Can the NBA truly eradicate the most blatant forms of tanking? And just how dominant is Nikola Jokić this season? These questions are more pressing than ever as we approach the final stretch of the NBA regular season. Let’s dive into the controversies, the solutions, and the jaw-dropping performances that are shaping the league.
But here’s where it gets controversial... On March 25, with just two weeks left in the season, the Washington Wizards face the Utah Jazz. Depending on the standings, this game could become a masterclass in strategic losing—not just for the sake of a better draft pick, but because of a far more complex web of incentives. Both teams owe top-eight-protected first-round picks in the 2026 draft. If they don’t finish among the four worst teams, they risk losing those picks entirely once the lottery is drawn. And this is the part most people miss: These picks come with an expiration date. If the Wizards don’t send their pick to New York this season, it downgrades to a second-rounder in 2026 and another in 2027. For the Jazz, failing to convey their pick to Oklahoma City means it disappears entirely, leaving the Thunder empty-handed.
This high-stakes scenario highlights why the NBA is reportedly considering measures to curb tanking. The three main proposals are:
- Limiting pick protections on traded picks to either top-four or top-14 and beyond, effectively eliminating the kind of tanking we’re seeing with the Wizards and Jazz.
- Preventing teams from drafting in the top four two years in a row.
- Locking lottery positions after March 1.
While the first proposal seems like a slam dunk—addressing the root cause of egregious tanking—the latter two are more debatable. Is locking lottery positions after March 1 really a solution, or just a band-aid? Late-season tanking has been less of an issue since the lottery odds were flattened, and this rule could create unfair advantages due to schedule variance. Worse, it might simply shift tanking efforts to earlier in the season, between the trade deadline and March 1.
As for preventing back-to-back top-four picks, it feels like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted. Yes, the San Antonio Spurs landed in the top four three years straight, but that required extraordinary luck. More importantly, teams with consistently poor records should have a fair shot at multiple top-four picks. But here’s the twist: If you remove four teams from the lottery, the odds shift dramatically for everyone else. Imagine the 2023-24 season if the Spurs, Hornets, and Blazers couldn’t pick in the top four—teams like the Brooklyn Nets and Memphis Grizzlies might have tanked earlier and more aggressively.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: protected draft picks. Virtually every instance of blatant tanking in NBA history involves teams losing on purpose to protect a pick. Take the 2006 “Mark Madsen game,” where the Timberwolves tanked to avoid losing a protected pick, ultimately selecting Brandon Roy (though they traded him minutes later). Or the 2012 Warriors, who shut down key players to keep a top-seven protected pick, drafting Harrison Barnes, a key piece of their 2015 championship team. Even last season, the Sixers went 4-28 after the trade deadline to protect a top-six pick, landing VJ Edgecombe.
Limiting pick protections wouldn’t just reduce tanking—it could simplify trades. Executives often get bogged down in haggling over protection details, and a clear rule would streamline negotiations. But is this enough? Or are we missing a bigger issue?
And now, the man of the hour: Nikola Jokić. His recent knee injury has fans holding their breath, but until then, he was on pace to shatter his own single-season PER record. With a PER of 35.5, he’s leaving even historic performers like Shai Gilgeous-Alexander in the dust. Jokić’s true shooting percentage of 71.4% is otherworldly, especially considering the difficulty of his shots. His impact on the Nuggets is undeniable: a +12.6 net rating with him on the floor and -4.0 without him—a staggering 16.6-point difference per 100 possessions.
But here’s the question: Is Jokić’s dominance a product of his skill, or is the league failing to adapt to his unique playstyle? And what does his success mean for the future of big men in the NBA?
Finally, a quick detour into cap geekery: The Toronto Raptors’ signing of Mo Bamba seems odd, given their luxury tax situation. However, it’s a clever move. Bamba’s non-guaranteed contract allows the Raptors to waive him before January 7, minimizing their cap hit while keeping him available for 10-day contracts if needed. But does this highlight a flaw in the NBA’s contract system? How can teams exploit these loopholes, and should the league intervene?
From tanking controversies to Jokić’s historic season, the NBA is never short on drama. What’s your take? Are the proposed tanking solutions enough? And is Jokić the greatest player of his generation? Let’s debate in the comments!
