AROUND the NBA:

[HoosierDaddyKid]

There was a release/leak of IG messages from what is supposed to be one of his (KD) burner accounts talking to his friends...

1. where he calls Devin Booker and Frank Vogel  "Stalin and Hitler".  "The Suns are my team when we lose and Books team when we win."

2.  talking about Sengun: "Your franchise player can't shoot or defend."  
     talking about Jabari Smith:  "I can't trust Jabari to make a fu**** shot or get a stop.  He's lowkey retarded."

3.  talking about James Harden:  "I miss James man.  That's a good nigga.  Slightly delusional but I understand him."

and a bunch of other stuff.

No one has really confirmed or denied if it was really him.

Oh, ok.  KD needs to get off social media if true. What a great way to build team chemistry heading towards the playoffs.

[khaled1987]

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2026/02...ime-video/


Who says nobody is watching NBA games?

https://www.outkick.com/analysis/nba-pos...ngs-growth

I don't know if it is right, but there is a claim that NBA changed how it count viewership in order to improve numbers

[Chicagojk]

All the tanking from the NBA recently.   Now Cuban jumps into the fray.  Whether I agree with him or not, does he really need to jump into every news story?

https://x.com/mcuban/status/2023775633122210022

[cow]

All the tanking from the NBA recently.   Now Cuban jumps into the fray.  Whether I agree with him or not, does he really need to jump into every news story?

https://x.com/mcuban/status/2023775633122210022

If I'm going to pay to watch my crap team, I'm going to care when you intentionally make the on court product worse (Utah sitting their best players in the 4th, phantom injuries, rest days, etc.).  Fans might like the destination if the ping pong gods are kind, but they sure as hell don't like the journey.  And since they are mostly alphas, the players care too.

[ballsrchr]

All the tanking from the NBA recently.   Now Cuban jumps into the fray.  Whether I agree with him or not, does he really need to jump into every news story?

https://x.com/mcuban/status/2023775633122210022

I wish somebody could keep Cuban's mouth shut.  I hope this gives the impetuous for somebody to get him totally out of Mavs Basketball.  And I don't agree with him.  Normally I want the Mavs to go into games with the chance to win.

[Dahlsim]

I don't think this is true.  You could simply make the entire first round a lottery with flattened odds.  It won't reward crappy organizations as much as it used to, but now that the aprons are so punishing (making it much closer to a true salary cap) the smaller franchises don't need as much help.  Very little reason to tank in that scenario.

On a separate note, I think the play-in is stupid.  Half the league was already making the playoffs.

If you change the goals and mission of what you want to achieve with the draft then yes you could change it and consider your new plan an 'improvement'.   Flattened odds basically redefines the entire reason the lottery was created.   

The goal was to  reward crappy help unfortunate organizations that can end up stuck in the bottom tiers perpetually.   This wasn't for 'tankers' but what if organizations just had a bad luck streak, like devastating injuries?  Now without great luck in the flattened odds, your team may be terrible forever or at least the foreseeable future.

[mvossman]

If you change the goals and mission of what you want to achieve with the draft then yes you could change it and consider your new plan an 'improvement'.   Flattened odds basically redefines the entire reason the lottery was created.   

The goal was to  reward crappy help unfortunate organizations that can end up stuck in the bottom tiers perpetually.   This wasn't for 'tankers' but what if organizations just had a bad luck streak, like devastating injuries?  Now without great luck in the flattened odds, your team may be terrible forever or at least the foreseeable future.

The flattened odds will still reward poorer performing teams, it will just be less predictable and a smoother path from good to bad.  The more spread out the odds the less incentive there will be to tank, but the bad teams will still on average get the better picks.  The amount of tanking going on right now is already diluting the value of the lottery so discouraging that should help mitigate odds being flattened.

[F Gump]

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.

[cow]

Bad teams would eat those loses without tanking though and you wouldn't cheapen the wins against those teams if everyone was giving proper effort. In that ideal world, you'd just give thee 1st pick to the worst team and work your your way backwards from there. But we don't live in an ideal world. I'd argue that tanking isn't a good thing, but it is inevitable and whatever measures you put in place to discourage it, teams will find a way to work around it.

I do think when you have blatant stunts like Utah was pulling that you should just have them forfeit their pick, but I suppose that's a slippery slope on a judgement call from a commissioner. It would be pretty funny if they lost a pick though as they did end up winning several of those games.

[mvossman]

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.

[RGP1981]

It means the odds are spread throughout 30 picks so the difference is smoother but still huge between the best teams and the worst.

I do not think there is a need for teams that make the playoffs to have a chance at getting a Top 14 lottery pick.

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.

The fix for this is simple. Use multi-year standings to determine lottery pick positions or odds. For example, the WNBA uses the average of 2-years standings to determine their lottery winners.

I don't get the argument that tanking is good.  Having multiple teams actively trying to lose is not good for the product.

I think it is a necessary "evil" of a system that provides a much better solution than anything else that exists, i.e., when it comes to offering equal opportunity to all teams in the league.

To reduce the number of teams who are actively tanking, the NBA could limit the number of times that a team can pick in the Top 4. Here's an example:

- #1 pick can not get another Top 4 pick for 4 years.
- #2 pick can not get another Top 4 pick for 3 years.
- #3 pick can not get another Top 4 pick for 2 years.
- #4 pick can not get another Top 4 pick for 1 years.

[cow]

To reduce the number of teams who are actively tanking, the NBA could limit the number of times that a team can pick in the Top 4 or Top 6. Here's an example:

- #1 pick can not get another Top 4 pick for 4 years.
- #2 pick can not get another Top 4 pick for 3 years.
- #3 pick can not get another Top 4 pick for 2 years.
- #4 pick can not get another Top 4 pick for 1 years.

This is an idea that I've been thinking about a lot, but not all drafts are created equal and if you are bad in the wrong year (2000, 2006, 2013, etc.), your team might not have improved and are locked out of getting better through no fault of your own.  I do wonder if just reducing it to no top 4 picks in back-to-back years might have the same impact.  Or at the very least, use some form of this concept to prevent "The Process" from happening.

[RGP1981]

This is an idea that I've been thinking about a lot, but not all drafts are created equal and if you are bad in the wrong year (2000, 2006, 2013, etc.), your team might not have improved and are locked out of getting better through no fault of your own.  I do wonder if just reducing it to no top 4 picks in back-to-back years might have the same impact.  Or at the very least, use some form of this concept to prevent "The Process" from happening.

You make a good point, but I don't know if reducing it to no Top 4 picks in back-to-back years will be enough of a deterrent. Look at the picks the Spurs got in the last 3 years: #1, #4 and #2. If that #4 pick had been a #5 pick, it would not have been any different than no Top 4 picks in back-to-back years.

I think the 1-4 years solution mentioned above strikes a better balance that will limit the number of teams who are actively tanking. This seems to be the most that can be done to provide equal opportunity and entice teams not to tank. Teams will still be able to get a Top 5 pick and above (which is nothing to sneeze at), and they will just have to do a better job of scouting, drafting and developing players.

If they implement this rule in conjunction with taking the average of 2-years standing, it would also prevent the NBA from fixing the draft to keep teams they want at the top, or to reward teams who tow the company line. It would also prevent teams doing a Spurs-like tank for Tim Duncan.

[cow]

You make a good point, but I don't know if reducing it to no Top 4 picks in back-to-back years will be enough of a deterrent. Look at the picks the Spurs got in the last 3 years... #1, #4, #2. It is not a whole lot different than no Top 4 picks in back-to-back years.

I think the 4-years solution mentioned above strikes a good balance that will limit the number of teams who are actively tanking. If they do this in conjunction with taking the average of 2-years standings, it could be even better. This seems to be the most that can be done to provide equal opportunity without trying to manipulate an equal outcome... know what I mean? Teams will still be able to get a Top 5 pick and above (which is nothing to sneeze at), and will have to do a better job of scouting, drafting and developing players.

Not being able to get another Top 4 pick for some years also prevents the NBA from fixing the draft to keep teams they want at the top, or to reward teams who tow the company line... which should be a very important consideration to owners and fans of small market teams.

I like the idea a bunch, I just think it needs tweaking.  Maybe the lockout period is applied to any team getting top x picks in back-to-back years and then the total of those picks gets applied the arbitrary number.  

Just spit balling and assuming you want to "protect" those top 4 picks:

If your total value of your back-to-back picks is 2-5 (any value that can have at least #1) gets the team locked out for four years.  If your total value is 6-8, the team gets locked out for three years.  

You could also adjust the length of the lock out to five and four years and/or adjust which picks are "protected" (and if that's increased, possibly create another tier of lockout period).

I'm probably overthinking the heck out of this.

[SkenfromLMF]

I would think there needs to be a freeze applied to a team that moved up to land a top 4 pick.
Depending on how far a team moved up it is frozen for a few years, and in the same way a team that lost draft position in a recent draft should have that move down offset part of a freeze.

Something along the lines of a 6 year window that teams moving up from 7 and greater to #1 are ineligible to MOVE UP to the top 4 again in the window;
Scale the window so it is 5 years for going to 2; 4 years for going to 3; 3 years for going to 4.
Teams moving up from 5th or 6th can receive a window that prevents moving up again in a much shorter period (1-3 years: up from 5 - 3, 2, 1, 1; up from 6 - 3, 2, 2, 1)

So in theory Dallas, if they do not make the playoffs, would not be eligible to move up in this draft.

You would NOT want a team to be penalized for having bad luck as Dallas was in the '90s. Dallas consecutively drafted 4, 4, and 2 and was moved down via the lottery all 3 years 92-94.

BTW this system does not preclude a bad team from being in the lottery consecutive years, it simply means they can only move down once they have won recently. Any team moving down 2 (or more) slots has a year removed from their current or next window.

I would also see this system of freezes becoming a possible penalty for teams obviously violating sprit of the game (tanking) guidelines. If there is suspected tanking resulting in a top 4 pick then extend the freeze window; it would have to be sure-fire violations to freeze before the lottery, but there was that Joe Smith in Minnesota incident, so don't say never

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://x.com/RTNBA/status/2023878556330172511


Giannis's tweet to Kon Knueppel.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://x.com/ShamsCharania/status/2024230006755328035
https://x.com/ShamsCharania/status/2024231139028685278

Domantas Sabonis will undergo season-ending surgery to repair a torn meniscus.
The season from hell continues for the Kangz who've already lost Lavine to surgery.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://x.com/IanBegley/status/2024200319102534137?s=20


Knicks coach Mike Brown was asked the significance of tomorrow's
home game vs Detroit.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://heavy.com/sports/nba/los-angeles...rs-future/


Jaxson Hayes has completed paperwork to become a Slovenian.

[Smitty]

@ShamsCharania
Multiple sources with knowledge of Thursday's GM meeting as well as a late January Competition Committee meeting told ESPN that the following concepts have been discussed to curb tanking:

•First-round picks can be protected only top-4 or top-14+
•Lottery odds freeze at the trade deadline or a later date
•No longer allowing a team to pick top 4 in consecutive years and/or after consecutive bottom-3 finishes
•Teams can’t pick top-4 the year after making conference finals
•Lottery odds allocated based on two-year records
•Lottery extended to include all play-in teams
•Flatten odds for all lottery teams