DoctorJohnnyFever, on 25 March 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:
I think tanking becomes a problem if a good team does it. Like, a team that is projected to be a playoff team at the start of a season just decides it is going to gut its team and not compete. But that's not who does it. It's teams that already know they are bad and know they do not have the personnel to compete. The 2003-04 Penguins were lousy. No matter what they did they were not going to be a playoff team. So they gutted what was left of the roster and improved their stock for the future. Same with the Oilers and Sabres when McDavid came out. Same with '83-84 Penguins. There is no benefit to finishing 24th out of 30. But if you can get a franchise-changing player that sets up your team for the next 10 years there is a pretty big benefit in finishing 30th,
Maybe. But the problem- at least in the NBA- is that it is a very superstar-dependent league. Without a superstar, you just do not have a serious chance.
To compound matters, there's only 1-2 per draft, and sometimes none at all. So you have teams like the 76ers literally tanking for 3 years
straight, and even if they DO get lucky enough to get the #1 or #2 pick, there's still no guarantee of a superstar. And even IF they finish with the worst record, the NBA Draft Lottery is so messed up that they still only get a 25% at winning the top pick.
For example, in the 2010 draft, the Sixers had the #2 pick. But it was a year where there was no franchise-changer, and they took the concensus #2 in Evan Turner after the Wizards selected John Wall. Turner ended up being an adequate player, and there were a few All-Stars selected after
him that draft, but the closest thing to a franchise connerstone was Paul George, who the Pacers didn't select until 10th.
So to me, it becomes a more serious problem when you have teams- and I think this only happens in the NBA so far- literally intentionally tanking for seasons straight.