AROUND the NBA:

[HoosierDaddyKid]

BTW, I think it is awful Lebron is allowing Rich Paul to talk on a podcast weekly.  Agents are much better playing in the shadows.    It just feels like Paul is getting too big for his shoes.     Nothing good comes out of saying they should trade Reeves.  Even if he is just giving his opinion.  Everyone is going to assume this is coming from Lebron due to their relationship.  May not be wrong either.

https://x.com/HeatCulture13/status/2010856299668668780

[khaled1987]

I´ll genuinely believe one of three things will happen in 2028.

Luka signs with Mavs.
Luka signs with Nuggets.
Luka signs with Real Madrid and leaves the NBA all together.

I´d at least sort my cap out in a way that I can react accordingly in 2028.

I think he will find zero joy playing in that LA circus putting ALL the blame on him largely unjustified based on the talent around him offensively and defensively.

A lot depends on his loyalty. Does he develop a sense of loyalty towards them? He will then stay at least until 2030 and let them figure out.

Otherwise,  I think he might leave in 2028 , but long time until then.

[khaled1987]

Lakers problem this season is LeBron. 

What about every year that wasn't played in the bubble since the passing of Jerry Buss? Was it also Lebron? 

Lakers have been poorly run for over a decade, but got lucky that Lebron wanted to literally just move to the City, and he forced AD trade to partner him and then all his veteran bodies. And I firmly believe that they wouldn't have won of they went through the normsl attrition of a long season. Instead they got 2 months break, and a playoffs that involved zero travel.

Since then it was consistent mediocrity. 

Pelinka isn't a good GM, and most of their fanbase knows that. However, he managed to pull the best possible trade in this decade, getting Luka, so he will earn a big trust that he doesn't deserve. Sort of like what happened with Nico himself. 


They have been communicating that they don't want to gove anything of value for good players. How they would only pay one first for a great starting C only, and not just a good one. At the moment, it feels like Pelinka is in his Danny Ainge phase, he will only make trades that he totally wins.

However, just like Ainge, there comes a point that folks don't want to deal with you. A guy like Herb can easily get 2 firsts from a contender, would Pelinka pays that? Then what? What if Giannis stays instead of asking for trade and there isn't another star player like he hope for? And what happens once Reeves is getting paid? A lot of flexibility is suddenly lost.

There is a path to build contender there with Luka, but I won't bet on it happening with their current management. Not soon at least. They won't pass the likes of Spurs, OKC or even Denver. Who have equally good franchise players, but much more depth around them (and youth in case of the other two).

[DallasMaverick]

What about every year that wasn't played in the bubble since the passing of Jerry Buss? Was it also Lebron? 

Lakers have been poorly run for over a decade, but got lucky that Lebron wanted to literally just move to the City, and he forced AD trade to partner him and then all his veteran bodies. And I firmly believe that they wouldn't have won of they went through the normsl attrition of a long season. Instead they got 2 months break, and a playoffs that involved zero travel.

Since then it was consistent mediocrity. 

Pelinka isn't a good GM, and most of their fanbase knows that. However, he managed to pull the best possible trade in this decade, getting Luka, so he will earn a big trust that he doesn't deserve. Sort of like what happened with Nico himself. 


They have been communicating that they don't want to gove anything of value for good players. How they would only pay one first for a great starting C only, and not just a good one. At the moment, it feels like Pelinka is in his Danny Ainge phase, he will only make trades that he totally wins.

However, just like Ainge, there comes a point that folks don't want to deal with you. A guy like Herb can easily get 2 firsts from a contender, would Pelinka pays that? Then what? What if Giannis stays instead of asking for trade and there isn't another star player like he hope for? And what happens once Reeves is getting paid? A lot of flexibility is suddenly lost.

There is a path to build contender there with Luka, but I won't bet on it happening with their current management. Not soon at least. They won't pass the likes of Spurs, OKC or even Denver. Who have equally good franchise players, but much more depth around them (and youth in case of the other two).

This actually sounds a lot like the rhetoric we had in Dallas when Luka was here:

“Just need a front office that can assemble the proper kind of team around Luka.”

“Just need some great defensive players around Luka.”

“Just need some great defensive players that can also hit a wide open three.”

“Just need some great defensive players that can hit open threes and put it on the floor occasionally to hit a wide open layup.”

So… when do folks start to think that maybe the problem is Luka?

[FireNicoHarrison]

And after accomplished those points we reached the NBA Finals for the 3rd time in our history... Maybe the problem is not Luka, right?

[khaled1987]

This actually sounds a lot like the rhetoric we had in Dallas when Luka was here:

“Just need a front office that can assemble the proper kind of team around Luka.”

“Just need some great defensive players around Luka.”

“Just need some great defensive players that can also hit a wide open three.”

“Just need some great defensive players that can hit open threes and put it on the floor occasionally to hit a wide open layup.”

So… when do folks start to think that maybe the problem is Luka?

Which player can drag a bad team and a bad front office into winning championships? 
Not even MJ was able to do it. Closest was probably 2007 Lebron? 

Which player do you think can replace Luka in current Lakers and would win a ring with them with next 2 years? 


He is a legit franchise player who was won us the West at the age of 25.

There was a time when we overrated him a bit, putting him on different tier of a player to someone like Dirk for example, or ahead of a name like Jokix from current stars.

[mvossman]

This actually sounds a lot like the rhetoric we had in Dallas when Luka was here:

“Just need a front office that can assemble the proper kind of team around Luka.”

“Just need some great defensive players around Luka.”

“Just need some great defensive players that can also hit a wide open three.”

“Just need some great defensive players that can hit open threes and put it on the floor occasionally to hit a wide open layup.”

So… when do folks start to think that maybe the problem is Luka?

This is so lacking in context.

Folks were talking like this because the team was lacking in talent and assets to get that talent.  When you don't have talent you have to focus on fit.

They acquired one high level starter to put next to him, who they then traded away for negative assets

They developed a second high level starter and then let him walk away.

The irony is that the build around Flagg is very similar to the build around Luka.  You want a mobile defensive center, 3&D wings and a POA defender.  They biggest difference is they need a high level PG to put next to flag where Luka needed a high level secondary creator.

[Chicagojk]

Gearing up for a tough night for team tank.  Denver comes back and wins at New Orleans last night.   Now they come to Dallas for a back to back with an injured Jokic (others?).   Dallas has played two of their best games this year against Denver.  Do they go 3-0?

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://x.com/BennettDurando/status/2011295528643150196


David Adelman speaking on Trey Murphy III. I think he'd be a great fit in Detroit.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://x.com/Justintohoops/status/2011280885543587859


OKC finally gets revenge, and blows out the Spurs at home, 119-98

[Mavs2021]

Gearing up for a tough night for team tank.  Denver comes back and wins at New Orleans last night.   Now they come to Dallas for a back to back with an injured Jokic (others?).   Dallas has played two of their best games this year against Denver.  Do they go 3-0?

Also shows there is no hope for these Pelicans. I really don´t understand how they are this bad. Looked at their schedule. They have 10 games left against tanking teams, including the next two. That would get them to 19 wins. Almost impossible to get below them for the Mavs.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

Gearing up for a tough night for team tank.  Denver comes back and wins at New Orleans last night.   Now they come to Dallas for a back to back with an injured Jokic (others?).   Dallas has played two of their best games this year against Denver.  Do they go 3-0?

Denver had impressive road wins at Philadelphia and Boston with a depleted roster. I wouldn't look past them at all. Payton Watson has been playing out of his mind, as well as Jamal Murray.

[JamesConway912]

This actually sounds a lot like the rhetoric we had in Dallas when Luka was here:

“Just need a front office that can assemble the proper kind of team around Luka.”

“Just need some great defensive players around Luka.”

“Just need some great defensive players that can also hit a wide open three.”

“Just need some great defensive players that can hit open threes and put it on the floor occasionally to hit a wide open layup.”

So… when do folks start to think that maybe the problem is Luka?

The level of disrespect here is obscene. You rarely ever post anything of substance but this is dumb even for your standards.

Winning it all is hard in the NBA. Luka lead us to multiple deep playoff runs, made the Finals early in his career and NEVER wanted to go. All that despite being surrounded with completely amateurish GMs / decision makers at the upper levels.

The moment Luka left town ths organizatin crumbled immediatedly.

Guys like you will turn on Flagg as well in a few years if he is not able to bring a chip to DAL before aged 25.

YUCK

[Jmaciscool]

Been seeing/hearing some different solutions on how to stop teams from tanking, so I'm going to throw my own idea to give some food for thought:

1. The bottom five teams each have equal odds of getting the following picks: #1, #2, #3, #4, #30. So every year, four of the worst five teams are guaranteed a top 4 pick while the other will only get #30.
2. Picks 5-29 are distributed via a lottery system (similar to the existing lottery) with better odds given to better records (not worse records).

I feel like good teams are rewarded for having good records (but can never get a top 4 pick), while bottom feeders have a good chance of getting a top 4 pick, but also run the risk of only getting #30 (which theoretically discourages long term tanking).

I'm sure some of the numbers could be tweaked (maybe #20 is the "bad" option instead of #30) but overall I think this would give teams more incentive to win than lose while ensuring that most really bad teams have a good chance of improvement.

Just thought I'd share since the Mavs are currently playing the Jazz...

[F Gump]

I don't think you can ever truly eliminate "tanking." If you have the BEST teams getting to draft the best new players, you kill the ability for the currently-bad teams to have the talent to compete. So there will be some sweet spot for teams to fight over, and you can't eliminate that place everyone wants to be (or the chase for it).

The NBA tried it the other way, where the draft was very random with more teams being drawn, and it was way worse. It offered less certainty if you were bad, in getting a shot at one of the best new players, but even in that, there was still tanking going on, but in that world you had even mid-tier teams - not just the worst - getting to decide if they wanted to tank too.

The more random you make it, the less assurance that the teams that truly NEED some good players will be getting them. And wherever that sweet spot is to get the good players, that's what teams with nothing else to play for will chase.

I think one improvement would be to make a rule where teams lose some lottery opportunity for a number of years after being "successful" in the lottery the first time. Lots of ways to make it work, as to which teams get dinged for how long, and whether some teams get an added boost the next time, and maybe a team can decline the lottery jump and would do so -- bearing in mind that EVERY penalty and EVERY bonus will create incentive to some teams to lose more, not less.

But I think it's part of the landscape. You want your bad teams to get better and compete and draw fans too, and the draft is the way they do that.

[Winter]

I don't think you can ever truly eliminate "tanking." If you have the BEST teams getting to draft the best new players, you kill the ability for the currently-bad teams to have the talent to compete. So there will be some sweet spot for teams to fight over, and you can't eliminate that place everyone wants to be (or the chase for it).

I don't think they can eliminate it either. Teams know who will be the top college players in the draft. At some point, maybe 2-3 weeks before the season ends, teams will begin to jockey for position. They can see mock drafts just like we do, and their analytics probably tell them who to shoot for in regards to position.

I think at this point, "tanking" really just looks like a lack of won-loss concern. Dallas of course, doesn't have to do anything. They have so many injuries that they can only play the players they have. But at this point I don't think you can signal to your players that you want less effort. I've said this before, but I don't think season ticket holders would appreciate some kind of conspicuous tanking at this point in the season. Filling the seats still matters to the owners.

[F Gump]

I don't think they can eliminate it either. Teams know who will be the top college players in the draft. At some point, maybe 2-3 weeks before the season ends, teams will begin to jockey for position. They can see mock drafts just like we do, and their analytics probably tell them who to shoot for in regards to position.

I think at this point, "tanking" really just looks like a lack of won-loss concern. Dallas of course, doesn't have to do anything. They have so many injuries that they can only play the players they have. But at this point I don't think you can signal to your players that you want less effort. I've said this before, but I don't think season ticket holders would appreciate some kind of conspicuous tanking at this point in the season. Filling the seats still matter.

My axioms re tanking:

1 Tanking is a part of the NBA landscape. Every league plan to make it go away is a fantasy (or window-dressing), and will bring thoughtless unintended consequences that can make it even worse. Until the next "fix."

2 There is another aspect re tanking that the NBA doesn't want to say aloud. But the reality is that for every win there will be a loss, and to have teams who win a lot, you must have teams who lose a lot. There are a massive number of losses to dole out - 1230 each season - to teams and fans who all want to win big. Having a team or 3 (or 10) who will embrace taking more L's than their share, with a plan to make those losses helpful, is a service in a way.

3 Coaches and FO are the ones who decide, and it is part of their job to make it work. Figure it out.

4 Teams never say they are tanking (unless they are stupid and want to get fined). But we can see it.

5 "Bad" coaching, lineups, combos is key. But coaches don't want to lose respect (with team, with league). Tough tightrope.

6 Injuries can be a part of tanking, and some are merely "injuries." You must sit better players, to lose more games. A team snake-bitten by injuries might not be as unlucky as they want you to think. 

7 Players are never told to tank or give less than 100%. Ever. But they know the direction. It is what it is. 

8 Fans want good play, and most want wins. Winning sells tickets. But many know the direction. If you suck, you suck. That's life.

[Chicagojk]

I think the reduced odds for the worst teams of getting a top pick has helped.

Zach Lowe has been talking for months about reducing the pick swap protections.  Dallas #10 a few years ago.   Utah and Washington this year.   This appears to be the biggest issue.  Bad/average teams with pick protections reach a point in the season where they think "Really, what in the world are we trying to win games for, when our pick is top 8 protected and we aren't going anywhere".   Eliminate this and you may fix a lot of it.    Maybe allow top 3 protected or something less obvious.

I think bad teams will typically struggle down the stretch.   The season is long.  Players are looking forward to summer.   Teams will prioritize development.  At least now with the changed lottery odds, that when a fanbase and team clearly tank for a lot of the year and then drops in the lottery, you can look at them and say "was wasting a year with that garbage worth it""

[Mavs2021]

I think the reduced odds for the worst teams of getting a top pick has helped.

Zach Lowe has been talking for months about reducing the pick swap protections.  Dallas #10 a few years ago.   Utah and Washington this year.   This appears to be the biggest issue.  Bad/average teams with pick protections reach a point in the season where they think "Really, what in the world are we trying to win games for, when our pick is top 8 protected and we aren't going anywhere".   Eliminate this and you may fix a lot of it.    Maybe allow top 3 protected or something less obvious.

I think bad teams will typically struggle down the stretch.   The season is long.  Players are looking forward to summer.   Teams will prioritize development.  At least now with the changed lottery odds, that when a fanbase and team clearly tank for a lot of the year and then drops in the lottery, you can look at them and say "was wasting a year with that garbage worth it""

I liked Leigh Eliis´s idee since you can´t have promotion and relegation how about the team with the worst record at the end of the regular season gets demoted to 30th. 

I´d make it even harsher. 

First change:

Worst team = no 1st round pick, 2nd worst team = 29th pick, 3rd worst team = end of lottery pick.  That way you can´t start tanking in December/January, cause you suddenly fall so far behind that you risk losing it all. 

Second change: I only make it a three pick lottery again, not four to reduce that tanking incentive. 

Third change:

I give the 4th worst team better odds than the 5th worst team and the 6th worst team etc., cause the 6th worst team is already the 25th best team and the 20th best team is already in the play-in.

Summary: You don´t get a lottery pick in the bottom three at all. You only have three chances to move up. Your odds of actually getting a top 3 pick decrease. This way you make losing less appealing and teams compete for the play-in instead.

Furthermore they need to relax trade and free agency rules. The new rules make it nearly impossible to improve via free agency or trades. Those two avenues are virtually closed. Therefore the draft and tanking become even more important. I think teams over the cap, but under the 1st and 2nd apron should be able to sign FA, but to do so, they need to pay the last team a compensation fee via draft pick or young player. Basically they need to loosen the general trade and S&T options.

[Jym]

But sometimes bad teams are just bad
New Orleans has the worst record in the league and they don't have their pick this year. You'd think the record was intentional if they did