PDA

View Full Version : No More Draft for Use of the Wheel?



GameBreaker
12-23-2013, 04:48 PM
The Proposal


Grantland obtained a copy of the proposal, which would eliminate the draft lottery and replace it with a system in which each of the 30 teams would pick in a specific first-round draft slot once — and exactly once — every 30 years. Each team would simply cycle through the 30 draft slots, year by year, in a predetermined order designed so that teams pick in different areas of the draft each year. Teams would know with 100 percent certainty in which draft slots they would pick every year, up to 30 years out from the start of every 30-year cycle. The practice of protecting picks would disappear; there would never be a Harrison Barnes–Golden State situation again, and it wouldn’t require a law degree to track ownership of every traded pick leaguewide.


The system is simpler to understand in pictorial form. Below is the wheel that outlines the order in which each team would cycle through the draft slots; the graphic highlights the top six slots in red to show that every team would be guaranteed one top-six pick every five seasons, and at least one top-12 pick in every four-year span

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

Giannis94
12-23-2013, 04:55 PM
What exactly happened with Harrison Barnes? I assume they traded the pick but it was protected top 7 or something and they got pick 7?

Sandman
12-23-2013, 05:04 PM
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.

GameBreaker
12-23-2013, 05:10 PM
What exactly happened with Harrison Barnes? I assume they traded the pick but it was protected top 7 or something and they got pick 7?

Can't fully remember. But I do remember him having an issue surrounding him.

TheNumber37
12-23-2013, 05:23 PM
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...

Ebbs
12-23-2013, 08:10 PM
It's an absolutely terrible idea.

Bill Simmons idea is far better.

The entire lottery is shuffled every year. No guarantee to get a top 5 pick if you tank. Gives teams stuck in the middle a chance to improve.

tredigs
12-23-2013, 08:19 PM
What exactly happened with Harrison Barnes? I assume they traded the pick but it was protected top 7 or something and they got pick 7?

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.

Sandman
12-23-2013, 08:26 PM
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.
hahaha I didnt even consider that

tredigs
12-23-2013, 08:30 PM
hahaha I didnt even consider that

Seriously though, imagine if it was Milwaukee one year and the Lakers the next (no offense Bucks fans, just a random example). I'd have to guess that there's a lot of top stars who would wait, and maybe even the next 2 best stars as well if they knew the others were waiting and they'd likely be going to that city instead. After that I'd imagine most of the guys would enter in order to take the $ incentives of a possible #1 over a #4+ the following year, but it still kind of screws that less sought after location. So yeah, I think having 10 mini-lottos each year after players had declared would probably work better for a system like this.

Sandman
12-23-2013, 08:34 PM
Seriously though, imagine if it was Milwaukee one year and the Lakers the next (no offense Bucks fans, just a random example). I'd have to guess that there's a lot of top stars who would wait, and maybe even the next 2 best stars as well if they knew the others were waiting and they'd likely be going to that city instead. After that I'd imagine most of the guys would enter in order to take the $ incentives of a possible #1 over a #4+ the following year, but it still kind of screws that less sought after location. So yeah, I think having 10 mini-lottos each year after players had declared would probably work better for a system like this.
Yup for sure. At first I thought there could be speculating on players/picks years in advance, I didn't even consider the players themselves doing the same thing.

they could just take away the 20% chances and have the highest 1 at 10%

you could also raffle off more than 3 picks

IndyRealist
12-23-2013, 11:42 PM
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.

IndyRealist
12-23-2013, 11:44 PM
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?"

IndyRealist
12-23-2013, 11:48 PM
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?

spreadeagle
12-24-2013, 01:20 AM
something has to be done, or if the team is tanking they should reduce ticket prices by 75 %.

tredigs
12-24-2013, 01:38 AM
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?

This is true, it would probably be a less common occurrence then I'm giving it credit for, but I do see it happening with this setup and it being a fiasco if so. Would you see any downside to a mini lotto within this setup?

2-ONE-5
12-24-2013, 11:34 AM
the same thread is just a few threds above this...

Sandman
12-24-2013, 07:12 PM
Indiana built it's team with picks in the 10-17 range, along with 2nd rounders.
Yes they have, how often does that happen?

Are they a product of building on success or did they still just find the right key players, only at different spots in the draft.

You can find star players later in the draft but you still can't win without star players, and its still waaay more likely to find those guys at the top.