Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: New Draft Idea

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    4,201

    New Draft Idea

    I don't know if it because I am a bitter Nets fan (though my new model doesn't affect trades) or if the Draft has just gotten boring.

    But my proposal would be:
    •Total draft- 1 round
    •The teams that don't make the playoffs (the lottery teams) go into a full same odds lottery. 1-16. This prevents tanking (hopefully)
    •those are the only picks.
    So one round, 16 picks thats it. all remaining rookies enter the new Rookie Free Agency Pool.

    This works like the MLB. Each team is allotted a cap 'X' for this Rookie FA Pool (similar to mlb's international FA) and can sign whoever many they can without going over. I would propose that picks 1-16 to not get factored into that cap. Also the Rookie FA cap goes not affect the teams salary cap.

    I like it because it gives smart teams the advanged, especially if they sucked. So say the Nets (for example) land at 2. So they get the second overall pick plus now they can sign 2 more guys that would be in the 16-22 range that can still be valuable pieces.

    One negative is that it significantly hurts trade movement as picks wont be as valuable or available

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,544
    If you're not going to weight a draft towards bad teams, what's the point of having a cut off at all? It seems like a really arbitrary distinction to only include non playoff teams in the draft at all, especially when playoff teams in one conference can have worse records than non-playoff teams in the other. If you're going to do this, you might as well just make all rookies free agents. The bad teams are probably going to have more cap space anyway, and if they don't, it's because they're either poorly managed (spending a lot of money on a bad team) or simply got unlucky with injuries and don't need the boost that much anyway. If the goal is both to help the bad teams and reward intelligent team-building, it just makes more sense to make every rookie a free agent. Look at the projected cap space for 2017 teams, for instance. Ignore the teams with obvious re-signings/option pickups (Warriors with Steph/KD, Clips with Paul/Blake/Redick, Jazz with Hill and Hayward, Spurs with Pau), and what you generally get is the worst teams having the most cap space. Chicago being at the top is an outlier, after that you have Philly, Sacramento and Brooklyn. Then you have Dallas sandwiched between two potential playoff teams (Denver and Boston), followed by four more in the lottery (Lakers, Suns, Magic, Wolves). The only lottery teams that would be completely out of range for the first bracket 25% max would be Charlotte and Portland. So if you're really committed to the idea of removing tanking, but still want to give bad teams more of an opportunity to build, you might as well eliminate the draft entirely and just go to a free agency based model. It forces teams to be more intelligent about how they allocate their resources, but it also opens the door to more assets being available to more teams. I sort of like the idea of the Spurs being able to say, "you know what? We really want Lonzo Ball, so we're going to trade off a bunch of money and go sign him." There's something really attractive about a league where any player is available to any team. I still prefer the draft model, but I think there's something to be said for a freer market where any team theoretically has a chance to sign any player, and if you're really anti-tanking, it's much harder to stack young players when you have to pay them all the max.

    Of course, I don't believe that the draft exists to reward intelligence, that it does is really a byproduct of its more stated goal of making bad teams better. I personally don't care how teams get to that point of being bad. It can be intentional or not, and in fact I laud certain teams for understanding the league's incentive structure properly. If you're dumb enough to end up with the 9th pick because you felt the need to splurge on a bunch of fringe starters in free agency, that's your problem. I don't see why teams that do that are inherently more morally worthy of getting great young players. In fact, it actively rewards stupidity. I'd rather we just made this quantitative and called it a day. No more lottery, just make the order strictly by record like the NFL and MLB (funny how teams in those leagues never get accused of tanking). Just let the objectively worst teams get the best young players.
    Last edited by Quinnsanity; 03-19-2017 at 03:58 AM.
    POOP

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    6,746
    Not saying it's a bad idea at all, but one issue is how much will players in the free agent rookie pool be allowed to make? If it's capped, then a good team is going to snatch up all the best rookies outside of the 16, because everyone can offer the same amount. If it's not capped, then you run the risk of the 17th best rookie making more than the #1 pick. The top 16 can only negotiate with one team, and so are handicapped in getting the best offer possible. The players outside the top 16 could have multiple teams start a bidding war.

    Understand that since the rookie scale contract went into effect, the draft is not about balancing the league in the slightest, it's about cost control and monopolization of rights to a player.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Posts
    5,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinnsanity View Post
    If you're not going to weight a draft towards bad teams, what's the point of having a cut off at all? It seems like a really arbitrary distinction to only include non playoff teams in the draft at all, especially when playoff teams in one conference can have worse records than non-playoff teams in the other. If you're going to do this, you might as well just make all rookies free agents. The bad teams are probably going to have more cap space anyway, and if they don't, it's because they're either poorly managed (spending a lot of money on a bad team) or simply got unlucky with injuries and don't need the boost that much anyway. If the goal is both to help the bad teams and reward intelligent team-building, it just makes more sense to make every rookie a free agent. Look at the projected cap space for 2017 teams, for instance. Ignore the teams with obvious re-signings/option pickups (Warriors with Steph/KD, Clips with Paul/Blake/Redick, Jazz with Hill and Hayward, Spurs with Pau), and what you generally get is the worst teams having the most cap space. Chicago being at the top is an outlier, after that you have Philly, Sacramento and Brooklyn. Then you have Dallas sandwiched between two potential playoff teams (Denver and Boston), followed by four more in the lottery (Lakers, Suns, Magic, Wolves). The only lottery teams that would be completely out of range for the first bracket 25% max would be Charlotte and Portland. So if you're really committed to the idea of removing tanking, but still want to give bad teams more of an opportunity to build, you might as well eliminate the draft entirely and just go to a free agency based model. It forces teams to be more intelligent about how they allocate their resources, but it also opens the door to more assets being available to more teams. I sort of like the idea of the Spurs being able to say, "you know what? We really want Lonzo Ball, so we're going to trade off a bunch of money and go sign him." There's something really attractive about a league where any player is available to any team. I still prefer the draft model, but I think there's something to be said for a freer market where any team theoretically has a chance to sign any player, and if you're really anti-tanking, it's much harder to stack young players when you have to pay them all the max.

    Of course, I don't believe that the draft exists to reward intelligence, that it does is really a byproduct of its more stated goal of making bad teams better. I personally don't care how teams get to that point of being bad. It can be intentional or not, and in fact I laud certain teams for understanding the league's incentive structure properly. If you're dumb enough to end up with the 9th pick because you felt the need to splurge on a bunch of fringe starters in free agency, that's your problem. I don't see why teams that do that are inherently more morally worthy of getting great young players. In fact, it actively rewards stupidity. I'd rather we just made this quantitative and called it a day. No more lottery, just make the order strictly by record like the NFL and MLB (funny how teams in those leagues never get accused of tanking). Just let the objectively worst teams get the best young players.
    Great comment, I agree with this post almost entirely. As far as the bolded, I don't think teams in other sports tank because unlike the NBA, where one player can drastically impact how good a team is, baseball and football rely on groups of players instead of a single individual. The NBA is a star's league. If you don't have a superstar, it's pretty nearly impossible to be a championship contender. Not so much in the MLB or NFL (although drafting a supposedly elite quarterback can change a franchise but ask the Colts how that's working out for them).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    23,345
    What about compensation picks? Kinda like the NFL. If your team loses a big name free agent like Durant. Good chance you get a first round pick at the end of first round? Maybe make it a 3 round draft since more G-League teams and farming. Also rosters go up to like 17 or 18 players? But two must be in the G-League.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    21,001
    The problem with not weighting the odds for the #1 overall pick is under the system outlined in the OP, you'd have teams tanking to avoid the playoffs. Currently in the West: Denver, Portland, Dallas and Minnesota are all fighting for the 8th seed. If they could have an equal shot at the #1 pick as Brooklyn they would all be tanking to avoid the playoffs.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,544
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The problem with not weighting the odds for the #1 overall pick is under the system outlined in the OP, you'd have teams tanking to avoid the playoffs. Currently in the West: Denver, Portland, Dallas and Minnesota are all fighting for the 8th seed. If they could have an equal shot at the #1 pick as Brooklyn they would all be tanking to avoid the playoffs.
    This is a significant point. It would probably reduce tanking slightly, but there would certainly be an element of just moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    If you want to remove tanking entirely, you have to create a system in which teams do not have any control over the value of their own assets, i.e, a team can make it's own first round pick more valuable by tanking. That leaves two realistic options:

    First, you have the wheel, where draft picks are pre-determined for a 30-year period. There are a lot of problems with it, most notably the idea that a team could get the first pick in a year where they already had a superstar, it gives big market teams a built in advantage, and it makes the trading of draft picks far more complicated (theoretically speaking, for example, every team would have a No. 1 overall pick to trade at some point in the cycle, and how soon that pick comes up would be totally random. Could a team trade the No. 1 pick 20 years in the future to a team for an immediate superstar?). I generally don't think the wheel is viable, but if the sole goal is removing tanking entirely, it's probably the best bet.

    The other is making all rookies unrestricted free agents and letting teams pay up to the first bracket max for them. If Brooklyn wants to pay Lonzo Ball $25 million per year before he ever plays an NBA game, why not let them? And if the Spurs are prepared to gut their team to get Markelle Fultz, what's wrong with that? Who wouldn't enjoy Fultz on the Spurs? There's something really appealing about letting any team have access to any prospect. It makes scouting that much more important. This removes any incentive to tank, and in fact, it probably makes you want to play well the year before a star rookie is due to enter the league because if plenty of teams are recruiting him, it probably helps to have a recent history of winning. But it also dulls the potential for bad veteran contracts (are you really giving Luol Deng $18 million per year when that money could get you a top draft prospect?), and allows teams to rebuild extremely quickly if they manage their cap correctly (take Chicago, for instance. They're currently slated to have over $50 million in cap space assuming all of their options end up declined. If they wanted to rebuild, they could sign two rookies for the max, then Butler for more young guys, and theoretically jump right into the rebuild immediately.) I think this would be the best option if the goal was solely to remove tanking, and I don't like individual salary restriction in any form (whether it be rookies or max guys, let the market determine what someone is worth).

    But of course, I'm not against tanking so this is all moot for me. Just an interesting hypothetical conversation I suppose.
    POOP

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    17,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinnsanity View Post
    No more lottery, just make the order strictly by record like the NFL and MLB (funny how teams in those leagues never get accused of tanking). Just let the objectively worst teams get the best young players.
    MLB teams are not "accused" of tanking because they advertise it. The MLB has a whole market built around the bad teams selling off their future free agents to teams that are trying to contend.

    It's funny because MLB teams also have regular rest for their players and nobody complains about that either but in the NBA it's some form of heresy to rest a player.

    NFL teams tank too, it's just that there are so few games it's harder to tell, and in fact when playoff teams have nothing to win late in the season they often rest their best players ... but teams and fans do complain about that.
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    17,938
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The problem with not weighting the odds for the #1 overall pick is under the system outlined in the OP, you'd have teams tanking to avoid the playoffs. Currently in the West: Denver, Portland, Dallas and Minnesota are all fighting for the 8th seed. If they could have an equal shot at the #1 pick as Brooklyn they would all be tanking to avoid the playoffs.
    Agreed.
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    17,938
    I think doing away with the draft and replacing it with some sort of ongoing balancing process so the same team doesn't keep getting the blue chip players.
    MacLean's Law: Everywhere you go there will be a jerk. Corrolary: If you go somewhere by yourself you become a jerk.

    I don't care where anyone chooses to go in free agency. I really don't. Yes, KD "broke" the NBA for a year or two, but I can't blame him for going to the team that fit what he wanted.

    The worst part about the Warriors winning is that now I can't have an opinion without being a "homer" or a "hater". It used to be that dialogue had merit independent of accusations.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    21,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinnsanity View Post
    This is a significant point. It would probably reduce tanking slightly, but there would certainly be an element of just moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    If you want to remove tanking entirely, you have to create a system in which teams do not have any control over the value of their own assets, i.e, a team can make it's own first round pick more valuable by tanking. That leaves two realistic options:

    First, you have the wheel, where draft picks are pre-determined for a 30-year period. There are a lot of problems with it, most notably the idea that a team could get the first pick in a year where they already had a superstar, it gives big market teams a built in advantage, and it makes the trading of draft picks far more complicated (theoretically speaking, for example, every team would have a No. 1 overall pick to trade at some point in the cycle, and how soon that pick comes up would be totally random. Could a team trade the No. 1 pick 20 years in the future to a team for an immediate superstar?). I generally don't think the wheel is viable, but if the sole goal is removing tanking entirely, it's probably the best bet.

    The other is making all rookies unrestricted free agents and letting teams pay up to the first bracket max for them. If Brooklyn wants to pay Lonzo Ball $25 million per year before he ever plays an NBA game, why not let them? And if the Spurs are prepared to gut their team to get Markelle Fultz, what's wrong with that? Who wouldn't enjoy Fultz on the Spurs? There's something really appealing about letting any team have access to any prospect. It makes scouting that much more important. This removes any incentive to tank, and in fact, it probably makes you want to play well the year before a star rookie is due to enter the league because if plenty of teams are recruiting him, it probably helps to have a recent history of winning. But it also dulls the potential for bad veteran contracts (are you really giving Luol Deng $18 million per year when that money could get you a top draft prospect?), and allows teams to rebuild extremely quickly if they manage their cap correctly (take Chicago, for instance. They're currently slated to have over $50 million in cap space assuming all of their options end up declined. If they wanted to rebuild, they could sign two rookies for the max, then Butler for more young guys, and theoretically jump right into the rebuild immediately.) I think this would be the best option if the goal was solely to remove tanking, and I don't like individual salary restriction in any form (whether it be rookies or max guys, let the market determine what someone is worth).

    But of course, I'm not against tanking so this is all moot for me. Just an interesting hypothetical conversation I suppose.
    I agree those seem like the only real ways to completely eliminate tanking but the second option where Rookie's become UFA is the same model that was crippling the NFL and forced them to institute a rookie pay scale, because Rookies ended up getting so much money that it almost became a detriment to get a top pick.

    A common complaint about FA is that owners and GMs pay too much for players, imagine that problem except now with rookies. Eventually teams would be paying 10th pick of the draft caliber players like $10 million a year without ever seeing them play.

    Not to mention that the Players union would likely never go for that scenario because it'd be taking cap and money that would be used on veterans and giving it to rookies instead.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    49,953
    Quote Originally Posted by NJBASEBALL22 View Post
    I don't know if it because I am a bitter Nets fan (though my new model doesn't affect trades) or if the Draft has just gotten boring.

    But my proposal would be:
    •Total draft- 1 round
    •The teams that don't make the playoffs (the lottery teams) go into a full same odds lottery. 1-16. This prevents tanking (hopefully)
    •those are the only picks.
    So one round, 16 picks thats it. all remaining rookies enter the new Rookie Free Agency Pool.

    This works like the MLB. Each team is allotted a cap 'X' for this Rookie FA Pool (similar to mlb's international FA) and can sign whoever many they can without going over. I would propose that picks 1-16 to not get factored into that cap. Also the Rookie FA cap goes not affect the teams salary cap.

    I like it because it gives smart teams the advanged, especially if they sucked. So say the Nets (for example) land at 2. So they get the second overall pick plus now they can sign 2 more guys that would be in the 16-22 range that can still be valuable pieces.

    One negative is that it significantly hurts trade movement as picks wont be as valuable or available
    Biggest issue is players telling teams to not draft them so they can sign with whatever team they want after the draft. This is a capped league. So teams like the Lakers, Warriors, and Cavs are going to get the best players almost immediately.

    Brogdan wouldn't be on the Bucks, a team that needs him. Jokic wouldn't be on the Nuggets.

    Rodney Hood, a perfect player for the Jazz certainly wouldn't be there.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    MLB teams are not "accused" of tanking because they advertise it. The MLB has a whole market built around the bad teams selling off their future free agents to teams that are trying to contend.

    It's funny because MLB teams also have regular rest for their players and nobody complains about that either but in the NBA it's some form of heresy to rest a player.

    NFL teams tank too, it's just that there are so few games it's harder to tell, and in fact when playoff teams have nothing to win late in the season they often rest their best players ... but teams and fans do complain about that.
    Nice try... the MLB season is twice as long as the NBA and teams NEVER rest 3 of their best players for any game much less a game on national TV. One of the WORST comparisons I've seen. The NBA is a joke and if you can't see that you're either in denial or clueless.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    6,872
    I've posted this idea several times...my idea for the draft.

    If you win the lottery, you cannot be top 3 for the next 3 years, 2nd pick means 2 years, 3rd pick means the following year you cannot be top 3.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    49,953
    Quote Originally Posted by PhillyFaninLA View Post
    I've posted this idea several times...my idea for the draft.

    If you win the lottery, you cannot be top 3 for the next 3 years, 2nd pick means 2 years, 3rd pick means the following year you cannot be top 3.
    I like that better

    Or just have every team that misses the playoffs with an equal lottery odd for those picks. And no more draft pick trading.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •