Want to stop NBA tanking? Get rid of the draft

NBA commissioner Adam Silver has recently taken a strong public stance against tanking, which has surprised some longtime fans - although probably not the way he hoped.

"Wait, now you care?"

Tanking, in some form, has been going on for literal decades. The season before LeBron James was drafted in 2003, the Cavaliers went 7-25 after the All-Star break and the Nuggets went 5-28, both plummeting to 17-win seasons while chasing the first overall pick that eventually went to Cleveland. The Philadelphia 76ers once went three straight seasons with fewer than 20 wins as they tried (and failed) to build a contender with high draft picks.

The very sin that seems to have pushed Silver over the edge this season - the Jazz benching their two best players in the fourth quarter of a game - was committed with abandon by multiple teams last year. Utah's mistake seems to have been adopting the tactic in February, when the shamelessness was that much more obvious. Come on: Everyone knows that mystery illnesses and vague injuries are only supposed to sideline good players in March and April.

Whatever's behind Silver's sense of urgency, he seems committed to changing something. "Everything is on the table," he said at All-Star Weekend, kicking off speculation about some of the radical alterations that could be instituted.

The NBA could flatten draft lottery odds again or expand the lottery, which would reduce the incentive for teams to finish at the bottom of the standings. Lottery odds could be locked in earlier in the season, eliminating the scourge of late-season benchings (but encouraging teams to lose more early in their schedules).

Messing around with the draft format might solve one problem, but it would almost certainly create others. A run of bad luck in a more random lottery could devastate a franchise while handing generational talents to teams that were already playoff contenders.

And consider what happened the last time the NBA tweaked the lottery. The three teams with the worst records received equal odds to land the top pick, which was supposed to make stacking losses less advantageous. Instead, it encouraged even more teams to tank because the chances of moving up in the lottery - or even winning it - rose for the best non-playoff teams. Say hello to last season's Dallas Mavericks, for example.

The only effective way to disincentive teams from intentionally being noncompetitive in order to improve their draft stock is an option that Silver is unlikely to consider: abolishing the draft entirely.

It's not as extreme as it sounds. In a salary-cap league - and the NBA functionally is one, even if it's a soft cap - there's little risk that all the best players would gravitate toward glamour markets, if only because they couldn't all get paid. Players coming out of college would get to choose between more money up-front on a poor team with cap space, or a lesser role (and a lower salary) on a team that's already competitive.

Would this prospect be terrifying for small-market front offices that are conditioned to think they can only land a superstar through the draft? Yes. Would it force teams to spend wisely and do a better job of scouting and recruiting young talent? Yes.

In the current environment, there's already a tremendous disparity in how effectively NBA teams manage their rosters. Has the existence of the draft, which is supposed to bail out struggling and poorly run teams, done anything to help the Sacramento Kings?

It's impossible to imagine a non-draft version of today's NBA. Some of the league's best teams - the Thunder, Spurs, and Pistons - were built on the backs of successful tank jobs and would have the cap room to woo incoming NCAA stars if the draft were abolished tomorrow. It would be a rich-get-richer scenario. Rather, it would take years to undo the current system and transition into one where new professionals have the same right to choose their employer as they do in any other industry.

Of course not every franchise would benefit equally from a non-draft environment. But it would acknowledge the fact that's staring Silver in the face: The draft system is broken, and it has been for a long time. Originally intended to ensure bad teams could improve quickly, it's instead encouraged bad teams to become worse, and for longer stretches. Sometimes even decent teams decide to become bad because they think it's the only way to eventually become great. (They might even be right.)

The whole thing is a mess. Although the fundamental aim of team sport is winning games, too many NBA franchises aren't even trying to reach that goal for long periods. And as the calendar turns to March, it will only get worse.

No amount of tinkering with the draft will solve that problem. The NBA might as well tear the whole thing down and try something new.

Scott Stinson is a contributing writer for theScore.