PDA

View Full Version : The NBA Draft: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel?



-Kobe24-TJ19-
12-23-2013, 12:28 PM
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/Headlines/ExternalArticle?articleId=281504

Lol, what the hell :confused:

Jeffy25
12-23-2013, 12:42 PM
I saw this

http://prosportsdaily.com/Headlines/ExternalArticle?articleId=281504

I feel like bad teams would be stuck being bad.

The incentive to not tank doesn't seem to require this.

tcav701
12-23-2013, 01:02 PM
I've never seen a sport that needs contraction more than the current NBA.

cdnsportsfan
12-23-2013, 01:05 PM
Well, this is what happens when you are hitting the 1/3 mark of the season and only three teams in the Eastern Conference sport a winning record while everyone is talking about tanking for the superdraft ahead. It's clear and known that some teams are tanking, and others are actively trying to get to that tanking point. It actually makes the NBA look very bad, in my opinion, when teams appear to be putting themselves in the best possible position to lose.

If the league thinks this looks very bad too you could see a change come to the draft system to discourage it from happening. I don't necessarily see this as all that bad a proposal, kind of interesting in fact. It might be too drastic, however, with the NBA instead changing to tracking records over multiple seasons for lottery rankings or something (that's also an improvement over what's in place now, imo).

Anyways, I do agree with making a change to the current draft lottery, it's flawed and it's showing those flaws right now. There has to be some better option.

shep33
12-23-2013, 01:17 PM
Bad teams need to tank. I think it sucks to do so, but how else are they going to get better? I mean I don't think owners want to tank because they're losing money in ticket and merchandise sales, but if you can get a star player out of the draft that can alter your franchise, then yeah it's worth it.

BKLYNpigeon
12-23-2013, 01:42 PM
One of the blog posters said it best:

let's just say the Raptors own the 2020 pick and the Lakers own the 2021 pick. LBJ2.0 is at Duke for the 2019 season. Since everyone would know where every team is going to draft. You can bet your *** he's gonna stay 1 more year in school to end up in LA.

dhopisthename
12-23-2013, 01:46 PM
that proposal is easily one of the worst I have ever seen

Cal827
12-23-2013, 01:52 PM
One of the blog posters said it best:

let's just say the Raptors own the 2020 pick and the Lakers own the 2021 pick. LBJ2.0 is at Duke for the 2019 season. Since everyone would know where every team is going to draft. You can bet your *** he's gonna stay 1 more year in school to end up in LA.

LBJ 2.0 Might be Canadian after all lol

But this is a very valid point. A player might hold off from declaring for the draft in order to get join a bigger market team, a potentially stacked team (suppose that New York is expected to get 1st overall in 4 years, and by then, they become a title contender/champion. Adding a 1st overall pick might be looked at as an overkill), or they might hold out to play for their home team (if they're slated to pick there the next year).

It also would get rid of the fun of watching teams trade away 1st rounders, then tailspin and have the pick that they gave away slowly rise higher and higher lol

Just set something like a team can be in the top 5 (with their own picks) for drafting for 3 straight years at the most and in the top 3 two years at the most. After two years, they fall to having the 4th pick at the highest, and after 3, they can't have a pick higher than 6th. With 3 picks in the top 5, a team should be able to properly build their team towards playoffs/contention. It gives teams ample opportunity to improve their team, while putting emphasis on additional moves by their GMs.

mike_noodles
12-23-2013, 02:00 PM
This is absolutely the stupidest idea I have ever seen. And that says alot considering I've read most threads in this NBA forum.

They do need to fix the NBA, but this is not how. They need to prevent teams from having multiple super stars on their teams.

JasonJohnHorn
12-23-2013, 02:03 PM
I actually like this.

A team that SUCKED and doesn't have a top-12 pick can still get better by trading a future early pick for a current early pick. If a team like OKC had a high pick (say, 3 or 4), but were maxed out with salary (enough to let a top-5 player like Harden to walk), then they might consider trading their current high pick to a bad team for the 15th pick, so long as they also get the 5th pick in 3 or 4 years.


This makes trading picks WAY easier. And discourages tanking. It also forces GM's to be good talent scouts and shrewd with trades.

I'm not a 100% sold on it, don't get me wrong. Is see potential pitfalls, but I do see benefits.

It is worth looking into. I mean, there are teams that have NEVER gotten the top pick since the lottery... or legitimately horrible teams who finish with the 4th or 5th pick.

Linking losing with rewards is problematic, as is penalizing success.

I'll have to think this over, but my guy says YES!

futureman
12-23-2013, 02:08 PM
It won't work. It will just give the big market teams even more power and cripple smaller markets. The NBA needs the franchise tag.

nickdymez
12-23-2013, 02:09 PM
This is the dumbest idea yet. Anyone who likes this is equally as dumb.

Chronz
12-23-2013, 02:12 PM
It won't work. It will just give the big market teams even more power and cripple smaller markets. The NBA needs the franchise tag.

I agree its stupid but what would a tag do? Isn't it just a lesser version of restricted free agency?

RipCity32
12-23-2013, 02:28 PM
They should just make it where all the lottery teams names go in one big hat. you start picking names out of it one by one with Everyone in the lottery having the same odds.

RipCity32
12-23-2013, 02:29 PM
It won't work. It will just give the big market teams even more power and cripple smaller markets. The NBA needs the franchise tag.

The franchise tag would be a great thing for the NBA and its small markets.

Jeffy25
12-23-2013, 02:33 PM
Well, this is what happens when you are hitting the 1/3 mark of the season and only three teams in the Eastern Conference sport a winning record while everyone is talking about tanking for the superdraft ahead. It's clear and known that some teams are tanking, and others are actively trying to get to that tanking point. It actually makes the NBA look very bad, in my opinion, when teams appear to be putting themselves in the best possible position to lose.

If the league thinks this looks very bad too you could see a change come to the draft system to discourage it from happening. I don't necessarily see this as all that bad a proposal, kind of interesting in fact. It might be too drastic, however, with the NBA instead changing to tracking records over multiple seasons for lottery rankings or something (that's also an improvement over what's in place now, imo).

Anyways, I do agree with making a change to the current draft lottery, it's flawed and it's showing those flaws right now. There has to be some better option.

I think what would make more sense, is as you said it.

Last three years combined records....no lottery.

Just your last three years record in order in reverse.

Chronz
12-23-2013, 02:52 PM
The franchise tag would be a great thing for the NBA and its small markets.

How so?

nickdymez
12-23-2013, 02:55 PM
Getting rid of 4 teams would be a great thing for the NBA and its smaller markets...

Chronz
12-23-2013, 02:59 PM
Getting rid of 4 teams would be a great thing for the NBA and its smaller markets...

Definitely. Problem comes when deciding those teams.

RipCity32
12-23-2013, 03:06 PM
How so?


It would allow a small market to have a franchise player if they choose. Sorta like a Duncan and Spurs type of story. Instead of small markets building up superstars so they can reach they're prime and go team up to give the Lakers they're 100th title.

GottaLoveCubs
12-23-2013, 03:17 PM
This is such a dumb idea. The 3 year thing is interesting but I also don't think that is the solution. If a really good team gets old very quickly (Celtics, Lakers) or a team loses their best player to FA (Orlando, Cleveland) It would take them at least 3 years to get a top 10 pick. So they would be horrible for 3 years till they could even start to rebuild. There is no way to stop tanking in sports. It happens in football (Texans) and in baseball (cubs).

Burkey3472
12-23-2013, 03:24 PM
Worst idea ever.

For all of the people complaining about tanking you'd have the same amount of people complaining about a championship level team getting a top 5 pick in the draft. Plus it might alter a players decision in college. If a player doesn't want to go to a small market and knows that a bigger market(s) are picking at the top of next years draft he might not come out. Same goes for good and bad teams. If said player had the chance to come out right away and go to a crap team or stay another year knowing he'd go to a better team Miami or OKC I'm sure he'd consider it (I certainly would).

kduce
12-23-2013, 03:42 PM
One of the blog posters said it best:

let's just say the Raptors own the 2020 pick and the Lakers own the 2021 pick. LBJ2.0 is at Duke for the 2019 season. Since everyone would know where every team is going to draft. You can bet your *** he's gonna stay 1 more year in school to end up in LA.

I already thought that this whole idea was WAY TO DRASTIC of a change, but this quote right here shows how remarkably stupid it would be to take on this format. I think they need to figure out a way to discourage tanking, but this is not it. Back to the drawing board people!

bholly
12-23-2013, 03:46 PM
Bad idea for many reasons. Awful idea for a few reasons, too.

The biggest point to me is that it originated with a team. It'd probably have to become a real thing for us to find out exactly which team, and that likely won't ever happen, but all my money says it comes from a team that's usually good - someone who doesn't actually care about 'tanking' that much, but wants to use the current furore about it to push through a change that redistributes the lottery wealth away from the bad.

I think the bottom line is that it needs a 3/4 majority to pass, if it even becomes a proper proposal upon which they vote, and I don't think there's much chance of it getting that much support.

The best news in the piece is that many in the league like the "lottery based on past 3 seasons' records" plan.

JordansBulls
12-23-2013, 04:08 PM
If a player knows what team he would go to a year earlier he would opt to stay in school until he can get to the team he wants to go to.

bholly
12-23-2013, 04:10 PM
If a player knows what team he would go to a year earlier he would opt to stay in school until he can get to the team he wants to go to.

Have you ever in your life read a thread before posting?

AllDay28
12-23-2013, 04:17 PM
I like it ...

Bramaca
12-23-2013, 04:22 PM
Getting rid of 4 teams would be a great thing for the NBA and its smaller markets...

Getting rid of 4 small market teams would only compound the problems for the remaining small market teams. The top players will still want to go to the bigger market teams whether you have 26 or 30 teams and won't increase the flow of talent to the smaller markets. On top of that, removing 4 small market teams (likely to be 4 of the lowest revenue teams) the salary cap and luxury tax would go up by millions making it harder for the remaining small markets to make money and compete while giving more room and a benefit to larger market teams.

Bramaca
12-23-2013, 04:27 PM
I think bringing back a form of territorial draft could be beneficial. Although a few things would have to be worked out.

pebloemer
12-23-2013, 04:43 PM
No chance the owners of small market teams would sign up for this change. For some teams, building through the draft is the only way to get quality players to play in their markets. While the proposed change doesn't nullify that possibility, it would certainly make it harder for them to rebuild when they lose their free agents to UFA.

A less drastic change could be helpful and feasible. Just change the probabilities and make the Top 5 picks subject to the lottery instead of just the Top 3.

Instead of 25%, 20%, 15.6%, 11.9% etc., scale it down more gradually. This gives teams that actually try to make the playoffs a better chance of getting a pick (right now the 13th and 14th worst teams have less than 1%chance of getting the pick). Right now the difference between the worst teams odds and the 6th worst teams odds goes from 25% to 6.3%. That is way to much. It doesn't just incentivize being bad, it incentivizes being as bad as possible.

With the Top 5 picks being picked through lottery, it also doesn't guarantee the worst team in the league a Top 4 pick, it is a Top 6 pick instead. Small difference, but more spots in play for the teams that finish in the 16-25 range.

They are small changes, but it keeps the purpose of the lottery intact, while not rewarding tanking so heavily. They are also more feasible.

bholly
12-23-2013, 04:44 PM
I think bringing back a form of territorial draft could be beneficial. Although a few things would have to be worked out.

Except it greatly benefits the large market franchises, and half the point of this stuff (draft, salary cap, etc) is to make it so they don't have such a big advantage.

Jamiecballer
12-23-2013, 04:49 PM
this is absolute genius. imagine the best run teams actually being the most successful ones too.

pebloemer
12-23-2013, 04:53 PM
this is absolute genius. imagine the best run teams actually being the most successful ones too.

What makes you think this would be the case in this system? It would be manipulated just as the current one is. It doesn't change at all external factors such as location, market size, taxes for free agents. It also gives agents and players more foresight into their decisions (ie. the example earlier of a superstar talent staying an extra year in college to play for a preferred destination).

bholly
12-23-2013, 04:57 PM
No chance the owners of small market teams would sign up for this change. For some teams, building through the draft is the only way to get quality players to play in their markets. While the proposed change doesn't nullify that possibility, it would certainly make it harder for them to rebuild when they lose their free agents to UFA.

A less drastic change could be helpful and feasible. Just change the probabilities and make the Top 5 picks subject to the lottery instead of just the Top 3.

Instead of 25%, 20%, 15.6%, 11.9% etc., scale it down more gradually. This gives teams that actually try to make the playoffs a better chance of getting a pick (right now the 13th and 14th worst teams have less than 1%chance of getting the pick). Right now the difference between the worst teams odds and the 6th worst teams odds goes from 25% to 6.3%. That is way to much. It doesn't just incentivize being bad, it incentivizes being as bad as possible.

With the Top 5 picks being picked through lottery, it also doesn't guarantee the worst team in the league a Top 4 pick, it is a Top 6 pick instead. Small difference, but more spots in play for the teams that finish in the 16-25 range.

They are small changes, but it keeps the purpose of the lottery intact, while not rewarding tanking so heavily. They are also more feasible.

I think another change, assuming you're willing to make the scale less steep, is to base lottery odds on your record, not the ranking of your record. Last year, one win made the difference between 25% at the first pick for Orlando, and 19.9% for Charlotte. The year before there were just 2 wins between Brooklyn (7.5% at the top pick, 25.2% at top three) and Washington (19.9% chance at top pick, 55.5% at top 3). Under the current system, there's can be huge value in getting an extra loss or two, which is why teams are willing to hold guys out or shut them down early or whatever.

Instead of ranking the teams based on record, they should just base their odds directly on the record. That way every loss counts directly towards your odds, but it counts such a miniscule amount that there's much less incentive to fight for it. There are a million ways to do it, each with different outcomes - some ways are simply and have a very flat gradient, some ways have a steeper gradient but are much more mathematically complex - but the bottom line is that you substantially decrease the value of each individual loss.

pebloemer
12-23-2013, 05:01 PM
I think another change, assuming you're willing to make the scale less steep, is to base lottery odds on your record, not the ranking of your record. Last year, one win made the difference between 25% at the first pick for Orlando, and 19.9% for Charlotte. The year before there were just 2 wins between Brooklyn (7.5% at the top pick, 25.2% at top three) and Washington (19.9% chance at top pick, 55.5% at top 3). Under the current system, there's can be huge value in getting an extra loss or two, which is why teams are willing to hold guys out or shut them down early or whatever.

Instead of ranking the teams based on record, they should just base their odds directly on the record. That way every loss counts directly towards your odds, but it counts such a miniscule amount that there's much less incentive to fight for it. There are a million ways to do it, each with different outcomes - some ways are simply and have a very flat gradient, some ways have a steeper gradient but are much more mathematically complex - but the bottom line is that you substantially decrease the value of each individual loss.

I fully agree. There are plenty of ways to adjust the current system to account for its flaws rather than introducing a radically different system that will come with new flaws and forget the entire purpose which brought this current system on in the first place.

Bramaca
12-23-2013, 05:10 PM
Except it greatly benefits the large market franchises, and half the point of this stuff (draft, salary cap, etc) is to make it so they don't have such a big advantage.

As I said some things would have to be worked out. A team couldn't use it every year for example, so the Knicks couldn't just keep loading up with the best players from NY and likewise for LA. And if you look at many of the best players in the league they aren't necesarily from the big markets.

Would also have to be a little restrictive financially to keep teams from just using it all the time. A contract that is guarenteed for 5 years and worth much more then the #1 overall pick would keep teams from using it on just anybody.

mike_noodles
12-23-2013, 05:14 PM
After thinking about this for a while and how stupid it is, it made me feel great to know that it cannot be done for at least a few years as teams have traded picks as far away as 2018, with speculation that a 2020 pick could be dealt before this year's deadline. This will never come to fruition.

bholly
12-23-2013, 05:15 PM
I fully agree. There are plenty of ways to adjust the current system to account for its flaws rather than introducing a radically different system that will come with new flaws and forget the entire purpose which brought this current system on in the first place.

Yup. I think using outright records rather than rankings and using combined records from the past three seasons would together go a huge way towards taking the incentives out of tanking. Just a huge amount. And without doing anything radical and taking away from the philosophy that underlies the current system - giving better picks to the worst teams to encourage parity and prevent a system where small market teams can suck until they collapse (and in fact would help in that regard, by rewarding the perpetually bad). That's the fundamental problem - maintaining that philosophy while disincentivizing tanking.

The problem, of course, is that that's not actually the goal for many teams (likely including, I'm guessing, the one that made this proposal) - their goal is to come up with a system that benefits themselves (or reduces the benefits to other teams). Specifically, the teams from big attractive markets, and the teams who're always good, of course don't want a system like the current one that helps the perpetually bad.

If you run a big market, good team, the best possible system for you is no draft, and free agent rookies. That's not happening.
The second best system for you would be where you just buy picks. That's not happening.
The third best system for you would be based on the most wins. That's not happening.
The fourth best system is the wheel - ie every team gets exactly the same picks over time (regardless of record, cap space, etc), and where it's determined ahead of time so that college players can do what they can to get themselves towards the attractive teams.

It's literally the proposal that is best for the big-market, often-good teams, without being blatantly ridiculous. It's stupid, and it's not going to get through the 20 or so teams that don't fit that description.

Jamiecballer
12-23-2013, 05:52 PM
this is absolute genius. imagine the best run teams actually being the most successful ones too.

because it's 100% absolutely the only fair system i've heard. every team can focus on one thing and one thing only - winning as many games as possible. what an incredibly refreshing thought!

b1e9a8r5s
12-23-2013, 06:25 PM
I'd use the 3 year record of the non playoff teams to get their lottery percentages. This would allow the bad teams to get help that they need, but limit teams from tanking in the good draft years.

b1e9a8r5s
12-23-2013, 06:40 PM
because it's 100% absolutely the only fair system i've heard. every team can focus on one thing and one thing only - winning as many games as possible. what an incredibly refreshing thought!

It's not fair, because FAs automatically favor the big markets.

Jamiecballer
12-23-2013, 07:06 PM
It's not fair, because FAs automatically favor the big markets.

it's the definition of fair, which is why you needn't worry because it will never come to be. in order for this to pass 30 owners would have to be able to see past their own current interests and vote for what's best for the long term health of the game. and since there are way more bad teams than real contenders there is almost zero chance of that ever happening.

what does this have to do with free agents?

Bramaca
12-23-2013, 07:22 PM
it's the definition of fair, which is why you needn't worry because it will never come to be. in order for this to pass 30 owners would have to be able to see past their own current interests and vote for what's best for the long term health of the game. and since there are way more bad teams than real contenders there is almost zero chance of that ever happening.

what does this have to do with free agents?

It's fair in the sense that it evens out the draft position of teams. But the teams that generally get the higher picks are the small market teams. So its really benfitting the big market teams more while hurting small market teams ability to get a high end player while doing nothing to address the huge disadvantage small markets have in attracting free agents. This system is better for the teams that are already powerhouses and worse for the teams that are hoping to be better.

bholly
12-23-2013, 07:44 PM
it's the definition of fair, which is why you needn't worry because it will never come to be. in order for this to pass 30 owners would have to be able to see past their own current interests and vote for what's best for the long term health of the game. and since there are way more bad teams than real contenders there is almost zero chance of that ever happening.

The long term health of the game? A system that ignores the inherent advantages that big market, big money, and attractive city teams have, and in fact that increases the probability of the best players maneuvering themselves to the best franchises, is only going to increase the extent to which their are no-hope franchises that can't maintain a fanbase and revenue stream. The entire reason the current system gives the best players to the worst teams is because it promotes parity, which is needed for the league to survive. It's not American Football, or European football, where people will sell out stadiums no matter what. Fans will just ditch their teams and watch other sports if they perpetually have little to no hope. The long term health of the league depends on their being some amount of parity.

Jamiecballer
12-23-2013, 07:50 PM
It's fair in the sense that it evens out the draft position of teams. But the teams that generally get the higher picks are the small market teams.
are we really so sure about that, or is it maybe the poorly run teams and the teams that currently suck. i believe it's more the latter.

...while doing nothing to address the huge disadvantage small markets have in attracting free agents.
i don't know that there will ever be a solution to that. it's a fact of life that people need to just accept imo.

This system is better for the teams that are already powerhouses and worse for the teams that are hoping to be better.
this is shortsighted and the crux of my previous point about why it will never happen anyways. it's a new system, and unfortunately you can't just hit the reset button on the entire league. definitely it initially will benefit a handful of really good teams more than others. but if you are making decisions on what's best for the league you have to be able to look beyond the current crop of teams and players.

that's why it will never happen because unfortunately the people who are most likely to have the leagues best interests at heart will require short-sighted owners to vote in favor. it's a no brainer, it will never happen.

Jamiecballer
12-23-2013, 07:57 PM
The long term health of the game? A system that ignores the inherent advantages that big market, big money, and attractive city teams have, and in fact that increases the probability of the best players maneuvering themselves to the best franchises, is only going to increase the extent to which their are no-hope franchises that can't maintain a fanbase and revenue stream. The entire reason the current system gives the best players to the worst teams is because it promotes parity, which is needed for the league to survive. It's not American Football, or European football, where people will sell out stadiums no matter what. Fans will just ditch their teams and watch other sports if they perpetually have little to no hope. The long term health of the league depends on their being some amount of parity.

the best selling point a league has is the quality of it's play imo. eliminating any incentive to be poor to me is an absolute must. not trying to win, even though it's based on sound logic, has become an incredible embarrassment to the sport. that will hurt the sport much more in the long run imo.

out of curiousity why do you think it increases the probability of players maneuvering themselves to the best franchises?

Bramaca
12-23-2013, 08:09 PM
are we really so sure about that, or is it maybe the poorly run teams and the teams that currently suck. i believe it's more the latter.

i don't know that there will ever be a solution to that. it's a fact of life that people need to just accept imo.

this is shortsighted and the crux of my previous point about why it will never happen anyways. it's a new system, and unfortunately you can't just hit the reset button on the entire league. definitely it initially will benefit a handful of really good teams more than others. but if you are making decisions on what's best for the league you have to be able to look beyond the current crop of teams and players.

that's why it will never happen because unfortunately the people who are most likely to have the leagues best interests at heart will require short-sighted owners to vote in favor. it's a no brainer, it will never happen.

What's shortsighted imo is thinking that this proposal is in the best interest of the league.

nickdymez
12-23-2013, 08:40 PM
Getting rid of 4 small market teams would only compound the problems for the remaining small market teams. The top players will still want to go to the bigger market teams whether you have 26 or 30 teams and won't increase the flow of talent to the smaller markets. On top of that, removing 4 small market teams (likely to be 4 of the lowest revenue teams) the salary cap and luxury tax would go up by millions making it harder for the remaining small markets to make money and compete while giving more room and a benefit to larger market teams.

Well then I cant sit here and feel sorry for thses small markets because its inevitable that they will always suck. Only hope is to make it a 4 team league. LA, NY, CHI, Houston.

Shammyguy3
12-23-2013, 08:54 PM
Houston?

Jamiecballer
12-23-2013, 08:56 PM
What's shortsighted imo is thinking that this proposal is in the best interest of the league.

That's fine. Its your opinion I don't begrudge that. Let's put it this way - all the other issues come after preserving the integrity of the game. That should be first priority IMO.

b1e9a8r5s
12-23-2013, 10:00 PM
what does this have to do with free agents?

I think we all agree that there is certain cities/markets that the big time guys are going to go to and ones they won't. Because of that, the only way the small market teams can compete is through the draft. If this wheel were in place, OKC would have gotten 1 of Durant/Westbrook/Harden and they probably wouldn't have resigned since there wouldn't be talent around them. So the Charolettes and Utahs of the world are never going to be good because the good players they do draft are going to leave anyways in free agency. The only way I would consider this system fair is if they added a franchise tag or something similar so small market teams could keep their star players. Otherwise they will be perpetual doormats. Those teams would have no hope what so ever.

bholly
12-23-2013, 11:08 PM
the best selling point a league has is the quality of it's play imo. eliminating any incentive to be poor to me is an absolute must. not trying to win, even though it's based on sound logic, has become an incredible embarrassment to the sport. that will hurt the sport much more in the long run imo.

Has the quality of play gone down? Bad teams aren't losing any more than they have in the past. There isn't any more polarization than their has been in the past. I'm not sure the quality of play has gone down at all.

And who's tanking? It's such an overblown issue. The Sixers blew it up by trading Jrue, and that's pretty much the only thing that could be considered 'tanking', or that is any different to what teams have done in the past.
Utah let some unrestricted FAs leave so they could focus on the young guys they already have, one of whom they signed to a massive contract and another of whom they want to. You could maybe argue that that's tanking, but I'd like to hear what they could've done that would've been better.
Who else? Nobody?
Boston traded their old guys to get a return on them while they could, like everyone was saing they should, kept their young All Star, and tried very recently to pick up at least one very good win-now player (Asik). They don't really count.
Toronto traded Rudy in a totally standard new-GM-clearing-cap-room move that most people who knew what they were talking about rightly predicted would make them better. They definitely don't count.

Who else is there? There's seriously 2 teams who you could make a serious argument for tanking, and 28 teams who have been trying to improve and, in most cases, have been hoping to make the playoffs, but they just suck. It's a pretend issue. The combination of the Jrue trade and the strong draft class started everyone off, and now they think everything is tanking, without even thinking about it. If it were a weak draft class and everyone did the exact same stuff, nobody would've thought it anything out of the ordinary. What has anyone done that is 'embarrassing'?


out of curiousity why do you think it increases the probability of players maneuvering themselves to the best franchises?

The same reason everyone else has been saying. If you're a high pick and you know exactly who is picking in which spot each year, you could have a pretty huge incentive to wait a year or two more in college until a more desirable team - or one with a bigger market and tens of millions more in endorsement deals - can pick you.
If you're Andrew Wiggins, Julius Randle, Jabari Parker, Dante Exum, Joel Embiid, Marcus Smart, are you going to enter the draft this year knowing that you're probably going to Milwaukee or Utah or Orlando, or are you going to wait until next year when the top 5 is NYK, San Antonio, LAL, Boston, Toronto? No matter how they organize it, there will be years where players have a major incentive to wait. The randomization of the lottery helps remove that.

That's part of what makes this proposal so obviously a 'big team trying to help itself' proposal. If they wanted to get rid of tanking there are a lot of ways to do it without the deterministic thing. The only reason to add it is if you have absolutely no imagination and couldn't think of anything else, or if you know it'll help teams like yours and you like that.

Jamiecballer
12-23-2013, 11:27 PM
The same reason everyone else has been saying. If you're a high pick and you know exactly who is picking in which spot each year, you could have a pretty huge incentive to wait a year or two more in college until a more desirable team - or one with a bigger market and tens of millions more in endorsement deals - can pick you.
If you're Andrew Wiggins, Julius Randle, Jabari Parker, Dante Exum, Joel Embiid, Marcus Smart, are you going to enter the draft this year knowing that you're probably going to Milwaukee or Utah or Orlando, or are you going to wait until next year when the top 5 is NYK, San Antonio, LAL, Boston, Toronto? No matter how they organize it, there will be years where players have a major incentive to wait. The randomization of the lottery helps remove that.
i understand the logic but i doubt very much it would happen that way. most kids wouldn't be stupid enough to risk reaching their dream in order to get a more favorable destination. a lot can happen in a year, serious injury, or other players surpass them in the subsequent year. i'm sure somebody who is far more practical and perhaps has a little more perspective would get in there ear at that point.

don't get me wrong, somebody might try it, but the first time it totally blew up in some kids face would be the last IMO.


That's part of what makes this proposal so obviously a 'big team trying to help itself' proposal. If they wanted to get rid of tanking there are a lot of ways to do it without the deterministic thing. The only reason to add it is if you have absolutely no imagination and couldn't think of anything else, or if you know it'll help teams like yours and you like that.
that's baseless speculation at this point. just because you can't conceive of anybody genuinely thinking the situation needed to be fixed regardless of whether it immediately benefits them or not is more a reflection on you.

NYSpirit1
12-24-2013, 12:08 AM
It won't work. It will just give the big market teams even more power and cripple smaller markets. The NBA needs the franchise tag.

Never will happen. Players will never agree to it. I don't know how the NFL players agreed to it.

bholly
12-24-2013, 01:48 AM
i understand the logic but i doubt very much it would happen that way. most kids wouldn't be stupid enough to risk reaching their dream in order to get a more favorable destination. a lot can happen in a year, serious injury, or other players surpass them in the subsequent year. i'm sure somebody who is far more practical and perhaps has a little more perspective would get in there ear at that point.

don't get me wrong, somebody might try it, but the first time it totally blew up in some kids face would be the last IMO.

There are already a tonne of kids who stay longer in college than they have to, it's not like the entire concept is outlandish - one more (potentially very big) reason to stay could absolutely have a significant effect on what is already a close decision for a lot of guys.


that's baseless speculation at this point. just because you can't conceive of anybody genuinely thinking the situation needed to be fixed regardless of whether it immediately benefits them or not is more a reflection on you.

I can absolutely believe people think the situation needs to be fixed. I'm saying the major difference between this solution and a myriad of others is that this one is the most beneficial to big, attractive teams, to the extent that it's pretty much the perfect system for them (short of a system where you buy picks or just have rookie free agency or whatever). The only other way you come up with this particular solution is if you haven't thought through the issues enough, or you just really really value extreme simplicity over everything else to the extent that you're willing to create these other issues (which is what I meant by lacking imagination).

It's absolutely my speculation, but I feel pretty good about it. Maybe I should've worded it as "part of why this proposal smells so much like" rather than "part of what makes this proposal so obviously" to make it clearer that it was just my own speculation, though, I don't know.

effen5
12-24-2013, 02:22 AM
There is no fix for the issue we are having right now.

Me personally, I'd get rid of 4 teams, and I'd lesson the season by 20 games. Make each game feel even more important then the last so it feels like every team has a shot in the playoffs.

Unfortunately, everyone in the NBA are buddy buddy and want to play with each other. Thanks to the Big 3 in Boston, and now the Big 3 in Miami, it's pretty much ruined the NBA for the immediate future in terms of parity. But then again, there really was no parity in the history of the NBA.

bholly
12-24-2013, 03:08 AM
^How have those two teams ruined parity? Boston had two finals appearances, and had to survive two game 7s and two more game 6s the season they won. Miami had to survive two game 7s last year, and came about as close as you can possibly come to losing the finals and still win. The year before they had to survive a game 7, too.
It's not like those teams have steamrolled the league. Each are considerably lesser dynasties and lesser favourites than we've had for much of the history of the league.

Chronz
12-24-2013, 04:41 AM
It would allow a small market to have a franchise player if they choose. Sorta like a Duncan and Spurs type of story. Instead of small markets building up superstars so they can reach they're prime and go team up to give the Lakers they're 100th title.
If they choose? Just what exactly does the franchise tag do in the NFL? I highly doubt they allow you to steal other teams players. Those franchises won their titles by drafting stars and swindling small markets for picks.

Heediot
12-24-2013, 06:34 AM
Expand the league by 2 more teams. Everyone makes the playoffs. All the first round losers have the same chance of winning the lottery.

PhillyFaninLA
12-24-2013, 09:02 AM
This is such a dumb idea. The 3 year thing is interesting but I also don't think that is the solution. If a really good team gets old very quickly (Celtics, Lakers) or a team loses their best player to FA (Orlando, Cleveland) It would take them at least 3 years to get a top 10 pick. So they would be horrible for 3 years till they could even start to rebuild. There is no way to stop tanking in sports. It happens in football (Texans) and in baseball (cubs).

How about keep the lottery but add 2 things....

1. You cannot be top 3 in back to back years
2. A system like MLB has where certain players being signed via free agency means forfeiting a pick or 2 (weighted based on player) to the team the player signed from

IndyRealist
12-24-2013, 09:49 AM
From the other thread on this (and I spent 5 mins trying to figure out why my posts got deleted)
:

Huh? Is it random?... like... spurs get the 1st, then the 15th, then the 16th, then the 23rd....

Wouldn't this allow GMs to to target teams for picks YEARS in advance if the know who is going to get what pick..

They are better off revising the lottery..

The Two top picks go to the the teams at the BOTTOM of every conference. Then they should not only base the other picks on regular season, but on playoffs. I think a team who gets swept in the first round in the east could very well use a lottery pick.

NBA champs Get the 30th Pick, Runner up gets the 29th...
Yes, except no team would trade their pick the year they know they're going #1. And it would certainly give teams more definable assets with which to trade. "I've got the #1 in 2021. How willing are you to move Kevin Love?"

I don't think this is necessary

As it stands now being the worst team in the league guarantees a top 4 pick and that is a significant reward. Also next to the great reward is how much it sucks to be in the 10-14 purgatory -- you could argue that a rebuilding team should not aspire to be in that range. When you have a situation where being in the middle (4-8 playoffs and 10-14 lottery) is the worst position, I think this is how the league polarizes with tanking teams and super teams. If you made all losing seasons the same or similar I think it would increase competition for the 4-8 spots and ultimately flatten out the talent in the league.

They could just make it an = lottery with the bottom 13 or 14 teams. If thats not good flatten out the percentages. 10% for the worst, 9.5% for #2, 9% for #3 etc.

You could also take the same percentages we have now and lottery off the top 5 or top 10 instead of the top 3.

Indiana built it's team with picks in the 10-17 range, along with 2nd rounders.

It was top 7 protected in a trade clause, so unless Golden State got that it would have been lost. So essentially they took a super cautious route with Curry and other measures and the team lost a ton of games to close the season as a result. Not as if the players themselves were trying any less hard, but it was clear that management was OK with us losing games (which is what I was rooting for myself). They still ended up having to win a coin flip to get it, too.

I wonder if this idea would work better if there was a mini 3 team lotto draw for their segment of the wheel that year (IE instead of a team knowing that their pick would be #1, it would be a lotto chance of 1/2/3 with 2 other teams). That way there would be a less likely scenario of a group of college star(s) staying an extra year to avoid certain teams if they knew they had the top pick that year.

I don't see that happening much. Guys who don't really want to be in college will come out as soon as they are eligible, to start earning money. -Maybe- a guy does this if he's a consensus #1 and walking all over the collegiate competition. Otherwise he's risking an entire year of potential injuries and zero income. What if he sucks the next year, and drops from #1 to #7?

Chrisclover
12-24-2013, 10:00 AM
To avoid tanking ,the NBA is making every endeavor now .This plan maybe raw and unfledged but it is a bold move which indicates that the NBA is aiming high ,which means it wants every team to be competitive and therefore attract more people to be fans
Here in PSD ,some forums are like deserted,like Bobcats ,in which not enough fans commented on the game threads, whereas the Lakers forum is always full of keen fans
It is high time the NBA took initiative to bridge the gap between super teams and bottom teams .

xnick5757
12-24-2013, 10:56 AM
the NBA would be better off just contracting a few teams

koreancabbage
12-24-2013, 11:19 AM
College players should always take the money if they are good enough to go in the first round - to be a better player - you have to play with the best

Vinylman
12-24-2013, 11:30 AM
I've never seen a sport that needs contraction more than the current NBA.

Ding ding ding!!!!!!!!

The competitive balance sucks because you have to many teams and no hard cap...

it's not rocket science why the NFL is the most competitive professional sport in America year in and year out...

2-ONE-5
12-24-2013, 11:32 AM
College players should always take the money if they are good enough to go in the first round - to be a better player - you have to play with the best

thats just not true, not even close

Rentzias
12-24-2013, 12:59 PM
What if Parker 2.0 and Wiggins 2.0 see that the teams drafting #1 and/or #2 for the next four years are essentially scrub teams?

A player staying in college an extra year and avoiding a team is definitely a concern, but at least now you're getting a player who's more mature/experienced/developed. They'd also have to weigh injury risk, regression, emergence of competing talent in the upcoming drafts.

bholly
12-24-2013, 01:04 PM
To avoid tanking ,the NBA is making every endeavor now .This plan maybe raw and unfledged but it is a bold move which indicates that the NBA is aiming high ,which means it wants every team to be competitive and therefore attract more people to be fans
Here in PSD ,some forums are like deserted,like Bobcats ,in which not enough fans commented on the game threads, whereas the Lakers forum is always full of keen fans
It is high time the NBA took initiative to bridge the gap between super teams and bottom teams .

This plan makes the draft system worse for teams like the Bobcats and better for teams like the Lakers. How does that mean it wants every team to be competitive and attract fans? If anything it would have the opposite effect.

Shammyguy3
12-24-2013, 02:35 PM
I'm definitely with the people that want contraction and to decrease the # of games each team plays. Two teams should be contracted, with the two coming from this pool of teams: MIL, CLE, WSH, ATL, CHA, MEM, NOP, SAC, UTA, MIN. Me personally, I would get rid of Milwaukee and Cleveland. Then move MEM to the Eastern Conference.

Then, break the schedule down as follows:
In-Conference teams: 3 games each (13x3 = 39 games)
Non-Conference teams: 2 games each (2x14 = 28 games)
total # games played: 67 (since it's an odd number, biannually each team gets an extra home game)

Teams that make the playoffs have the 16-best records, regardless of conference, and HCA is based solely on record NOT on division crowns. The remaining 12 teams that did not make the playoffs will be automatically placed in order of their teams' respective win percentage the past three seasons * NO LOTTERY. The 16 playoff teams get ranked in order of ONLY the current season's record.

That's a simple solution that can diminish (not avoid, but significantly diminish) teams from tanking one season based on a player going down from injury (i.e. Rose, Robinson, etc).

Jamiecballer
12-24-2013, 02:39 PM
I think the bigger dilemma would be free agency. Who wants to go sign with a bad team that is guaranteed to pick 29th and 20th the next two years. Otherwise I like it.

Bramaca
12-24-2013, 02:51 PM
That's fine. Its your opinion I don't begrudge that. Let's put it this way - all the other issues come after preserving the integrity of the game. That should be first priority IMO.

This does little to nothing to preserve the integrity of the game though.

Jamiecballer
12-24-2013, 02:57 PM
Depends on your definition. Every team focused on winning as many games as possible each and every year is an important part of it to me. That's what the paying customer should have the right to expect IMO.

Bramaca
12-24-2013, 03:33 PM
Depends on your definition. Every team focused on winning as many games as possible each and every year is an important part of it to me. That's what the paying customer should have the right to expect IMO.

Don't think this proposal accomplishes that though. There are other ways to accomplish that without stacking the deck in favor of top markets even more then they are.

Jamiecballer
12-24-2013, 03:40 PM
Don't think this proposal accomplishes that though. There are other ways to accomplish that without stacking the deck in favor of top markets even more then they are.
Can you be more specific instead of being purposely vague? If there is nothing to be gained by losing why wouldn't every team try and be as competitive on the court?

Chrisclover
12-24-2013, 09:58 PM
Tanking is not funny and I dont think I need to elaborate it too much . It's just frustrating and it will devastate the fanbase.How many people are patient enough to wait like 3 years ?They will just switch their attention to other sports like NFL and MLB
Using the wheel instead of the lottery will deprive all teams of the hope of quickly rebuilding by deliberate tanking.Then every signing and trade will be dealt with more caution. Less garbage contracts will be signed. And every decision counts and maybe decisive since there no lottery picks can quickly amend their stupid decisions.
Yea, the flaws of the wheel are nevertheless conspicuous, in which some super talents like Wiggins may speed up or delay the time to enter the NBA in order to join big market teams like LA and NY . But I guess those maybe rare cases since everyday loves money, especially the young people. Not too many people are lofty championship chasers .Whats more, the bottom teams are better stages for them to inflate their stats .When their rookie contracts are over, they can just leave for other teams .
The wheel maybe unfledged but it is at least a sign of change.

To avoid tanking ,the NBA is making every endeavor now .This plan maybe raw and unfledged but it is a bold move which indicates that the NBA is aiming high ,which means it wants every team to be competitive and therefore attract more people to be fans
Here in PSD ,some forums are like deserted,like Bobcats ,in which not enough fans commented on the game threads, whereas the Lakers forum is always full of keen fans
It is high time the NBA took initiative to bridge the gap between super teams and bottom teams .

This plan makes the draft system worse for teams like the Bobcats and better for teams like the Lakers. How does that mean it wants every team to be competitive and attract fans? If anything it would have the opposite effect.

torocan
12-25-2013, 09:49 AM
Not a fan of the wheel idea.

There's 2 things to fix... that's tanking, and the small market disadvantage. I would do two things...

1) Average the last 3 years and use that as the basis for the lottery. That way being the worst team for 3 years running won't guarantee you a #1, but it will get you a top 5 pick. And a good shot at multiple top 5 players for a couple years.

2) Keep the team salary cap, but eliminate the individual player salary cap or raise it to 50% of the team cap. Guys like Tony Parker and Lebron James might turn down a few million to form or keep a super team together. However, do we *really* think they'd turn down $10M/year or More?

Changing the individual salary cap would put the small market teams on a more even footing as the team most likely to get the stars would now be the teams with the most cap space. Imagine how the choice changes for players when the Lakers can bid $22M for Melo, but a team like Utah could offer $30M or $35M?

Sure, maybe a team gets screwed by putting all their eggs in one player and they turn out to be Greg Oden. On the other hand, they made NBA contracts shorter so now you're only talking 4 years and then it's one huge expiring in the worst case scenario. That's assuming you don't get an injury exception to offset half that salary.

Tanking is bad for the NBA. While the hardcore NBA fan base will be very tolerant especially since we can see the reasoning for tanking, lots of us won't pay tons of money to watch a very bad team even if we know it's good for the franchise. And the casual fans just tune completely out.

Let Lebron get paid his $30M or $40M. Then the other salaries and players will fall into place.