Speaker 2: Right, right, Well, there's life maybe move up. But that's
the thing, it's a lottery pick. Like you know, that's fair,
that's fair.
Speaker 1: Putting to your point, teams are always going to play
the math, and the math in this instance would be
you have a point one percent chance of getting the
number one pick, or you have a zero for chance
of getting it, and teams will pick a lot of
the times, the.
Speaker 2: Former Cooper flag shouldn't be in Dallas. To a much
lesser extent, zach Resiche should not be in Atlanta like
those teams, don't.
Speaker 1: The other the other thing, by the way, when you
talk about I think this was the intended consequence, but
like the current lottery climate is doing what it intended
because look at who is one, look at what happened
over the past few years, or look at what's happened
since it's been implemented.
Speaker 2: I do think I don't know what the fallout would be.
I would just be I don't I don't hate this idea.
I want to say, like, of the options, I think
this is actually pretty good. Not to say that there
aren't other options we haven't discussed yet or that will
come to light eventually. But like what I would be
most worried about is you. I I would not want
to do anything that incentivized a team that's like higher
up the competitive hierarchy to lose, Like I don't who
cares about the like the out and out like true tankers,
right the very worst teams the league, Like I get it,
but I don't want like the taint of that, like
climbing the competitive ladder to where it's a potential playoff
team or even a play like. The more you can
limit those types of tanking behaviors, I think that's like
the mark of a good change. I don't know what this,
what this would do in that respect.
Speaker 1: It it feels more innocuous to maybe slightly net positive.
So why not just yeah, implement it?
Speaker 2: I agree? I agree? So what's another what's a less
preferable option on the.
Speaker 1: Ta This was another one the Competition Committee talked about,
which was limiting the like teams can't get a top
four pick in consecutive years. And I think that's just
a dumpster fire of an idea because the what is
Nate Duncan calls it the Resichet rule sometimes, like what
if the draft class just isn't good? And also what
I actually think would happen is now you just have
these longer windows of rebuilding or tanking to where teams are, well,
we've got this five year time horizon in which we'll
have three bites at the apple well getting a top
four pick, and that's how they'll operate.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's a problem. I think again, because
I'm hung up on this, like, let's say you're you're
not one of the four worst teams. You're somewhere above that,
maybe not too far above it. But you're looking at
the list and like, oh, three of those teams picked
in the top four last year, so I know that
they won't get the pick. So I'm the eighth, ninth,
tenth worst team, But I'm I got a great shot
now of and so like of getting into that top
four because these other teams are ineligible. Like so now
you're just like, this is like completely antithetical, I think
to what you want. What it does do is make
it so you don't feel like some team that's poorly
run just keeps getting cracks at like a transformative player
and doesn't deserve it.
Speaker 1: It brings you lottery parody, I guess is what it does.
Speaker 2: Just which just like I just don't want the ninth
worst team, thinking like, well, it's actually a pretty good
decision for us to lose every game we can. Now
because these other three teams are two or four whatever,
it is, like those slots aren't really spoken for. We
might be able to get into. I just like that's
you can't have that.
Speaker 1: I don't think this has a puncher's chance of happening.
Brian Windhorst pointed this out, you need twenty three of
the league's owners to approve any of these changes. There's
I can't think that you're gonna get twenty three of
thirty votes on this.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't. I wouldn't think so. I certainly this this appeal. Well,
we got another suggest one that I also really don't like.
That one just seems like I don't understand the benefit
at all.
Speaker 1: How many games are so it's lock in for grants
reacting without even telling what it is.
Speaker 2: No, I'm talking about the previous one.
Speaker 1: Oh sorry, the next one is lock in draft lottery
odds by March first. How do you feel about that one?
Speaker 2: I just think it moves the tanking starting gun a
little bit, and I don't know that it I don't
know that it solves a problem. It makes the season confusing. Look,
it would theoretically incentivize teams to win as much as
they could at the end of the season, which we
want to happen. We don't like it that several decent
teams to and the very bad ones aren't trying, so
it I think I just don't I don't know that
this gets you the results you want other than like
it makes some of these still meaningless games slightly more meaningful.
Like I don't know what's what's your take on it?
Speaker 1: I just don't see how many games? How many games
were played between March first and April twelfth, whatever the
NBA season is you're talking about, you're talking about less
than a quarter of the team season basically, So I
don't know how that's going to materially change my hating
your behavior. Now, this is a hybrid, this next one
of a couple ideas, and I actually really like it,
So don't let that impact your views. But you're supposed
to love it. Losses count towards your lottery odds before
the trade deadline. After the trade deadline, wins help your
lottery odds.
Speaker 2: Hmmm, So in theory, then let's tell let's talk it
out you so if you are let's say, okay, so
the losses count pre deadline, so there's something there's sort
of a pseudo standings lock here, but not not totally
because you can then improve your odds by winning games after. Yeah,
So what's that look like? Like, give me a team
and like map out its season for me with like
what their goals are now.
Speaker 1: I guess what you could argue is that could you
just say, as the Wizards, we're terrible, now, we're gonna
go make a trade at the deadline to try and
get better so that we can rack up wins and improve.
How married are you to doing that. I feel like
that could hamper it, But I do think you would.
You know, if it's losses before and wins after. I
think what it would do is weed out a lot
of the middle of the pack stuff that we kind
of see to where teams are, just because now you
get to a point where, even if you're so bad
at the beginning, you would have to make that mid
season move or have this mid season breakout to ensure
that you have these top lottery odds. Yeah, you could.
The Wizards as just as an example, they could be
first in the lottery order right now. They could then
be dead last or something like after February eighth. Well,
this year's the fifth. After February fifth, that's a not
insignificant chunk of the season. That's like thirty games, maybe
a little bit more than that.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, I want to do an example and then
ask you a question. Hopefully I'll remember the question. Probably not.
So take Utah this year. They have that top eight
protect a pick they would like to hold on to.
So then the losses they accumulate sets them wherever they
are before the deadline, and then the best way for
them to keep their pick is to win as much
as possible after the trade deadline under this setup.
Speaker 1: And think about what that does for just certain playoff
seating races where if you don't get to just count
Utah Washington Brooklyn as this March fifteenth victory, and you're
locked into battles up like if it's the Nuggets trying
to like flak their way back into the top six
after the Yokich injury.
Speaker 2: So this rests on the the supposition that the players,
so this organizationally, this aligns your incentives because it's like,
you're not gonna rest guys you're gonna do You're not
gonna do the knights off the back spasms stuff. You're
gonna play your players as a coaching staff in an
organization because you want that high pick. What about the
players then, because this is an argument that gets thrown
out there sometimes of like, well, so, so the players
here want the team to be able to pick someone
that will play over them, and that's why they're playing hard,
you know what I mean? Like that argument comes up
a lot of like, well, the players on the team
don't necessarily want a number one overall pick because like
that guy's taking somebody's job.
Speaker 1: Now. I understand that in the context of if it
was this tournament specifically designed at allocating draft picks, but
you're also if you're a veteran or whether you're on
your rookie scale, you're either you're still playing for your
next contract then whether it's with that team or another,
and which is going to be more valuable you helping
a team win and then they draft your replacement, and
like you'll still hopefully be able to find other But
what would be Can you give me an example of
a player that would be burned by that wouldn't have
been burned in the first place by going about it
that way?
Speaker 2: I don't know, Like, well, why isn't like someone say
Ace Bailey because I'm stuck on Utah or something like
why does Ace Bailey want aj Debonza to be on
the team with him? Like is he concerned?
Speaker 1: So I I guess if you're thinking that Ace Bailey
is so insecure about his position within the Jazz.
Speaker 2: I'm just yeah, you're I don't I can't get inside
Ace Bailey's head. He seems like a cool dude. Dude,
But like, right, okay, that's interesting. I wonder if you
could tweak it, and like, because the money of the
of the in season tournament seems to matter to like
the lower end of the roster and the by extension,
like the highly paid players like care about it because
they want, like their minimum salary buddies to like get paid.
What if you could incentivize wins after the All Star
break with like additional sal I don't know how you
would ever do this because contracts are guaranteed at finite numbers,
but like if you could make the money aspect of it,
if you could introduce the money aspect, so you're.
Speaker 1: Making you're basically making a like in season tournament post
all Star breaks.
Speaker 2: I'm just trying. I'm just thinking that this is a
good I think this is I like this idea.
Speaker 1: But I just also, by the way, I know I
mentioned this is kind of tongue in cheek, but it
does add the element of what if one of these
bad teams just goes out into side like because think
about it from a rebuilding perspective. Let's use the Jazz
as an example. Let's just say they are where they
are in the lottery when the trade deadline rolls around.
If they went out and made like a consolidation trade
to get a better player who could then also help
them get a better pick, and now you're really, in
theory shrinking the rebuilding timeline because you've gotten better so
that you could get another better player.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know how many teams would do that,
but it would add just sort of another layer of
decision making to how you go about structuring your team
longer term.
Speaker 2: That idea is that's really interesting because like you're sort
of getting it both ways right, Like you're you're getting
better now, but the but that's that actually facilitates you
getting better over a longer timeline. I think that gets
really like talk about layers of complication, like when you're
you're a team, I guess we'll just stick with Utah,
Like would you trade future first round picks like to
you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Like I don't think you, but like you have these
bottom of the barrel first that are gonna convent, Like
you look at these teams that are really good?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 1: And you decided, hey, we can get LaMelo ball for
two or twelve?
Speaker 2: Why not only that, but if you are trading for
an upgrade now, because it also gets you assuming you
obviously it goes to that saying you have to have
you have to control the pick the following year, like
and and upgrading now also gives you this better shot
at like oh man, like someone who could theoretically you
pick them very high in the dry could help sooner.
You might be more willing to kick you know, down
the road picks into a deal because you're like, we're
kind of taking two steps towards short term improvement with
this win now trade and the fact that it gets
us a better first rounder immediately, oh twenty twenty eight,
like who knows by then, Like we'll be good, that'll
be a late That's interesting. You could really complicate in
a good way, complicate the trade, like decision making process.
Speaker 1: I think now you mentioned the logistical purposes of figuring
out what is it? How do you like? Tracking the
lottery order would probably get all sorts of confusing, But
what is the other Like they figure out they don't
have teams scheduling games, and they figure that out in
the middle of the year. So I want to ask
you what it would be. Is there any functional downside
to the way that the league operaate? Like what would
be the potential downside to something like that? So I
struggled to find one, but I might just be so
locked into it being a good idea.
Speaker 2: The downside to the losses pre trade and then wins
after that trade deadline? Like what are the unintended consequences
you mean?
Speaker 1: Or like, what, like I guess would the unintended consequences be?
Do you worry about a team getting too good that's
in the life, Like you just keep going with Utah
to where it's Utah is not bad right, Like they're
not the worst team in the league, and now all
of a sudden if they're able to win, Like, because
if you look at a team that's actively rebuilding, even
if the Washington Wizards decide we're gonna rosters, as is
no other supplementary moves. Washington can play every everyone could
be healthy, they could play what they think is their
best unit. They're probably right now at least gonna win
fewer games than It's like the Utah Jazz and so
are you inadvertently kneecapping them? I don't know, but.
Speaker 2: Well, right, because you would. Then so then here's another one,
like you would be incentivized as a bad team to
come out of the gates. This is a terrible fan
experience situation too. You want to lose every single game
you can lose from October twentieth or whatever until so
you want.
Speaker 1: To start so bad, Like that's that.
Speaker 2: Would not be great from an entertainment perspective, And just
like every team at the beginning of the year, it's
fans are like, hey, you know what, don't count us
out or like for the most part, like that optimism
that would just go away if you if you're a
Wizards fan and you know, we gotta lose for four
months or three and a half months before the wins count.
That's rough. And then I think that is you're right,
Like it doesn't matter how how hard certain teams try
to win after the fact or after the break, like
they just won't be able to. And then so how
do you get good again? Like how how do you
get that that pitch?
Speaker 1: It does? And the other thing I just thought of
is at least right now you're kind of properly waiting
an entire schedule. But some teams have more backloaded schedules
versus front loaded schedules, and so yeah, that that I
didn't think about. I still think that this would be
way more from from an on court product perspective, if
you were looking to make basketball relevant or the regular
season more relevant than it is now. I do think
this would solve that because how many teams are really
we might get a sam Hanky siko that says, you know,
oh and fifty one, and then our season begins at
game fifty two, But how often is that really gonna happen?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I do think anything you're raised, I forgot about this,
Like the unbalanced strength of schedule stuff is an issue
with any version of there's a cutoff where wins and
losses like count for something different in the season. Like
that's that's like from a fairness perspective, like that that's
got some thorns there. Yeah, I know that's interesting. I
do think I do. I can imagine the really bad
teams that are sort of like organically bad, saying this
is unfair because you're telling us to lose for sixty
five seventy percent of the season because that's good for us,
and then to try to win later, like there's no
way certain teams will ever be able. I could see
that being the argument against it, But counter nobody cares
about the NBA until later in the season anyway, So
if you're just gonna have people checked out during the
NFL season for that early like loss incentivized part, I
don't know. If you get more viewership in March and April,
that's good, right, you don't have competition, then.
Speaker 1: I think I like this better than just locking in
the lottery odds March first, though. Yes it's my own idea.
We're kind of the hybrid of a bunch of different ones,
so that's not surprising. Can we talk about let's talk
about one that you introduced to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's thirty percent baked. I'd say not quite half baked.
So I would I would this. This includes pick protections.
I like the limiting it to for top four, top fourteen,
that's part of it. I would unweight the lottery because
here the goal here is I want every cloud. I
don't want the Warriors somehow to finish eighth in the
conference and get the number one pick, I would unwait
the lottery and I would expand the number of teams
in it. I'm sure there are drawbacks. I pray that
you will point them out. And so what you end
up with is, to be specific, eighteen teams are in
the lottery, everybody that is not a top six seed
in their conference. So theoretically what you get is not
just teams having to choose between uh, like I'm moving
the cutoff up of like when it makes sense to tank.
So like, if you're the seven, eight, nine, ten teams,
you're you're the playing teams. The teams that make it
in to the seven or eight spots are still in
the lottery. So like, not only do you have teams
wanting to be in the play, and you still have
teams wanting to win the play, and you still have
teams like totally totally incentivized to just win as much
as they can because like the argument is like who
wants to be the eighth seed? Really, like what are
you getting out of that You're gonna get smoked by
the number one seed. Well that's better than not be
You're still in the lottery, Like you're a playoff team,
and yet you're in the lottery. So I'm just like
bumping the cut the decision point up like a couple
slots because I feel like there's no top six team.
I don't think that's like you know what. I think
I'd rather drop to seven or eight and have to
go through the plane and have to face a one
or two seed because I get a lottery pick, as
opposed to like, no, we'll stick at six, like if
it's Denver, like not, well, Denver's a bad example because
they could win from seven or eight? But does that
make sense? Like I just I just want to avoid
good teams deciding it makes sense for us to not
keep going for it.
Speaker 1: But does flattening the lottery off because couldn't you in
theory and this probably wouldn't be done from a it's
not gonna be a coaching or a player thing. Let
you Sam Presty is an example deciding my team is
so stacked right now, but we need more cost control talent,
like we're just gonna come and we're gonna win it
from the play in. I mean there would be an
executive that would potentially decide that's a I think that's
kind of a small blip, so it's you're not gonna
have How often would that happen? If ever, I'm mapping
out in extreme.
Speaker 2: Well, well, no, I so that's where it's like trying
to decide where to because you could do like only
the top four seeds in each conference are are out
of the lottery everybody. So now we're up to twenty
two teams are in an unweighted lottery. Like then then
you might say, like, well, what's the difference between four
and five? Like you might drop the five because you
get in the lottery and then you have a road
series in the first round. Who cares if you're the
thunder or whatever. You might make that trade off because
you got a tiny now because it's unweighted, a tiny
chance at the number one pick. I'm trying to find
the bat. I think the six feels right to me,
top six in each conference being out of the lottery.
But you're right, like, if the incentive to lose is
still there, you might have this crazy You might have
an irrational actor.
Speaker 1: What do you mean by flat lottery odds for eighteen ten?
Though we're not talking about an equitable chance?
Speaker 2: No, I think I want it fully Even so, if
you're the Wizards and you have the fewest loss fewest
wins in the league, and you're the number seven seed
in the West, and that's like say, uh, Phoenix and
you've won forty six games, same lottery.
Speaker 1: Odds, Why would you ever do you have to get
rid of the Why would you ever want to be
in the play in tournament at that? Why would you
want to Because if it's a chance if you either
have the same percentage chance of only of eighteen other
teams of getting them on one and eighteen shot of
getting the number one pick, or you can win a
play in game or two and then just get trucked
by the Oklahoma City Thunder in round one of the playoffs,
I'm wondering how many teams would opt against that.
Speaker 2: Well, wait, so what what would the So do you
think then we should give?
Speaker 1: Is?
Speaker 2: The goal is, well, what types of tanking are we
trying to address? I hate the middle tanking as opposed
to the bottom of the standings tanking. So what if
you made it so that you don't flatten the lottery odds?
But what you do is give teams in the play
in like better lottery odds than the teams with the
like four worst records. Does that address what you're talking about?
So you really you're gun into that plan?
Speaker 1: Oh geez, maybe you could do something where if you
make it so it's your seeds, your seeds seven, eight, nine, ten,
and then the lottery odds for that you get better
if you make it out of the play in tournament, right,
because if you're giving it better than the bottom four teams,
that would I think that would eliminate the middle part
because if you're right away.
Speaker 2: I mean, the effect would not be that different than
the counting wins towards your lottery odds after the trade deadline,
because it's like the same arguments the really bad teams
would make against that apply here where it's like we
can't compete. So you're what you're you're a building I
feeling is a political campaign. It's like we're trying to
build out the middle class, Dan, We're really trying to
make it so there's a reason to want to be there.
Speaker 1: Well, but no, But at the same time, I think
if you're not putting those odds above the bottom four teams,
which at this point, so well, let's look at the
West as an example, is so as of right now,
the Kings and the Pelicans, Like do you separate it
by that's not fair because of the conference in balance,
But so right now the Wizard's Pacers, it works out
that it's two per conference Wizards, Pacers, Kings, Pelicans. Bottom
four teams would have the Wall apologies Pelicans, But you
know what that does to the lottery odds if you're
you could like you're the Mavericks, the Jazz or the
Clippers that are kind of in that no man's land
right now, you're all of a sudden like going to go.
I think by doing what you've outlined, you've kind of
just eliminated basically, there will be two teams, maybe three
teams per conference that might decide the second half of
the year we're not gonna or we're not gonna chase
the play in. But I think honestly you're probably be
looking at I don't I like that idea. I think
as long as I think the bottom four teams still
need slightly better odds. But if you're saying you make
it into the play in and your odds get better
if you're in the playing because you're only talking about
like what's the discrepancy right now between who's out of
the plane the Clippers, the Jazz and the Mavericks versus
the Blazers and the Grizzlies. It's not huge. I mean,
we're talking about a matter of a couple losses there
for the most part.
Speaker 2: I do think the more we talk this out, the
more of this my idea is effectively accomplishing very similar
things to what yours is, where it's just like we're
trying to get teams that have some shot at it
to try to win a lot towards the end of
the year.
Speaker 1: At least mine ends up penalizing. Actually, but well, your
original idea penalized bottom four teams more, I think when
you said give them the playing teams better odds than that,
I do think.
Speaker 2: Isn't there some element of this where it's like if
the cost of twenty six teams competing is for just
sort of don't have a chance, like I'm kind of
willing to pay it is, you know what I mean,
Like we're really we're taking away the chance of an
honorable rebuild being effective like by by doing this.
Speaker 1: But you are you are you are correct though, because
it's even if what I just said as long as
you have the incentive. So it's you're better off finishing
with the twenty eighth worst record than twenty fourth. Teams
are gonna steer toward if you don't think that you
can get up into play in territory, you are still
gonna steer towards the bottom. I guess I just land
at You're never gonna eradicate tanking in full unless you
do something.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: This would be let's go to this idea, abolish the
draft altogether. Yeah, I know some people are in favor
of it. I'm I tend to be pro labor, but
you need to give this just kills smaller market teams.
And I don't know what you could do to where
even if it was every five years, you're allotted a
certain amount of money you could spend on draft picks.
I just this really threatens like what a half of
the two thirds of the NBA. It feels like.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I was talking to a friend of the pod
Bill about this, because he follows international soccer much more
closely than I do, and I was just like, tell
me about relegation, right, and like, because why you know
that never gonna happen in the NBA it's crazy. It's
like so punitive, right, Like if you are at the
bottom of the table of like say the Premier League
and you so you're relegated. The following year, you lose
a bunch of money from like broadcast rights because you're
not in the Premier League anymore. So there's this giant
set down, Like players have stuff in their contracts like
built in it's brutal, right, so if you fall out,
you just caught it. Like the incentive to not get
relegated is like off the charts, like you must win
every game you possibly can, because like the punishment is
so crazy, right, And I was like, this would never
happen in the NBA, But that's awesome, Like it accomplishes
what we're going for, like you try to win all
the time, no matter what. And I was like, why
can't this happen? And what he was pointing out is that,
like the setup of international soccer is wild west. There's
no salary cap, there's no luxury tax, it's pure capitalism.
There's no draft. So that's what brought me to this,
is like, so what's your setup look like? Because in soccer,
it's like you sign a fourteen year old into your
developmental academy and you bring him along until he's ready
to play for the big club. Like is that what
we want in the NBA? Do we want like the
Los Angeles Lakers prep academy where there you know, there's
a bunch of kids, Yeah, just out of middle school
that are now in your program that you're developing, that
you're paying all Like that feels weird it, Yeah, Like
if you're gonna abolish the draft, like you just inevitably
get into a setup like that, because how else how
are you getting players? Like you're just you're you're acquiring them,
signing them and then paying them money and hoping they
become good. Like that's that's what it is. And so
then it's just the haves have what they have and
the haves not have nots never get there right like
because the market size. So the abolishing the draft comes
with like so many tricky Like the league is so
different with no draft, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: I've actually spent time thinking about what is the way
you could abolish the draft but still not completely nuke
the competitive landscape, And I haven't come up with anything.
Not that I'm some genius that like, I'll give me
enough time and I'll sell it. But I just think
that that would be catastrophic for the league has spent
so much time trying And by the way, they're not
talking about this, but a lot of people bring it
up and they say, what this is stupid that players
are assigned where they go. I if this was real life,
like sports is meaningful, it keeps us employed, like this
isn't This is a game and these guys are getting
played so much. It's an entertainment product, and I don't
like they If you want to talk about getting rid
of restricted free agency after that first contract, those first
four or five years, that might be a different discussion.
But abolishing the draft, I think just puts too many
to and then at the end of the day, it's
not just about well, you really only care. It's not
about the bottom line for the owners. It's you need
to give fan base a reason to think that they
have a chance, and that's what the draft. By by
the way, especially now because free agency just doesn't exist anymore. Basically, no, you're.
Speaker 2: You're selling wins or you're selling hope. And if you
don't have a draft, I don't know how you're selling
hope to the worst teams like that, you just you
have to you have to be that much better at
everything related to team building. And it's just like those
markets are not equipped to just win with a hand
tie behind their back. If you're not gonna be able
to draft the guy that changes your franchise. It's really
it's tough. Like I again though, like I get it,
like at some on some level, it's like it is
objectively weird and sort of unfair that, like you're one
of the best in the world at what you do
and you have no control over where you get to
like ply that trade, Like that's weird. But but again
I agree with you.
Speaker 1: I mean, the NBA is basically a version of socialism
when you think about it, because of the way that
revenue shares principle for sure, yeah, right, the revenue sharing,
the way that that works, and even the there's a
max salary, and so if you're gonna bolish the drafts,
you actual abolish the max salary. So it's hey, you
can pick where you want to play when you're young,
but like you're going to be maxed out at what
you can make when you're the best point of your career.
It's just so I think there would be too many
moving parts behind it. What it would do maybe or
increase the value of is scouting departments probably become just
like the most sought after positions to be filled because
go out and find Jokic, like the guy who would
have been drafted during a case of Rito commercial.
Speaker 2: And it would also professionalize much lower levels of the sport,
which is already a problem, like like basically high school
basketball is professionalized now, you know, but it would but
if you were incentive, if you can't draft the guy,
then you better be you better find him first, and
that's gonna be middle school or like something crazy like that,
right where I guess you would still have a cap on,
like maybe you just put the age you know you
got to be whatever it is now. I can't even remember,
like a year out of your high school class.
Speaker 1: And do you think that would do? But maybe it
wouldn't have an impact at all. But right now, when
people talk about players sitting out of games in college,
just like, does it make it more like that you
would get more of those cases if they have to
go to college or go somewhere else or would it
not impacted it just because I guess if the idea
is it professionalizes the sport even more at lower levels.
You might be coming out of your sophomore in high school,
you know where you're gonna sign after your freshman year
in college? Maybe?
Speaker 2: Right? So why not just this is the thing? Like
that would take so many additional steps, like why not
just have youth academies where like you're in the Lakers
program because they signed you when you're a teen, you know,
like that kind of thing, because why you want to
go You're gonna go play for this other like sort
of professional but like we've all agreed, it's at a
lower level talking about college basketball. Now you're gonna go
play for this other professional organization for a while, like
and not be in the I don't know that there's
probably more to talk about than any other fix here
with abolishing the draft, but it's just like it's all
big picture, like the sport would have to look totally different,
I think for this to even be started.
Speaker 1: I have one more that's being bandied about, and I
don't know if you've anymore after that, but conduct the
lottery for every pick, for every pick in the lottery,
So right now it determines the top four picks, and
so now it would determine all fourteen, and so you
keep the odds the same. But there's a like, right
now you have a floor of how far you can
fall if you have the worst record, but now there
would there would basically be no floor.
Speaker 2: So the it's interesting. So then if you are so
no longer, if you have one of the four worst records,
are you guaranteed to be in the top eight? We
still have so like you're so, this would the bottom
of the league right because you can fall farther. And
it does it help the mid tier or does it
not affect? I guess I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think it helps. It would I almost feel like it.
I actually so, this is not my idea. I think
it was Who did I hear talk about? It was
Tim McMahon. I want to say, I don't. I think
it might incentivize more of what we saw from the
Mavericks in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: What year was that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it's well, you have okay, I only have
an x percent chance of get one point eight percent
chance of getting the number one pick. But now if
it's being picked for everything like there, I think it
hurts the It definitely hurts the bottom feeders for sure,
but I don't know if it does enough to prevent tanking.
And then if anything, I think there's a chance it
might increase it unless I'm missed. Like understanding how that
would work, because if you're a team that's it could
be in the play in. Let's use this season as
an example. When the Oklahoma City Thunder exists, there is
I don't care how you feel about the Phoenix, Suns,
the Warriors, the Grizzlies, the Blazers, the Clippers, none of
those teams are beating the Thunder, right, So if you're
faced with the prospect of I can go into the
playan and face the Thunder if I win, get trucked,
or I could just have this chance like fourteen different
drawings of getting into I mean it's not the number
one pick, but it's the number five pick. Yeah, I
think you're gonna see more teams kind of pivot out
of playing territory.
Speaker 2: If that, yeah, that's not what you want. That's not
what you want. You want more teams in that range
to be trying to win as much as possible because again,
like the difference between like a forty two win team
and a fifty win team on a lot of nights
is just like who's playing and if you're just gonna
shut you know, they could be on equal footing. You
want to you want those teams to both be incentivized
to like play everybody and give max effort. So yeah,
I don't know about that one. So we solved it,
I think, right, is that what we did.
Speaker 1: So the other one, I think we did kind of
talk about this. I've seen some people mentioned too, like
why not just hold the tournament like like a lottery
tournament for teams competing for them and the winner gets
the like that's how you order the picks. You mentioned
it before, though then you entered the territory of you
have guys who are supposed to compete for their so
you would have to make the financial incentive. So it's
not happening in season, it's this postseason tournament. I don't
know what the financial incentive would need to be for
players to get on board, for active players to get
on board with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it would. I can't It's hard to know. Way
more than the than the in season tournament, I would think,
because like especially if it's like a an end of
season thing. It's just like we're tired, man. We just
went through a lot of these teams have just endured
like a bunch of losses come out of get like,
oh yeah, let's flip the switch. Now it's April. We've
all played three thousand minutes. Yet that means tough.
Speaker 1: Do you have any other Have you seen any other one?
I don't even ready for I remember reading up on
it a couple of years ago, and I already forgot
the principles of the wheel.
Speaker 2: The wheel is too complicated. I'm not smart enough. I'm
sure it's not complicated, but it's just like I don't
I think because what we talk, I think like, so
you're gonna time you're like peaks and valleys organizationally in
line with like when you know you're in the running
for the top several picks, Like, I don't think that's.
Speaker 1: And the thing I struggle with too is just even
just looking at the current if you were to do
anything to limit the number of times a team can
be in the top four, what if there is just
some catastrophic injury that is not ruining just that season,
but now you've lost your franchise corner zone is that
they just come back and they're never the same. That
just it makes me feel icky. I think it is
the scientific word.
Speaker 2: For yeah, yeah, I guess, Like I was just gonna
ask you, like, what, who do you think at the
moment the system we have in place is not serving
like who the way it is right now? The sports I'm.
Speaker 1: Dead I'm dead ass serious because this whole injury reports stuff,
this is all about. To me, I think it's more
about sports betting than the I think the league right
now has said seven consecutive different champions. The parody is there.
And how many how many teams you could look at
You could look at the I'm not talking to you specifically,
you could look at the records and tell me who sucks.
You're absolutely right. How many teams are tanking right now?
Speaker 2: I mean it's is it? Well, like we even Washington,
we keep going back to like yeah, but they're not,
They're just organically bad.
Speaker 1: Might be the only team they might be the only
team you could say them. And if you want to
say Brooklyn because of the way they built out their
team for this season, that's two out of thirty. The
Kings thought this is again this is why the Kings.
It's more the Kings thought they were going to be good.
Even the Pelicans, Derek Queen is going to be really good,
but like they totally miscalculated their position. And yeah, it's
and but even they've played better under James Berego. You
look at the standings, there are two teams. I think
Max right now, I think what the issue you're trying
to solve is that number is going to go up
after the trade, And it's question you're trying to solve.
Speaker 2: We started this by pointing out the examples of like
the mid tier tanking and how rare they were right,
and it's just kind of like that that's what you're
working to solve, Like Utah is this season is the
example of like, okay, there's a little we can see
how this might go right and and it's maybe it's
different because the Jazz said they weren't going to do this,
but like you're just worried about a couple teams. Maybe
it's more than that in the middle that steer into
the skid and I and like ultimately we maybe we
landed on this early. Like that just doesn't happen often
enough to like, let's revamp the whole process. You know,
I don't know. I'm just I don't like that stuff.
But I don't know if we are you are you
looking for solutions to a problem that is not nearly
as big as it seems.
Speaker 1: Maybe is actually I think if we operate under the
guys that this is all about competitive integrity, Yes, but
I think that the NBA, A big part of this
is that sports betting and the money that they're going
to stand to make off at the interest that it drives,
it gets a lot harder to maintain that if that's
why this all this injury port stuff exists. And look,
I'm ultimately fine at the end of the day with
anything that improves the quality of basketball wire to wire.
You could sign me up for it, but I just don't.
I don't, I don't. It's like you said, I don't know.
If this is a big enough issue. I would love
to see some of these solutions in that, like the
limited pick protections. I like the way we kind of
half baked, like your idea out with the flattened lottery
odds or getting into the plane and winning, like if
you win it, you have better lottery odds. I wouldn't
mind seeing the losses pre trade deadline within because I
think that would just flip the way that teams operate
on its head. Could Could they try something like and
you don't know who's gonna actively end up here, so
that would also increase the intrigue. But do you just
sort it by who is the best point differential or
record against top ten teams at the end of the season,
like the of the of the non playoff teams.
Speaker 2: You're gonna say so before the season starts, your team
is assigned a random lottery pick and you don't know
what it is until Draft night and or something like that,
and you just play the whole year. You don't know
if you're incentivized to win or to lose. The lottery
order is set. It's got nothing to do with how
you perform.
Speaker 1: I don't know already deciding on TV what would trades
look like at that point?
Speaker 2: Oh, wouldn't that be exciting, Like you're let's we're gonna
swap first round picks, don't know what, don't know what
it is, let's just let's just gamble. That'd be great.
Speaker 1: But I do it does feel like though, if we're
operating saying this is about the competitive integrity of the game.
It feels more about the mid season tanking than the
fall season tanking. Now, right, it feels like this system
has at least weeded out serial entire season tanking.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we're pretty close to like optimizing given
the circumstances, like given the setup of the league, given how.
Speaker 1: They won't short on the schedule.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like I think all that's yeah, I just think
like there are more drastic solutions, but like and I
just I think it's close to as good as it
can be. I still think there's a tweak or two
some version of of like pull pull like elements from
what we've gone through here, there's there's a there's a
better version. But like the play in the flattened odds
from a few years ago, like all that has been
like pretty effective. I think. So, I feel like the
league is close, but but it's it's not. It's definitely
not perfect.
Speaker 1: Another potential solution. I'm surprised I didn't think of this.
What if you did something to increase the variability in
the first round of the playoffs, like if you brought
it back to best of five, and so now you
are more incentivized to get into the plan, or if
you just went nuclear and said this is best of
three now.
Speaker 2: People, mm, so does that though, devalue the regular season?
Because like, can.
Speaker 1: You argue the playing already threatens to do that?
Speaker 2: Yeah? We have what does that achieve? What are we accomplished?
Speaker 1: The thinking is if you have a because part of
right now is if you were pivoting out of the plane,
it's well, I'm not going to beat the thunder if
I make it out, or I'm not going to beat
the rockets or whatever. Four times and seven tries. Is
the seven or the eight seed? Yeah, if you have
to beat them two times and three tries a little
bit different?
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, yeah, that's that's true. That you you shrink
the sample, like anomalies are more likely. I could see that.
And so then you're just so, yeah, you're not steering
out of the play in or one of the seven
or eight spots because like, I don't know, Yeah, we
can't beat them four out of seven, but we could
beat them three out of five or whatever. Right, Interesting,
I think maybe you'd have to add rounds to the
playoffs because teams would be pissed that you're loose, costing
them play Do.
Speaker 1: You just have a thirty team playoff? But do you
remember in youth sports wheres every team makes the playoffs
single elimination single.
Speaker 2: I mean, the NCAA tournament's still pretty popular, Dan, we
could just throw them all in their single eliminations.
Speaker 1: The NBA needs to expand to what are you sixty four?
You want to do one hundred and twenty eight teams
thirty two?
Speaker 2: If you could do it with thirty two, you just
need two more Vegas Seattle?
Speaker 1: How did the playoffs end up lasting three four months? Though?
Speaker 2: Oh there's the issue and like the gate rope, like
you just you're costing teams multiple games? Yeah, but can
you imagine the spectacle of the one versus sixteen? Talk
about small sample anomalies like.
Speaker 1: You'd because I do love the play in element though,
like the play has been an unequivocal success, like that
has been like he has just been absolutely awesome, and
it's now you would be getting into the run level.
How do you incentivize making the play in because then
that should in theory curtail tanking, because you could if
I engineer it from there and say, maybe this isn't
about you know, lottery odds. It's about increasing the opportunities
to win if you do make the play in. But
to your point, you're gonna get pushed back. I would
be curious, though, how many teams in the league could
you say, right now would absolutely vote against shifting the
first round to best of three or best of five.
Speaker 2: How many teams in the league. Well, I would flip
it and say not enough owners. The twenty three owners
would not vote for it.
Speaker 1: You know, if the Bulls are going to be all
over that, or unless they don't want to play that long.
Speaker 2: I mean the war like selfishly, I believe the Warriors
have a great shot in a single game against a
lot of teams. They're just not going to win a
long series against anybody. So let's do it. Sounds great.
Speaker 1: Do you have anything else on the look? I agree
that the mid season tankings, we're not. I'm trying to
come across the tankings sympathizer. Some of them more radical
idea like that. The one that I hate the most
that seems realistic, the abolish the draft. It's just not happening.
The one I hate the most is very clearly you
can't have a top four picking can sec years. I
think the consequences would be disastrous.
Speaker 2: I just and it doesn't. It doesn't solve the problem.
It doesn't like I mean, yeah, we've agreed that, like
the worst tanking is not the sixers process tanking, Like
nobody's doing that. Then that's what that would address. And
so we've got a solution in search of a problem.
Speaker 1: In that case, do you have anything else? Are you
ready to take us out of here?
Speaker 2: I think I think an hour on tanking is probably enough.
Plus we solved it at like minute twenty eight, as
I said, So we're good. Thanks everybody for listening, for
watching rate review, and subscribe during our discord links for
that in the YouTube and podcast description. Leave us a
comment here, get there's I mean, I hesitate to say
we did not canvass every solution, So please let us
know in the YouTube comments wherever you're consuming this, let
us know what you're is. How big an issue is tanking?
How do you fix it?
Speaker 1: What if? What if players you know cool has to
play with a different team every other year, like it
so that you pick the every every player who makes
an All Star game can only with the same team
for maximum of two consecutive seasons. That's how we spread
the we're not top that. You can't double back. You
can't double back. You played for the Nuggets, then you
go play for the play for the Lakers. But then
you have to go. Yeah, that's I look forward to
the Warriors that will be over the course of his
sixteen year crew. That's eight teams get the Jokic experience.
Speaker 2: Actually yeah, I mean, look, you want parody, there you go.
Jokic has to move. This is okay. Shout sprang, Mila Kino, apologies.
Jared Allen