02-17-2026, 09:50 PM
(02-17-2026, 08:42 PM)F Gump Wrote: NO ONE (except bizarro Silver, trying to flex on owners in an area where he has no real power) wants a world where a loaded team (or even teams in the top tier of having the top talent) have a somewhat-equal shot at Flagg and the like. And no owner wants to eliminate (or even open the discussion of eliminating) the player draft. It's part of the astronomical cost and value of ownership, to have a real shot at The Basketball Savior when your team is struggling.
The ideal is to have the truly worst team get the #1 pick. The more you let Silver fiddle with making that happen WITH CERTAINTY,
(a) the MORE teams you allow to enter the chase for that pick -- the flattened odds [Silver's prior brainstorm] meant to solve tanking have now motivated many more teams to tank to just get into the top 6 or so [Thanks, Silver. Good job! ~not~], with a good shot at 1 and also at a great consolation prize, OR
(b) you give all 30 teams similar odds [Silver's latest "brainstorm" of lunacy] and the more likely it becomes that OKC's and DEN's and etc's are grabbing that best pick from time to time (and less likely that the teams in dire need get any help at all).
I would actually argue that the tanking is a GOOD thing, and stop messing with it. A blessing in disguise. Each year you need someone to eat a whole lot of losses, and tanking for a good pick gives the teams who do that (willingly or not) something positive to embrace.
Flattened odds does not mean the top teams have a "somewhat-equal shot". It means the odds are spread throughout 30 picks so the difference is smoother but still huge between the best teams and the worst. There have been several cases where a very talented team has a key injury and tanks for a season to get a high lottery pick, so the current/prior system doesn't really keep top talented teams from landing top talent.
I don't get the argument that tanking is good. Having multiple teams actively trying to lose is not good for the product.