Because of exactly what you said. He’s good but he’s not Haliburton

because they traded the one young star that actually wanted to be in sacramento for a good center to do nothing with instead of developing the team, same bonehead moves they pulled later picking up the derozan/lavine failed experiment from the bulls

Sabois at 19M is an asset. You can build around his limitations. Sabonis at 44M or whatever is a problem. Same reason the Kings turned tgeir noses up at Poeltl during the trade. Money vs. Contrbiution.

I thought you had a Kings flair for a sec cause I was thinking it would be totally a Kangz thing to do to be the first seed and lose in the first round ☠️

This level of salt is not healthy

1. Look, man, I don’t have a problem with the Wizards or any other bad team tanking. If that’s the best way to get a franchise star on your team, then by all means do it.
2. Not every team that gets lottery luck ends up doing what the Spurs have done. Just look at the Sixers. The lottery balls falling your way is only one part of the equation. You actually have to do more than hit in the lottery to get the reputation of become a well-run organization.
3. The Spurs lottery luck is more recent. They had basically no lottery luck in between Tim Duncan getting drafted in 1997 and Wemby getting drafted in 2023. The way the organization was ran while never getting a lottery pick from 1997 until 2020 is where that reputation of being a well-ran organization comes from. If you look at the draft history, pretty much all of those draft picks are 20th or lower.
4. For me, tanking really only becomes a problem when a team is constantly not making the playoffs because the guys in the FO don’t know what the hell they are doing. That’s not really the Wizards or the Jazz. The Jazz have pretty much always been a winning organization, and the Wizards haven’t really been bad enough to get high draft picks until the past couple of seasons. The purgatory of being mid and all that.

Obviously. And if six of the owners are no longer acting in good faith, you’d probably want to address that for the health of the overall product.

the NBA is already a viable product

And reducing tanking will barely make a difference. It’s pretty rare for every game on to have a tanking team involved. If you’re a neutral fan, you’ll just watch the other game. If your team is beating up on a tanking team, you’re probably still enjoying watching. If your team is tanking, you’d rather that then be stuck being bad.

Lots of fans want to end tanking, but doing so wouldn’t actually make them enjoy the product any more. Load management by good teams actually affects the product and that’s why the league took action.

Relegation barely works in football at the top leagues either

It just yo-yo’s poor teams between divisions because they can’t spend a crazy amount of money to stay safe like the bigger teams

Sounds good. 

Let me ask you this.  We have 6 teams actively trying to tank in a race to the bottom. Do you think there is any amount of teams trying to tank that would be detrimental to the overall product or is that not something that would matter at all. Say it was 15 teams? Would that matter or not?