A while back, I decided to focus on progressive leagues, as the normal theme leagues weren't doing it for me anymore with the "what if?" concept. Since then, I've participated in five total progressives, including starting one myself. I've done single year progressives, double year progressives (2 years at a time), double era progressives (2 seasons simultaneously 20+ years apart) and even the new triple era progressive. I've also done the single-year regressive in the past as well as multiple UPLs & other similar leagues. There's one thing that I think is a common problem in all of them, and I really don't see any way around it without just really going crazy:

Balanced trades, as in getting what someone is worth. There are a lot of problems, but it all comes back around to this imo. Teams don't like being stuck in mediocrity. If you're not a title contender, then you're wasting your time & money. To get yourself in title contention, you either have to make lots of trades or tank & get talent from the draft. Most leagues have anti-tanking rules in place, yet you can still trade away most (all) of your talent to legit tank. This is where the crux of the problem occurs.

Let me give you an example. My ZPL (a single season progressive league) team has been a borderline playoff team since the inception of the league. I can win 59 games & finish 2nd in my division, then turn around and win 41 and barely make the playoffs. My players are too good to legitimately lose 60 and have a shot at a real draft pick. This is a problem many owners can relate to. So, this offseason (prior to the 85-86 season), I'm going to blow the team up. I happen to have a guy named Larry Joe Bird on the squad who will be probably the best overall player in the league over the next three seasons (he'll still be a top 2-4 guy in 87-88 when those 84 & 85 draft classes suddenly get good). What do you trade him for? What is he worth? He's incredible for the next three seasons, but he doesn't have the longevity that you typically want in a high pick (because his career is half over).

Well, he's worth a bunch of #1s. However, what team in their right mind that has the #1 and wants to trade for him? That's Karl Malone, a guy who will anchor their team for 20 seasons and gets REALLY good REALLY fast. Patrick Ewing is worse than Malone, but he still has much more long term value than Bird. After that? Mullin, Porter, Oakley... Bird's value over the next three years alone is worth far more than any of their longevity. So, I don't want to make that trade, but they don't want to either. Why? Because Bird will instantly turn them into a 30+ win team & keep them from drafting more of their future. So the only teams that really want him are the teams that have the least to offer - mediocre teams with mediocre draft picks or mediocre players that won't help the team win, or really, really good teams with almost worthless draft picks and players they don't want to give up (and you don't want because it'd make you win more).

Now, this is a pretty extreme example, but it's absolutely happening. And lesser extremes happen all of the time, and it happens in all types of progressives. So, what is the result of this? Really good players get traded to really good teams for almost worthless draft picks in order to legitimately tank. This makes the good teams in progressives really, really, good, and the bad teams really, really bad. The problem snowballs, too, as long as it goes on.

So - what is the answer? There's a very good reason why the worst teams get the best draft picks in all major sports. Yet that's a huge part of the problem. If you're not a contender, if you don't believe you can win it all, then it makes more sense to lose than win.

To be clear, this isn't about my Bird issue or any specific issue I've witnessed or been part of. It's a recurring trend that I've noticed and just want some discussion about.

so basketball reasons....

It actually is a pretty solid reflection of the real problems with the NBA when you think about it...

that's what i'm sayin

Is there something we can improve in the game (on our own, because let's be real here, wis ain't gonna do anything) to fix this though?

Posted by ashamael on 6/4/2017 7:11:00 PM (view original):
It actually is a pretty solid reflection of the real problems with the NBA when you think about it...

Yup. Success is penalized. Why work for it when you can just tank and get a great pick every year.

I also think every team in the odl and 52 should be in the lottery. Maybe except the top 2 teams from last season. Instead, being terrible gets rewarded.

The problem is sometimes you're terrible because you're actually terrible; other times it's a choice. How can you differentiate between the two? How can you reward those with truly bad teams that got there through osmosis vs the ones that made bad trades to get as bad as possible or chose to play people the wrong minutes or at the wrong positions?

Dont reward bad teams is my point. If Atlanta, Chicago, Milwaukee and OKC also had a chance at a #1 pick, it would generate much more league interest and activity than LA or Philly who might become a playoff team in 4 years. How exciting.
I'm not saying you punish bad teams but dont reward them.

You have to reward the genuinely bad teams though or you'll never fill an opening. If you could assure that the lottery isn't rigged, maybe you could have an expanded lottery, but sadly there have been rumors of rigged lotteries in some of these leagues too. I guess join better leagues then becomes the advice but that isn't always an option either, especially for new owners.

There is no easy answer. I've had similar observations/concerns as ash has. Even in the one progressive I'm in where the commish is beyond trusted issues arise through trades.

I wrestled with these issues as well. Joined first progressive a few months ago and find the "star for the 24th pick" deal a tad naeusesting even though it accomplishes the goal of both teams. When the lotto fails to deliver however, the team is helpless. In that way I think the lottery is fools gold for many. But there is definitely a mindset in pro sports that the worst teams need this carrot dangled to make it balanced.

Doesn't seem to change which franchises are successful with some very sparse examples.

In terms of WIS, the challenge is you can't take a late round flyer on anyone. Everything is a known quantity. So if the solution is not through the draft, perhaps it is with free agency. If teams could only hold a star for 4/5 years and then they entered a FA-type system it could make things more fluid. You can imagine a system where perhaps after 5 years, the player enters FA but his odds of signing somewhere are partially linked to winning records, and maybe weighted towards the incumbent. Maybe teams can keep 1 player for life but others subject to FA. Would at least provide a chance a super team hits a roadblock without losing the favorite star. Wouldn't solve everything but just add an extra component that isn't there today.

Posted by pointfwd on 6/4/2017 10:45:00 PM (view original):
I also think every team in the odl and 52 should be in the lottery. Maybe except the top 2 teams from last season. Instead, being terrible gets rewarded.

You can win the odl even if u have a low 1st round pick. However, the 52M draft league usually requires a top 12 pick to win.

Posted by ashamael on 6/4/2017 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Is there something we can improve in the game (on our own, because let's be real here, wis ain't gonna do anything) to fix this though?

I think a reasonable salary cap could decrease the likelihood of the super teams.

One reason I'm partial to (well-run) progressive leagues is because they can come closest to mirroring the real-life game. Stars from the '50s and '60s can shine again, and even players from the modern era who were studs on the hardwood but get nerfed by the sim come closer to approximating their real-life accomplishments. Owners can deal and draft and strategize long-term.

Some of the concerns ash is raising occur in the real NBA. I remember Jerry Colangelo saying during the Barkley era in Phoenix that he loved each and every one of his players, and he hoped to trade each and every one of them while they still had some value so he could rebuild his team when the time came. And the sim game is even less sentimental. There isn't a paying fan base that cares whether you hold onto Larry Bird or Kobe Bryant for their last 2-3 productive seasons, so you're better off trading them for draft picks or younger, lesser players.

I agree with nc that a salary cap could reduce the likelihood of one or two teams in a given league sucking up so much talent that they kill the fun for everyone else for a stretch of several seasons. And a minutes floor is essential to ensure that every owner is fielding a reasonable team. Also, I'm learning a fair play committee - with a reasonable set of criteria and rules - is important to ensure that trading activity passes the smell test.

Still, I don't think there is any way around the notion that a mediocre team usually needs to get worse in order to get better. And a significant departure from the real NBA is the lack of free agent movement. If my chance at a title depends on building around a player like Kevin Durant at some point, I have no choice but to try to maneuver my way to drafting him, or liquidate the farm to be able to draft him. He's not going to pack up his bag and move on his own mid-career.

I wonder if having a keeper limit, or a seasons limit of having a player would help (to approximate free agency).