PDA

View Full Version : Hoop Idea: Changing the Draft



topdog
10-13-2012, 07:06 PM
I just saw this posted on ESPN.com and honestly think it's a very intriguing idea as to how to change the draft that we all seem to find fault with:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8494562

If you don't feel like watching all 8 minutes, here's a quick hit of the idea of Draft "Slots" replacing Draft "Picks:

1. Every team recieves a salary exception to sign one rookie free agent per "slot" they own. Worse teams get larger exceptions, but all teams are able to negotiate with all rookies to sign with them.

2. Because a high pick does not guarantee that a rookie free agent will sign with your team, there is no need for a Draft Lottery and less reason for tanking (unless you think the difference in $$$ will overcome the poor culture of a losing team)

3. Players have a say in where they go and are more likely in theory to sign extensions once their rookie contract is up. The "hometown" discount comes into play as does the idea of "fit" and other elements such as playing time available.

4. Rookies may be tempted to sign with the best teams but have to consider that they could make as little as $2.8M over a 4 year contract by doing so (an injury could make that all you ever make).

5. Bad teams may be at risk of losing out on the top talent, but they system serves as reinforcement to run franchises well in order to convince free agent rookies to sign while also providing a monetary edge that some will not be able to resist.

Anyone who wants to site large market endorsement deals as bridging the earning gap of signing for a top team with a low slot should check out post #50 for a summary or click this link: http://www.welcometoloudcity.com/2011/6/16/2227624/2011s-richest-nba-players-lebron-james-kobe-bryant-top-list

Only the top 10 talent in the entire league can make enough in endorsements to disregard league pay and there does not appear to be any significant difference in endorsement earnings by size of market.

topdog
10-13-2012, 07:10 PM
There are a few examples of how things might have turned out the last few years had draft "slots" been in place:

1. Ignoring the lottery results that set the order, Evan Turner and the Timberwolves supposedly had mutual interest, but he was the concensus #2 pick and the Wolves had the 4th pick. The franchise could have potentially persuaded him to take slightly less money in order to come into a situation where he'd be the starting SG on a re-building team.

2. There were questions about whether Ricky Rubio would have come over back in '09 if he had either been selected higher or went to a large market like New York. Under this system, New York could have possibly bargained for Rubio's services and he could be entering his 3rd year by now (perhaps).

P Harvy
10-13-2012, 07:12 PM
Well this completely screws the cities where no one wants to play basketball

OKC
10-13-2012, 07:18 PM
yes because big market teams are in shortage of talent.
great idea.

PurpleJesus
10-13-2012, 07:19 PM
sounds interesting, but a lot of the best talent would be persuaded to sign with the best teams.

And the cheap teams, who are forced into giving players contracts, would possibly just not get any more talent, and let players slip through.

SINCESTARBURY25
10-13-2012, 07:23 PM
Being A knick fan I like this

Ebbs
10-13-2012, 07:25 PM
I don't know I didn't watch the video but what's the max you can offer?

Lets say this happens last year. And Anthony Davis says hmm I can sign for 2.8 million and go play for the Heat.

LeBron
Ray Allen
Dwyane Wade
Anthony Davis
Chris Bosh

He wins multiple rings on that team than still gets paid after his deal is up.

I don't think this is the answer.

abe_froman
10-13-2012, 07:31 PM
top picks get money other than official salary,nike will pay them more to play mia,ny,la than to go to a bottom feeding team like new orleans that needs the help

love that every idea fans come up with to "fix the draft" all involve a way to get top pick talents to contenders

Becks2307
10-13-2012, 07:33 PM
top picks get money other than official salary,nike will pay them more to play mia,ny,la than to go to a bottom feeding team like new orleans that needs the help

love that every idea fans come up with to "fix the draft" all involve a way to get top pick talents to contenders

exactly,

endorsement deals can offset any apparent monetary advantage deals that small markets may have thus rendering this whole thing flawed.

kozelkid
10-13-2012, 07:36 PM
top picks get money other than official salary,nike will pay them more to play mia,ny,la than to go to a bottom feeding team like new orleans that needs the help

love that every idea fans come up with to "fix the draft" all involve a way to get top pick talents to contenders

This.

Let's be honest guys, the contracts that players sign to their teams is only a fraction of what they make relative to endorsements. As Abe correctly said, Anthony Davis could go to NO and make say 8mil a year (pulling the figures out of my ***), or he can go to CHI/NY/LA and make 2.8mil a year but sign an additional monster contract with Nike/Reebok/Adidas/etc. for possibly 10+mil a year. Along with other minor deals.

It's fun to think about these ideas, but the fact is that NBA contracts pale in comparison to endorsement deals. In other words, big markets will always feast on talent. Sad fact of life and this will never change as NBA is a star driven league vs leagues like MLB, NFL and NHL.

jon32
10-13-2012, 07:37 PM
great we can make a 5 or 6 team league of the Lakers , heat, Celtics, Bulls , Nets and maybe the Clippers. This would Likely create a extremely lopsided league talent wise. The big NBA teams d-league affiliate would prob be talented enough to beat teams like new orleans or the wizards n ****

ldawg
10-13-2012, 07:38 PM
What ever they can do to cut back on tanking i am up for it. Tanking and Flopping Imo are in the same boat.

bholly
10-13-2012, 07:38 PM
I think this would lead to worse problems than tanking. Either the amount the worse teams can offer has to be way more than the better teams, in which case salaries are going to spiral and there's going to be a lot of busts on much bigger contracts than they would have otherwise, or the difference in offers won't be that great and the best players are all going to go to the biggest markets.
Relative to either of those, bad teams playing worse (aka tanking) isn't really that big of a problem, to me.

MrfadeawayJB
10-13-2012, 08:02 PM
Bad for small market teams

Raps18-19 Champ
10-13-2012, 08:10 PM
Nah. That's stupid.

There's nothing wrong with the draft. All we need is a hard cap.

dhopisthename
10-13-2012, 08:19 PM
this might be the worst idea ever. no one would ever sign with a team like the jazz, bucks, twolves. All of the top guys would just go straight to a team like the lakers where their shoe contract would more than make up the difference

knicks=love
10-13-2012, 08:20 PM
this would screw over the NBA quickly with the loss of a lot of fans

topdog
10-13-2012, 09:23 PM
If this can't work, then it's an editorial on the lack of character in players these days. Not every player wants to be handed a title or simply play for endorsements. I think there is legitimate reason to think that some of the better players like Rose and Durant would want to play for their home teams and lead their own team to victory.

Additionally, if you are not a featured player, you're endorsement opportunities go down. Anthony Davis on the Heat has to wait in line behind Lebron, Wade, and Bosh for his stats and glory which translates to less exposure and lower payouts.

topdog
10-13-2012, 09:34 PM
Let's not pretend like NBA players aren't motivated to get the biggest contract that they can. Miami's Big 3 took a paycut to make $17M a year. How many rookies are going to be satisfied with a 4yr./$2.8M contract and 4th rate endorsements along with constant ridicule from their home state because they chose "the easy way out" over playing for the home team?

Oh, and as far as super teams (which we already have), they still are restricted by luxury tax and the cap so they may simply develop young players for other teams to sign later once the rookie deal is up.

Cal827
10-13-2012, 09:47 PM
I'd love that for about two years. Bring Wiggins to ****ing Toronto :dance:

Honestly though, in many cases, this would end badly. Most guys would go to markets where they can get tons of money (at least in the beginning). I guess the good thing, is when the bigger markets are about to get another young great player, they would be forced to trade the guy they are replacing to another, likely smaller market team. For example, if Anthony Davis went to MIA, they probably would look for a deal to send Bosh out.

But the time it takes for the superteams to trickle down talent would take too long for most casual fans to remain caring about the sport... also the trickled down talent might be older and on the downside, which again would likely put them at a disadvantage.

topdog
10-13-2012, 10:06 PM
I'd love that for about two years. Bring Wiggins to ****ing Toronto :dance:

Honestly though, in many cases, this would end badly. Most guys would go to markets where they can get tons of money (at least in the beginning). I guess the good thing, is when the bigger markets are about to get another young great player, they would be forced to trade the guy they are replacing to another, likely smaller market team. For example, if Anthony Davis went to MIA, they probably would look for a deal to send Bosh out.

But the time it takes for the superteams to trickle down talent would take too long for most casual fans to remain caring about the sport... also the trickled down talent might be older and on the downside, which again would likely put them at a disadvantage.

How many of the league's top coaches are big on playing rookies though?

Another question: When's the last time the Lakers have drafted anybody that's anybody? They always trade their picks for someone once they've become someone. I don't see much difference in how the large markets will still have the best chance to get players either way.

jerellh528
10-13-2012, 10:09 PM
they just need to get rid of the lottery and give the #1 pick to the worst team and so forth like the NFL

dtmagnet
10-13-2012, 10:54 PM
Terrible idea.

kozelkid
10-13-2012, 10:59 PM
Nah. That's stupid.

There's nothing wrong with the draft. All we need is a hard cap.

This x1000.

Not that it will COMPLETELY stop stars from going to big market teams, but it will certainly stem the movement.

Bramaca
10-13-2012, 11:22 PM
It's a different approach to the draft. More interesting then a lot of ideas I have heard but like some others have said it has some serious downside.

IndyRealist
10-14-2012, 12:58 AM
Ideas like this will never work as long as there's a rookie salary scale. Top rookies are underpaid for 4 years, no matter what. So why wouldn't they go to the better teams/cities and make huge endorsement money?

IndyRealist
10-14-2012, 01:07 AM
If this can't work, then it's an editorial on the lack of character in players these days. Not every player wants to be handed a title or simply play for endorsements. I think there is legitimate reason to think that some of the better players like Rose and Durant would want to play for their home teams and lead their own team to victory.

Additionally, if you are not a featured player, you're endorsement opportunities go down. Anthony Davis on the Heat has to wait in line behind Lebron, Wade, and Bosh for his stats and glory which translates to less exposure and lower payouts.

But with rookie scale contracts, the bump in endorsements from being in LA, even if it's smaller than if he were the star player there, vastly outweighs the difference in contract sizes.

If you were a doctor fresh out of Harvard Med and top of your class, you COULD go work at a free clinic in Detroit for $40k/yr where they really need you, or you could go work for a top program at Cedar-Sinai in LA and make $800k/yr. Which would you choose?

Hellcrooner
10-14-2012, 01:30 AM
yes, ive thought bout this thing too many times.

BUT the catch is, that nba should come to an arrangemente wiit sponsors in order that they dont bypass the rules with them.

Sssmush
10-14-2012, 01:35 AM
HAHA.

Small market teams will NEVER agree to this plan.

"Yeah, we're gonna change the rules so that if you draft a player, he can still sign wherever he wants, but in compensation we will grant you the right to pay the player way more money."

Players free to go where they want, AND you have to pay them more to get them. The two things that drive small market teams bonkers.

The only way to make the draft fair and prevent tanking is to have EVERY team in the draft lottery, and draw for the first 10 picks, no exceptions.

So, Miami gets one lottery ball, Clippers get 30. Charlotte gets 29, N.O. gets 28, etc.

Then draw ten times for the first ten picks, each team has a chance for one slot for every 1st round pick they got.

That way, teams won't tank for the "first" lottery pick, because even if they finish last in the NBA, they would only get one extra lotto ball, not be guaranteed at least a top 3 pick.

Lottery is to stop tanking. So, run the lottery like its supposed to be run. This has the added benefit of allowing top notch players to get lucky sometimes and wind up on the premiere teams, instead of always being hidden away on the low profile teams.

topdog
10-14-2012, 02:06 AM
But with rookie scale contracts, the bump in endorsements from being in LA, even if it's smaller than if he were the star player there, vastly outweighs the difference in contract sizes.

If you were a doctor fresh out of Harvard Med and top of your class, you COULD go work at a free clinic in Detroit for $40k/yr where they really need you, or you could go work for a top program at Cedar-Sinai in LA and make $800k/yr. Which would you choose?

1. You majorly exaggerate your point. The difference between a clinic and a high-class hospital isn't at all comparable to the difference between NBA franchises. A better comparison would be something along the lines of being Dr. Oz or a regular whatever the heck kind of doctor he is.

2. Again, why did Carmelo have to have his $19M max contract or Deron Williams his $17M max contract if New York is such a great endorsement market and that trumps everything else?

3. People act as if every top player in their draft class automatically gets huge endorsement deals and would get larger ones in larger markets. This is not true. You have to consider star power and market saturation. Is Tim Duncan a great player? Now, is he the poster boy for what you want to sell? How about Miami - how popular is Bosh in relation to how popular he was in Toronto? It starts becoming a thing where if Bosh is the face of your product people ask "So they couldn't get Lebron or Wade?"

broncosfan4eva
10-14-2012, 02:07 AM
Turrible (Barkley voice)
Even being a laker fan would essentially knock small market teams out

Kevj77
10-14-2012, 03:02 AM
If anything I would just get rid of the lottery and have the teams get picks based on how they finish. The people saying you could make up the lost money from endorsements are exaggerating bigtime. I actually watched the entire video, but just watch the first couple minutes and do some math if you want an idea of the kind of money players would give up playing for good teams.

He said the worst team could offer 6.5 million dollars and the top team Miami could offer 700 thousand dollars.

(6,500,000-700,000)/30 = $193,333

So each slot has about $200,000 less to offer than the higher team. Yearly raises on rookie contracts are based off of base salary in the rookie year. Just to make it simple lets not even use raises. If a rookie contract is four years 6,500,000*4 = $26,000,000 or 700,000*4 = $2,800,000.

Is a rookie that could be a lottery pick going to give up over twenty million dollars to sign with a contender. Another point he brought up was playing time.

I actually think this would benefit teams in the 5-10 range. Taking 1 or 2 million less per year to sign with a team that has playing time and a young core that will be around seems more likely.

Think if the Wolves had this exception last year with their finish Love is 24 and Rubio is 21 they could offer any rookie 4.5 mil per year. I'm not saying they could end up with the best player, but getting top 5 talent is totally possible and they could offer a starting role with big minute for the right player.

Quinnsanity
10-14-2012, 03:15 AM
Here's my problem. Let's say there's a year with a complete sure fire superstar at #1. Someone like LeBron in '03. He picks the Knicks or Lakers in a heart beat because he knows he'll make up the money in endorsements. This seems like a system that ensures stars pick big market teams.

kozelkid
10-14-2012, 05:42 AM
1. You majorly exaggerate your point. The difference between a clinic and a high-class hospital isn't at all comparable to the difference between NBA franchises. A better comparison would be something along the lines of being Dr. Oz or a regular whatever the heck kind of doctor he is.

Odd point, but whatever.


2. Again, why did Carmelo have to have his $19M max contract or Deron Williams his $17M max contract if New York is such a great endorsement market and that trumps everything else?

More money is obviously better. But that doesn't change the fact that they would still get more money from endorsements with a smaller contract in a big market than vice versa.


3. People act as if every top player in their draft class automatically gets huge endorsement deals and would get larger ones in larger markets. This is not true. You have to consider star power and market saturation. Is Tim Duncan a great player? Now, is he the poster boy for what you want to sell? How about Miami - how popular is Bosh in relation to how popular he was in Toronto? It starts becoming a thing where if Bosh is the face of your product people ask "So they couldn't get Lebron or Wade?"

(A) For every Tim Duncan, there is a Derrick Rose, John Wall, Lebron James, Yao Ming, Blake Griffen, etc. that land a huge endorsement contract immediately. Can't buy this argument. Not to mention, a 4 year college future star like Duncan is EXTREMELY rare. In the last 8-10 drafts, can you name me an actual star prospect that went number one overall that weren't hyped from the get go (Bogut and Bargs don't count. Neither drafts had a hyped out consensus number one guy).

(B) You exaggerate market saturation. Even Bosh has greater endorsement deals in Miami than he did in Toronto. Besides, if already a big market team has 3+ star players, that's already too many. There's at least 6-8 huge market teams (see: Nets, Knicks, Bulls, Heat, Mavs, Lakers, Clippers, Rockets). That's more than enough to leave the rest of the teams in the dust. There aren't THAT many bonafide stars in this league. Maybe 15. Enough to make this idea a detriment for small market teams.

PhillyFaninLA
10-14-2012, 05:58 AM
Personally I'd keep the draft as is, but if you can prove without a doubt a team is tanking they lose their pick.

You don't reward people for playing without heart.

abe_froman
10-14-2012, 06:46 AM
Personally I'd keep the draft as is, but if you can prove without a doubt a team is tanking they lose their pick.

You don't reward people for playing without heart.

your not going to stop tanking(and tanking isnt a bad thing anyways,dunno why people get all upset over it),because your never going to change this equation.is it better to win 40 games every year for 6 years and have a first round ceiling,or win just 20 games one year but win 50+ the 5 years after with a legit title shot? everyone would choose the later

and the only way to get the later is star power.now stars on a whole want the big markets and what they can offer, so only way a small market to get that is grab one and bring them there against their will(aka the draft and taking very high pick)

coming out do you think kd or westbrook would have choosen okc(or the mess that was seattle at the time)over a place like ny or la of their own free will? of course not,so how can you get the finals to okc if they were allowed to choose?

HouRealCoach
10-14-2012, 10:21 AM
I agree.. There is nothing wrong with the draft

Only thing I ask is that they actually show the lottery

IndyRealist
10-14-2012, 11:13 AM
1. You majorly exaggerate your point. The difference between a clinic and a high-class hospital isn't at all comparable to the difference between NBA franchises. A better comparison would be something along the lines of being Dr. Oz or a regular whatever the heck kind of doctor he is.

2. Again, why did Carmelo have to have his $19M max contract or Deron Williams his $17M max contract if New York is such a great endorsement market and that trumps everything else?

3. People act as if every top player in their draft class automatically gets huge endorsement deals and would get larger ones in larger markets. This is not true. You have to consider star power and market saturation. Is Tim Duncan a great player? Now, is he the poster boy for what you want to sell? How about Miami - how popular is Bosh in relation to how popular he was in Toronto? It starts becoming a thing where if Bosh is the face of your product people ask "So they couldn't get Lebron or Wade?"

1) Most general practitioners make around $120k/yr. Dr. Oz makes millions. And the difference in cities IS that great to NBA players. Would you rather play in Milwaukee where it's -10 in the winter and you get 3ft of snow, or South Beach? I'm not exaggerating at all.

2) Melo was gonna be a max player if for no other reason that bragging rights. But you're telling me that if you could demand $17M/yr, you'd say "You know what, I'm gonna be nice and give back 3 million dollars a year." No, you pocket that $3M and drive off in your Bentley.

3) Wasn't it a $200M difference if Dwight made it to LA or NY? Even if Brooklyn could only offer him $1M/yr he's still making more money there than in Orlando. But again, why turn down money if you don't have to?

The point I'm making is that in a similar situation, you would go where you have the best environment and make the most money. Anybody would. So why go to a dysfunctional Bobcats organization in Charlotte, when you could go to the Lakers in Los Angeles AND make more money?

Charlotte, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Uah, New Orleans, Indiana, Detriot, Toronto, Memphis, San Antonio, Sacramento, and Denver would likely not be able to field competitive teams. They would fold, and the NBA would fold.

IndyRealist
10-14-2012, 11:19 AM
your not going to stop tanking(and tanking isnt a bad thing anyways,dunno why people get all upset over it),because your never going to change this equation.is it better to win 40 games every year for 6 years and have a first round ceiling,or win just 20 games one year but win 50+ the 5 years after with a legit title shot? everyone would choose the later

and the only way to get the later is star power.now stars on a whole want the big markets and what they can offer, so only way a small market to get that is grab one and bring them there against their will(aka the draft and taking very high pick)

coming out do you think kd or westbrook would have choosen okc(or the mess that was seattle at the time)over a place like ny or la of their own free will? of course not,so how can you get the finals to okc if they were allowed to choose?

You can fix tanking. Make it a flat lottery instead of a weighted one. Every team not in the playoffs has a equal chance to get any lottery pick, #1-14. The only tanking that might happen in that situation is with the 8th and 9th seed in each conference. They may tank at the end to drop out of the playoffs. No one else would tank.

And you could mostly eliminate that, as well. Each non-playoff team gets 2 "balls", and each team eliminated in the first round gets 1. So teams that fall to the top seeds still have a shot at top players. The previous advantage to being 9th instead of 8th is sigificantly lessened.

Lakeshow24KB
10-14-2012, 11:28 AM
I agree.. There is nothing wrong with the draft

Only thing I ask is that they actually show the lottery

This.

Manimal
10-14-2012, 11:52 AM
If the idea is to stop tanking and have more contenders for the title, hear this one out.

Have a lottery, only the team with the best record among the 14 lottery teams has the most chance to win it. The better your record, the more chances you have of getting a higher pick.

How does this solve anything you ask?

Rather than teams tanking for a higher draft pick, teams will compete to win. There will be a purpose to matches down the stretch between teams not competing for playoffs.

Contenders:

Let's say for eg. the team with the best record in the lottery like Houston wins the first pick. They don't gut their roster to tank, bit rather keep their team and add Davis and become a playoff threat immediately.

Look at Phoenix for the last two seasons. They have been good, just lacking that little extra that would make them a contender. Now imaging they didn't have to draft Markieff Morris or Kendall Marshall the last 2 years. Instead they had a run at Derrick Willams and MKG. They wouldn't have to trade away Nash, as with the right talent they could still be in contention.

Final Thoughts:

The league rewards the very best with playoff opportunities and the very worst with the right to pick the cream of the crop from the incoming talent. The league is just punishing teams which are good but not quite good enough.

The last time a good team got a number 1 pick. San Antonio Spurs who tanked after Robinson went down. They got Tim Duncan and a dynasty. Wasn't the league better off with Duncan going to San Antonio?

Everybody raves about OKC now, they were a joke for 3 years. And the league rewarded them with Durant, Westbrook and Harden.

Everybody's saying that the Orlando GM is stupid for not getting anything for Dwight Howard. Is he though? Its the only way he can build. Because thats what the league rewards, a very bad team. He could have gotten 3-4 good players for Dwight and remained a team that is decent but not good enough and get punished by the league which rewards bad teams.

Cal827
10-14-2012, 12:05 PM
i agree.. There is nothing wrong with the draft

only thing i ask is that they actually show the lottery

+1

Sssmush
10-14-2012, 11:06 PM
You can fix tanking. Make it a flat lottery instead of a weighted one. Every team not in the playoffs has a equal chance to get any lottery pick, #1-14. The only tanking that might happen in that situation is with the 8th and 9th seed in each conference. They may tank at the end to drop out of the playoffs. No one else would tank.

And you could mostly eliminate that, as well. Each non-playoff team gets 2 "balls", and each team eliminated in the first round gets 1. So teams that fall to the top seeds still have a shot at top players. The previous advantage to being 9th instead of 8th is sigificantly lessened.

Yes, something like that, exactly.

The beauty of the system is that for each slot lower that a team might theoretically "tank" they would only get one or two extra lottery balls, which would make the value of tanking quite marginal.

And for the teams between 8th and 9th in their conference, as you point out, the value of tanking is nullified by the equally valuable (for coaches and GMs) chance to appear in the playoffs. And the difference could be further smoothed out by granting playoff teams a single lottery ball or something like that, as you suggest.

Yeah, the irony is that they implemented the lotto to stop the tanking, then right away the bad teams started complaining that the lottery was too random, so gradually they've weighted it more and more and more, to where there's not much difference to just giving the top few of picks to the 4 worst teams or whatever.

JNA17
10-14-2012, 11:14 PM
Just get rid of the lottery and give the #1 pick to the worst team like the NFL.

Not that hard.

topdog
10-14-2012, 11:58 PM
I'd like someone to pull up some endorsement stats since so many people are arguing that players can make up the $23M difference between the top slot contract and the 30th.

I will also add that this system change would help teams in the middle of the pack who need one last piece to make them serious contenders for the playoffs or even a championship.

topdog
10-15-2012, 12:13 AM
1) Most general practitioners make around $120k/yr. Dr. Oz makes millions. And the difference in cities IS that great to NBA players. Would you rather play in Milwaukee where it's -10 in the winter and you get 3ft of snow, or South Beach? I'm not exaggerating at all.

The difference between a clinic and a hospital is nothing like the difference in facilities from one team to another. In the doctor analogy, location is no different than in real life so California versus Detroit is a legitimate decision for both but clinic vs. hospital is not. I say Doctor Oz because much of his money is made from what he does outside the hospital just as endorsements require work outside of league play. Both are based off of performance at the primary job though - league play/hospital performance.


2) Melo was gonna be a max player if for no other reason that bragging rights. But you're telling me that if you could demand $17M/yr, you'd say "You know what, I'm gonna be nice and give back 3 million dollars a year." No, you pocket that $3M and drive off in your Bentley.

If it mean I can have an actual real center on my team, then "yes" I will take less. My point is: show me some proof for this argument I keep hearing about endorsements. Show me what Anthony Davis, Bradley Beal, Kyrie Irving, Derrick Williams or someone like that is raking in now. Use examples further back if you have to, but give me some proof along the lines of the contracts which support my argument.


3) Wasn't it a $200M difference if Dwight made it to LA or NY? Even if Brooklyn could only offer him $1M/yr he's still making more money there than in Orlando. But again, why turn down money if you don't have to?

The point I'm making is that in a similar situation, you would go where you have the best environment and make the most money. Anybody would. So why go to a dysfunctional Bobcats organization in Charlotte, when you could go to the Lakers in Los Angeles AND make more money?

Charlotte, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Uah, New Orleans, Indiana, Detriot, Toronto, Memphis, San Antonio, Sacramento, and Denver would likely not be able to field competitive teams. They would fold, and the NBA would fold.

I will re-iterate first: prove it. Show me the money! What rookie in history is pulling in endorsements so large in the large market they were drafted that a comparable player didn't get in a smaller one.

If I'm from Charlotte, I'm certainly going to consider playing for the hometeam like kids at least used to dream of. I'll consider all the more if they guarantee me $24M+. Or, if I've idolized KG my whole life, maybe I decide playing with him every day is something I'll take a little bit of a paycut for the experience of doing. Finally, if I'm a talented player without the hype, maybe I want to go to a struggling team that has some parts I can work with and make a name for myself.

Those teams all would still have free agency and trades to make themselves better. There's still a salary cap that prevents teams from just signing all the best players so when rookie contracts are up something would have to give. Why don't more players simply take a veteran's minimum to join up in a large market, make endorsement money and win a quick title if that's what's best for them?

Dade County
10-15-2012, 12:55 AM
I don't know I didn't watch the video but what's the max you can offer?

Lets say this happens last year. And Anthony Davis says hmm I can sign for 2.8 million and go play for the Heat.

LeBron
Ray Allen
Dwyane Wade
Anthony Davis
Chris Bosh

He wins multiple rings on that team than still gets paid after his deal is up.

I don't think this is the answer.

:laugh2:

Hawkeye15
10-15-2012, 01:03 AM
hell no

Steelers23_06
10-15-2012, 01:15 AM
i dont think this is the answer but neither is the lottery. do it like the NFL. why shouldnt the fanbase of the worse team get the pick and plus even if you tanked to get the pick as a franchise you lost so much money the season prior because nobody buys a jersey for a losing team, nobody wants to get tickets to see your game & less money from advertising. and just because you get the number one pick that doesnt mean its a guaranteed stud. look at the 05, 06, 07 draft you had bogut, bargnani & oden who didnt live up to the their spot taken at all. there is no reason CHA shouldnt have got davis they were by far the worst team in the league. N.O. was bad but they had a 20 win season on a short year and have all-star potential in gordon. look at the year rose was drafted the bulls were the 8th worst team in the league. that is sooooo unfair that those 7 teams that were worse missed out on that chance. i mean how much worse could the bobcats have went if they were trying to tank? most teams that are the worse team have that record because they "earned" it or their star got injured and if their star got injured and they were that bad it shows he needs help around him and i think the NBA is way more exciting with good team play then glorified one-on-one matches. like the year oden and KD were drafted BOS slipped all the way to 5 in the draft after having their worst season in team history and had the worst record in the league. which is what pretty much formed the big three but if not we'd be looking at a rondo, pierce, kd, al jefferson lineup that would be just as good as the big 3 imo. so you still would have good basketball resulting from it. idk i just see something fishy about a few people going into closed room and placing the "chances" for a team to win it. im not screaming conspiracy but y not erase the thought especially after numerous complaints from owners, media members and fans.

topdog
10-15-2012, 01:20 AM
Here is a link to the top NBA earners inclucing salary. These numbers are from 2011, but there is a link at the top to Forbes' top 10 NBA earners of 2012:

http://www.welcometoloudcity.com/2011/6/16/2227624/2011s-richest-nba-players-lebron-james-kobe-bryant-top-list

Comparing the lists (the link and Forbes 2012), Carmelo only experienced a $2M boost in endorsements from 2011 to 2012 despite the large market exposure. His total per year was $8M. Kobe made $2M less than Dwight who plays in a much smaller market. The youngest player on the list is Durant and he is considered the second best player in the league by many and so should be considered and outlier.

Sssmush
10-15-2012, 02:09 AM
Just get rid of the lottery and give the #1 pick to the worst team like the NFL.

Not that hard.

But then teams will tank like crazy. Teams will be throwing games from like February forward. It messes up the conference title races.

Steelers23_06
10-15-2012, 02:32 AM
But then teams will tank like crazy. Teams will be throwing games from like February forward. It messes up the conference title races.

so you see this in the NFL? the are still professionals. they have hearts. nobody wants to be the worst. look at indy last year they could have easily coasted to the worst team but the players on that team couldnt go out like that. that hurts your pride to know you were on the worst team in the league. who wants that taste in their mouth for an entire offseason. do you think the wizards who were just awful last season would have lost 14 more games just to get davis?

abe_froman
10-15-2012, 04:31 AM
actually no^ the lotto didnt always exist,there was a time before when it was more like the nfl.tanking was more rampant and obvious than it is now,it was celebrated by fans(cheer after a loss,boo after wins,coaches sitting players,ect.).so worst gets the first pick makes the problem worse

there is no flawless system,no tank proof.there will always be great ,highly touted players and a desire to get them.you cant kill that,and thats what would have to happen to keep it from happening

N3TS
10-15-2012, 04:47 AM
I saw this video as well and it got me thinking, but I think it does more damage to some teams and really benefits the others.

topdog
10-16-2012, 03:05 PM
I hate to bump this, but for as many people as cited endorsement money as canceling out the advantage of the highest slots, no one has responded to the numbers I provided that show this logic to be false.

Melo's only making $8M in endorsements in New York a decade into his career. With this information, has anyone's stance softened?

Sssmush
10-16-2012, 06:06 PM
I hate to bump this, but for as many people as cited endorsement money as canceling out the advantage of the highest slots, no one has responded to the numbers I provided that show this logic to be false.

Melo's only making $8M in endorsements in New York a decade into his career. With this information, has anyone's stance softened?

Yeah, it seems pretty straightforward that only the top 10 or so players will make so much from endorsements that endorsement money becomes a far greater consideration than their player salaries.

But say, Melo making $8M a year in endorsements isn't a good example, because that means that he is making like 40% more than Kevin Love might be playing in Minnesota, for example. Or, if you factor in Love's endorsements, maybe he's making 20% or 30% more, which is still huge.

Anyway you slice it, being an NBA player/starter is a great career, and opens a lot of doors and opportunities in whatever city you are in, except maybe Salt Lake City or somewhere like that.

BUT, I will say, that for instance a player like Artest or Gasol on the Lakers, or going another level down, say like Jordan Hill or Ebanks on the Lakers, these kind of players aren't really going to make ANY money in endorsements playing in Portland or Milwaukee or whatever. But on the Lakers, just because they are part of that Laker aura and are out there on the big stage and part of the big team, they will actually have some opportunities to do endorsements, they will be a lot more famous and in today's world fame is worth money.

I mean, case in point, Lamar Odom became a reality TV star. If he had been playing in Dallas or Charlotte all along, he never would've become that famous to be able to market (some would say whore) himself that way. Odom is really as good a player as Jason Terry for instance, and there are dozens and dozens of anonymous players who are far better than Lamar Odom. But, Odom got the exposure and the fame and the money, because he was playing mediocre but he was playing on the LAKERS. And the Lakers are Los Angeles.

Gram
10-16-2012, 06:14 PM
Nah. That's stupid.

There's nothing wrong with the draft. All we need is a hard cap.

This.

JNA17
10-16-2012, 06:18 PM
But then teams will tank like crazy. Teams will be throwing games from like February forward. It messes up the conference title races.

We don't see teams tanking in the NFL so how would we see this in the NBA? The whole teams will tank bs is a myth and nothing more.

topdog
10-16-2012, 08:06 PM
Yeah, it seems pretty straightforward that only the top 10 or so players will make so much from endorsements that endorsement money becomes a far greater consideration than their player salaries.

But say, Melo making $8M a year in endorsements isn't a good example, because that means that he is making like 40% more than Kevin Love might be playing in Minnesota, for example. Or, if you factor in Love's endorsements, maybe he's making 20% or 30% more, which is still huge.

Anyway you slice it, being an NBA player/starter is a great career, and opens a lot of doors and opportunities in whatever city you are in, except maybe Salt Lake City or somewhere like that.

BUT, I will say, that for instance a player like Artest or Gasol on the Lakers, or going another level down, say like Jordan Hill or Ebanks on the Lakers, these kind of players aren't really going to make ANY money in endorsements playing in Portland or Milwaukee or whatever. But on the Lakers, just because they are part of that Laker aura and are out there on the big stage and part of the big team, they will actually have some opportunities to do endorsements, they will be a lot more famous and in today's world fame is worth money.

I mean, case in point, Lamar Odom became a reality TV star. If he had been playing in Dallas or Charlotte all along, he never would've become that famous to be able to market (some would say whore) himself that way. Odom is really as good a player as Jason Terry for instance, and there are dozens and dozens of anonymous players who are far better than Lamar Odom. But, Odom got the exposure and the fame and the money, because he was playing mediocre but he was playing on the LAKERS. And the Lakers are Los Angeles.

As far as market though, Melo went from making $6M in Denver to $2M in New York. So, while $2M is obviously more money (25% more), it's not the difference between a top slot and a bottom one in regards to this draft idea.

You also bring up a point that is a positive for players but perhaps a negative for teams - fame off the court can distract players or give them delusions of grandeur.

Sssmush
10-17-2012, 01:37 AM
We don't see teams tanking in the NFL so how would we see this in the NBA? The whole teams will tank bs is a myth and nothing more.

Yeah, uh, I did a bit of research about the events that led up to the implementation of the NBA draft lottery, and apparently there were some very overt, extreme instances of tanking.

The NBA is a much different beast than the NFL, because an NFL will have 40 or so players on its roster, and needs to fill a ton of positions, whereas in the NBA one single player can make a huge difference.

Just consider all the drama about Lebron and "The Decision" and that sort of thing. Cleveland was well aware that not only was Lebron PERSONALLY responsible for 20+ extra victories in Cleveland, but he was also personally responsible for $100M - $200M dollars or more a year of extra revenue through TV, playoffs, gear, advertiising, etc.

So, would you trash your season and tank to get the #1 quarterback in the NFL? I don't know, maybe you should ask the Indianapolis Colts, who didn't mind having one of the worst seasons in NFL history in order to draft Jeremy Luck or whatever his name is.

But in general, with the NFL it isn't as bad, because once you get below the top 1 or 2 players, there's usually not an automatic hall of fame player there. And also in the NFL it is very dangerous to not go all out.

But in the NBA... you can't tell me that if everyone knew that Lebron or Shaq or Kobe was in the draft next year, that all the non-playoff teams wouldn't be shaving some wins off here and there hoping to drop lower. They certainly won't be making mid-season deals and that kind of thing trying to win more games.

Basically any NBA team except the Lakers and the Celtics would tank if they were in position to do so.

JNA17
10-17-2012, 02:48 AM
Yeah, uh, I did a bit of research about the events that led up to the implementation of the NBA draft lottery, and apparently there were some very overt, extreme instances of tanking.

Would love to see this research. :)

The NBA is a much different beast than the NFL, because an NFL will have 40 or so players on its roster, and needs to fill a ton of positions, whereas in the NBA one single player can make a huge difference.

Yes and No. It is very different with the NBA. Yes, the NFL is much more of a team sport than the NBA. But your kidding yourself if you think one great player doesn't make a huge difference, especially with the example of a team you gave below. It is a bigger difference with the NBA but not that wide of a margin either.

Just consider all the drama about Lebron and "The Decision" and that sort of thing. Cleveland was well aware that not only was Lebron PERSONALLY responsible for 20+ extra victories in Cleveland, but he was also personally responsible for $100M - $200M dollars or more a year of extra revenue through TV, playoffs, gear, advertiising, etc.

The economy was based around Lebron James. Got it, what's the point?

So, would you trash your season and tank to get the #1 quarterback in the NFL? I don't know, maybe you should ask the Indianapolis Colts, who didn't mind having one of the worst seasons in NFL history in order to draft Jeremy Luck or whatever his name is.

Colts didn't have anybody that year and were old. We all knew before that season that the Colts were going to suck, and they did. If they tanked, they would have went 0-16. You also gave a great example of how much Payton Manning meant to the Colts and how much of a difference he makes.

But in general, with the NFL it isn't as bad, because once you get below the top 1 or 2 players, there's usually not an automatic hall of fame player there. And also in the NFL it is very dangerous to not go all out.

Very confused by this statement...don't know what your saying here honestly lol.

But in the NBA... you can't tell me that if everyone knew that Lebron or Shaq or Kobe was in the draft next year, that all the non-playoff teams wouldn't be shaving some wins off here and there hoping to drop lower. They certainly won't be making mid-season deals and that kind of thing trying to win more games.

There's a huge problem with your statement here though. Nobody knew guys like Lebron or Kobe (especially Kobe) were going to be the players they are today. It's in general, throwing darts on the wall. And the NBA has quite its fair share with busts and questionable picks. MJ wasn't even the 1st pick either.

In fact, a lot more great players in the history of the NBA have tended not to be the first pick. Again, this only proves how much of a mystery the draft really is. Even if a team tanked, theres no guarantee that the player they want to get is even going to be that good. That applies to every other sport of course but those other sports, don't have the draft lottery now do they? :eyebrow:

Basically any NBA team except the Lakers and the Celtics would tank if they were in position to do so.

Why would just a handful of teams, if even as the example you pointed out, would all tank just to pick 1 player that might not even be good? That's a waste of time for the coaches, players, and the fans. Your also forgetting how big a role pride comes to play. You think coaches and players would actually just not try to play the game they have been playing for their entire lives? Especially the teams that have a legit shot at being playoff contenders?

And what about the fans too? What would be the point in fans buying tickets to see their team if they know their not going to at least try and win the game? No tickets=no sale=no profit=organization crumbles (see the sonics).

In bold.

Sssmush
10-17-2012, 04:22 AM
Indianapolis did tank. They started stripping down before the season, and let themselves suck the whole way.

It's dangerous to not go all out in football because you can get injured sometimes when you're not trying your hardest.

My "research" was just looking up a few articles. You should try it.


In "The Book of Basketball," Simmons takes us back to the heyday of tanking:

With Hakeem and Jordan looming as draft prizes, both the Rockets (blew 14 of their last 17, including 9 their last 10) and Bulls (lost 19 of their last 23, including 14 of their last 15) said, "Screw it, we'll bastardize the sport," and pulled some fishy crap: resting key guys, giving lousy guys big minutes and everything else. Things peaked in Game 81 when a washed-up Elvin Hayes played every minute of Houston's overtime loss to the Spurs. Since none of the other crappy teams owned their picks, only Chicago and Houston controlled their destinies (hence the tanking). ... The unseemly saga spurred the creation of a draft lottery the following season. And even that didn't totally solve the tanking problem; Team Stern has changed the lottery system five times in twenty-four years, and we're probably headed for a sixth soon.

http://www.reclinergm.com/coin-flip-to-lottery-did-the-rockets-tank-to-get-olajuwon/

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-05/news/30365016_1_lottery-frank-layden-roger-goodell

JNA17
10-17-2012, 04:58 AM
Indianapolis did tank. They started stripping down before the season, and let themselves suck the whole way.

It's dangerous to not go all out in football because you can get injured sometimes when you're not trying your hardest.

No, they didn't, and you have no proof otherwise. Please don't me you actually think that team was capable of winning anymore games then they did that season? :facepalm:

My "research" was just looking up a few articles. You should try it.

I do but my research unlike that article doesn't consist of baseless accusations and logical fallancys. There is absolutely nothing in that junk article that proves a team actually attempting to tank.

http://www.reclinergm.com/coin-flip-to-lottery-did-the-rockets-tank-to-get-olajuwon/

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-05/news/30365016_1_lottery-frank-layden-roger-goodell

Same thing with that article, all it is is heresy and explains absolutely nothing. Until an actual team owner and/or GM actually come out and say "yeah, we tanked, You mad?", it's all speculation. Come on you can do better than that.

In boldy.

Sssmush
10-17-2012, 10:30 PM
Same thing with that article, all it is is heresy and explains absolutely nothing. Until an actual team owner and/or GM actually come out and say "yeah, we tanked, You mad?", it's all speculation. Come on you can do better than that.

Uhh, heresy? Seriously?

Anyways , I am willing to take the 2-14 Colts at face value and believe they didn't tank, if that's what they want me to believe, because I always thought they were a sucky franchise. So without Peyton Manning they went back to what they always were, a 2-14 team. Ok? So we're good.

And anyway, Indianapolis managed to take the wrong player, even after paying Peyton Manning like $100M or whatever to not play in 2011, and then leave to go be an All Star in Denver, and reverting back to 2-14.

If they say they didn't tank, if they will swear to it, they fought for all those games down the stretch, if they really believe it, then fine. Let them swear to it then, I don't give a ****.

Colts 2-14, ok.

Wow, they got their little quarterback and now they're 2-3 already, but they still have a chance to lose the next 11 games. I wouldn't put it past them.

And sure, every sportswriter in America seems to think it was obvious that Houston and Chicago (and San Antonio) tanked like muthas to get Hakeem, Jordan, Duncan etc, but if you say that's heresy, then, fine, whatever. I guess nobody ever tanks. why do we need a lottery. The end.

IndyRealist
10-18-2012, 10:28 AM
We don't see teams tanking in the NFL so how would we see this in the NBA? The whole teams will tank bs is a myth and nothing more.

Suck for Luck.

da ThRONe
10-18-2012, 01:39 PM
As a NOLA fan no thank you!

The draft is fine. If I change anything I would get rid of the lotto and just let teams draft in order of awfulness. I would much rather shorten the season to 56 games. So there's less awful basketball. Barring injuries you know what a team is before the all-star game.

As far as tanking I don't think it's as bad as some think. Coaches get fired waaay to easy to tank on purpose in the NBA. I can't see many coaches comfortable enough with their respective teams to tank on purpose. If I play my starters the majority of the season where 16 of 30 teams make the post season and after 60 games we are mathematically eliminate ofcourse I'm going to play my young guys to see what they can offer. It's not tanking it's common sense.