The Hyprocrisy of the NBA’s Tanking Threats
In recent weeks, Adam Silver and the NBA has been threatening teams who are tanking for Victor Wembanyama. And it makes no sense.
I’ve always had a high opinion of Adam Silver. Silver seems more in touch with his players than any other sports commissioner. The NBA’s social justice efforts go far beyond their peers. But, in the past few months, Silver’s reputation has slipped. Silver’s recent anti-tanking brigade has been disappointing.
After his poor handling of the Robert Sarver situation, I didn’t think my opinion of Silver could go much lower. These past few weeks have proved otherwise. His comments on teams trying to tank for Victor Wembanyama aren’t just tone-deaf; they’re insightful to how the NBA discriminates against small market organizations.
The Qualms of Small Market Teams
I’ve already talked about this subject a few times. It’s incredibly complex. But it’s no secret that small-market teams get the short end of the stick in the NBA. Some of it isn’t even the NBA’s fault. There’s a big difference between New York and San Antonio. Some teams get an advantage because of where they play, and there’s no avoiding that.
But, think for a moment. What has the NBA done to level the field for small-market teams? If next to nothing was your answer, you’re correct!
Now, there are numerous problems facing small-market teams. Let’s start with everybody’s favorite: tampering!
Tampering in the NBA is impossible to define and equally impossible to stop. Adam Silver can’t stop texts or conversations between players. But he can stop illegal negotiations between teams and players. You’ll be soooo surprised to hear that he hasn’t even done that.
In the last two years, the NBA has had two separate investigations into potential tampering situations. And those are just the two the NBA decided to investigate. I’m sure there are countless other examples. Ever wonder why some free agents get signed just seconds after negotiating is allowed? That’s tampering, baby!
Currently, the league is investigating New York’s acquisition of Jalen Brunson. To me, this is about as obvious as tampering gets. The Knicks hired Jalen Brunson’s dad, Rick, as an assistant, just a few months before Brunson was set to hit free agency. Small world, huh?
If that doesn’t scream tampering, I don’t know what will. What else does the league need? A ranson letter? Even with all this glaring evidence, the Knicks will get nothing more than a slap on the wrist because what even are punishments?
But therein lies the problem. Teams have bent and stretched the tampering rules as far as they possibly could. The next step is for them to announce their free agents when the regular season ends. We’re heading to that point. The NBA hasn’t stepped in at all, allowing teams to do whatever they want.
This, of course, means that the NBA will fine the Lakers & Magic Johnson $500,000 for some comments he made on national television;
But wait! There’s more! On top of all that systemic handicapping from the league, most small market teams are bound to cheap owners. Owners who only care about the bottom line, not team success. What’s even more frustrating is when contending teams act in the same way. They’re so close to winning, but they’re handicapped by a second salary cap set by the owner. I’m looking at you, Milwaukee and Los Angeles.
So, to recap;
- Small market teams are at a disadvantageous position to sign free agents & trade for players
- The NBA is seeing stars leave their star markets in waves
- CHEAP OWNERS SUCK
This is a good analogy for what small market teams are experiencing;
Tanking
Tanking
\taŋk\
Informal / North American
(in sports) delibrately lose games
Tanking. It’s what has gotten the NBA’s panties into a bunch. We all know what tanking is. It exists in every major sport. The last clear example of tanking was the Sam Hinkey-era 76ers. Yeah, those were dark times. So, what’s wrong with tanking?
Now, even as a fan, I’ll admit that I don’t like tanking. In fact, I hate it. There’s a difference between bad teams who lack talent and teams purposely losing games. Tanking teams put a stain on the sport. When a team purposely loses, what’s the fun in that? Those images of 9/10 empty stadiums are depressing. Just ask the Athletics. It alienates everybody.
The NBA wants its product to be as good as possible. Think of every NBA franchise as a produce item in the produce section of a grocery store. Nobody’s going to want to go near those black bananas. Why would you? There are plenty of yellow bananas right around it. But, would you even grab the yellow bananas at this point? I mean, they might be bad, too, just like the black, rotting ones.
I’m with the NBA on this one. Tanking shouldn’t be allowed. But there is one problem I have with Adam Silver’s comments about tanking. Why? Well, because the NBA already solved its tanking problem.
Lottery
In the MLB, NHL, and NFL, the draft lottery doesn’t exist. The NHL is the only other major sports league with something resembling a draft lottery system, but they went and made it all weird.
From 1966 to 1984, the teams with the worst two records in the league would literally flip a coin to see who got the top pick. That’s why Magic Johnson went to Los Angeles instead of Chicago. That’s why Lew Alcindor [now Kareem Abdul-Jabbar] went to Milwaukee instead of Phoenix in 1969. A little bit too random.
After 1985, a lottery system was introduced. It has changed a lot over the years. After 1993, the team with the worst record had a 25% chance of getting the top pick in the draft. That’s too tempting for teams to try and purposely be uncompetitive. After the exploits of Sam Hinkey, the NBA changed that. Now, the three worst teams in the NBA each have a 14% chance of getting the #1 overall pick.
That’s the best anti-tanking measure the NBA could have ever instituted. The team with the worst record hasn’t won the lottery since this new system was implemented. That should have been the end of things.
Instead, Adam Silver said all of this;
- Called tanking a “serious issue” that has sparked “hundreds” of meetings (what a waste of time)
- “We put teams on notice. We’re going to be paying particular attention to the issue [tanking] this year.”
- Silver stated that the league thought about using relegation as a method to discourage tanking, a statement which Silver has since walked back.
- In regards to the draft, Silver said, “…we’re always looking to see whether there’s a better systsem.”
Silver’s comments about the situation are incredibly tone-deaf. But, like I said earlier, they’re also incredibly insightful at how the NBA looks at these small market teams. It’s really ironic when you dig deeper.
The Irony of the NBA’s Complaints
The NBA complaining about teams who tank is like the NFL complaining about concussions. It just doesn’t add up. The NBA doesn’t even realize why so many franchises are resorting to tanking. The league squeezed small market teams until they reached their limit. So, they turned to a thing they didn’t fully understand: tanking. Tanking was born because the NBA gave small-market teams no other choice.
Getting Victor Wembanyama or other highly touted prospects is the only way these small market teams can compete. The margin for smaller markets to contend is razor-thin. They don’t have the big payroll or the marketable cities to get star talent. Every decision, every draft pick, has to be perfect. Not every team has a New York Yankees-style payroll.
Their last resort is to cash in an ugly season for a generational talent. So, when the NBA laments about that cancer of tanking, the solution is simple. The NBA already has chemotherapy in their hands. They’re just too blind to see it. Here’s how they can fix things.
The Solutions
For starters, make a salary floor of $100 million dollars. Only the Pacers and Spurs are below that number right now. That way, every team is at least putting their best effort forth. They can’t trot out teams with ridiculously low payrolls and get away with it. Let’s make sure that teams like the 2017 Brooklyn Nets and the 2018 Dallas Mavericks never exist again.
Next, let’s talk about player empowerment. I’m all for players having more power over their situation. Proposed solutions like banning trades or punishing players by taking away their salaries are stupid. So, what can the league do?
Well, they’ve already done something. Max and now supermax extensions were measures for teams to keep their players long term. It sounds good in principle, but does it really? In Layman’s terms, it doesn’t make sense for players to choose between more money and a better situation. If a player turns down a large extension, the fanbase turns on them. How dare you turn down all that money! You ungrateful bastard! How long will a player want to stay in a situation like that, especially if they’re not winning?
Supermax contracts have taken the pressure off front offices to build winning teams. That’s what player empowerment solved. It put more pressure on GMs to build a contending team. These big extensions took that away.
Understandably, the NBA doesn’t want more Ben Simmons or Anthony Davis situations. Nobody wants that. But, their solution to the problem shouldn’t be to force players to pick money or winning. That’s not right. The problem isn’t on the players, it’s also on front offices.
Perhaps the moral of the story is that there is no perfect solution to save small market teams. Other than creating a factory for more game-changing superstars, small market teams are doomed for all eternity. And while the NBA hasn’t done much to solve this problem or at least make it less severe, getting rid of supermax extensions would go a long way in solving the problem and putting the onus on front offices to build a winning team.
What Are Your Thoughts on Tanking? Leave A Comment Down Below!
Follow My Instagram & Facebook To Never Miss A Post: @hoopnotions
