PDA

View Full Version : All inclusive Division Playoffs + Franchise Tag + The Wheel = ?



JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 09:33 AM
A lot of questions have been raised about the parity in the league and about tanking. There have also been questions about how you keep fans interested and teams invested in winning.


I think there needs to be a huge paradigm shift in how we look at the league.


First, in order to keep teams from tanking, we need to stop rewarding them for losing. The Wheel is the best choice for that.

Second, in order to keep big market teams from pilfering talent from small markets, there needs to be a Franchise Tag. Players will not turn down an additional 20 million over 4 or 5 years to play in LAL instead of Philly, or Milwaukee or Portland. With perhaps the exception of 2 or 3 players who make more from advertising than playing, players simply will not do it.

Lastly, in order to keep fans and teams invest in winning, there needs to be an all inclusive playoff set up. Every team is in the playoffs. The set up could have a wild card where the two worst teams in each division have a 3-game series to determine who enters the 4 team playoff in each division. Three will be three division winners in each conference. The two team with the lower record play each other for the right to play the team with the best record who gets a by.

Round one 5 v 4 Best of 3

Round two: 1 v winner of 5&4 & 2 v 3

round three: division finals best of 7

round for the two division winner with the worst records play best of 7

Conference finals, winner of round two plays division winner with best record, best of 7

NBA Finals

We have 4 rounds currently, this extends it to six with two additional shorter rounds.


The wildcard match-ups would be 3 games, the first round would be 5 games, and all rounds after that would be 7 games.

More games. More revenue. More interest. More investment in winning. Everybody has a shot every year, winning gives you a distinct advantage in the post season and nobody wants to go into the post season with a bad team, so teams won't buy out players so they can just go to a competitor that may beat them in the playoffs.



The Wheel is still a problem because it will give an advantage to big market teams, but in concert with the franchise tag, I think the talent the lands in small markets will stay there, while the all-inclusive playoff format keeps everybody invest in putting the best product on the floor at all times and gives teams more games and in turn revenue.


Tear these ideas apart, or make suggestions that could improve them.

goingfor28
03-25-2014, 09:44 AM
16 playoff teams is already too many, letting everyone in would just be stupid imo

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 09:50 AM
16 playoff teams is already too many, letting everyone in would just be stupid imo

Part of me agrees. It might dilute the prestige of the post season, but at the same time, how else can we keep teams and fan invested?

I also like the idea of actually earning a division title in the playoffs and not just through win totals in the regular season.

RLundi
03-25-2014, 10:15 AM
The regular season would be pointless if every team was in it.

But the idea of a single game elimination playoff with every team is intriguing. Shorten the regular season to 50 games with 2 reg season games a week and determine seeding by regular season records and a panel. Make it a single game elimination playoff with a panel ranking the teams based on injuries, strength of schedule, win margin and other statistics. Kind of like the BCS and March Madness.

I actually like the idea of a wheel. Yes it isn't totally fair but that's why it's a LOTTERY; it's meant to be completely unpredictable. It would surely cut down on tanking.

Also, love the franchise tag idea.

Byronicle
03-25-2014, 10:59 AM
They should have a tournament midway into the season where its a 1 game elimination and matchups are all randomized

Incentives for the winning would be some sort of prize money or maybe another pick that they can use

mdm692
03-25-2014, 11:25 AM
Playoffs are fine as is. Franchise tag and Wheel are a great idea though. Just with those 2 changes you make every nba fan more interested because teams will be forced to put the best talent possible on the floor.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 11:46 AM
The regular season would be pointless if every team was in it.

The point would be to give yourself the best position in the playoffs and get a by leading to the conference finals.


This logic is actually flawed because every team used to be in the playoffs when the league first opened up. The shift from every team being in to only select teams being in change after expansion.

torocan
03-25-2014, 12:10 PM
IF you seeded every team based on record to determine the first couple rounds, that's actually something I could live with, especially if you shorten the next round to 3 games as well.

Something like this...

Round of 32 - best of 3, seeded by record
Round of 16 - best of 5
Round of 8 - best of 5
Final 4 - best of 7
Finals - best of 7

This wouldn't really be any longer in terms of a post-season than the current season, and it gives bad teams a long shot to be spoilers and take out teams like Miami, Indiana, etc. Also, this results in more revenue for the lower teams and a reason for local fans to NOT completely tune out when the season ends. This way *everyone* is still fighting for seeding until the last games.

I'm a big fan of the idea of a franchise tag that does NOT count against the cap. Set a salary cap of let's say $50M vs the current $60M, but allow ANY team to designate *one* player as a franchise player and pay them up to a "supermax" without cap or luxury tax implication. The Supermax can be a Max contract x 150%, or 2x max. This way the Lakers can pay a Kobe what they feel he deserves without crippling the team. A team like OKC can hold onto their home grown stars. And it removes the incentives for tier 1 superstars to form as many super teams as they'll most likely be giving up *large* amounts of money.

Would Bosh have left Toronto if he was looking at a $15M pay cut vs $5M? Would Lebron still be in Cleveland? Would KG still be in Minnesota? Would Melo still be in Denver? There's a LOT of things that change when you can create that sort of negative penalty for intentionally stacking your team on discount.

It would also have the benefit of giving a bigger advantage to teams that draft well and can build smart rosters. IE, picking up the right 2nd tier stars and role players since even guys like Lebron or KD can't do it all alone.

I'm still kind of *meh* on the wheel. 32 year draft pick cycles seems a little long. I'm more a fan of a running average to determine a lotto pick. IE, take the average record of the previous THREE seasons to determine draft spot. This way a single team can't tank a single season (intentionally or due to unlucky injuries) and pick up the #1 pick easily.

If you use a running average, then only the teams that are truly struggling would have a great shot at the top 5. I don't mind helping the bad teams, as long as they're truly, truly bad versus a premeditated single season implosion.

valade16
03-25-2014, 12:12 PM
The wheel is the worst idea I can imagine. Just terrible. If you're the Milwaukie Bucks what hope do you have to look forward to in the wheel? Let's say they started out with the 1st pick in the next draft, here are the picks they'd get the next several seasons: 30th, 19th, 18th, 7th, 6th.

There would be no hope. They would get the #1 overall pick and then have to wait an absurd 3 years to even get near the top again. Most teams aren' finished rebuilding after 1 player. Who from this draft could the Bucks take to get them to be a viable playoff team?

Most teams that suck are several high picks away from contending or being in the playoffs, not 1. If you're the Milwaukie Bucks, or Orlando Magic, or 76ers right now, the wheel would basically be way of ensuring you suck forever.

The worst idea in sports.

ManRam
03-25-2014, 12:17 PM
I know you and I disagree for the most part on this. I enjoyed reading the PM you sent me (just realized I never responded) and I do get where you're coming from. For starters, though, I don't think there's this terrible epidemic that people are assuming is occurring. It's hard to say that when there's a team like Philly that has lost 150 straight games, and teams like Orlando and Milwaukee who are right behind them.

Philly is one thing, but the rest of the teams? Nah, we don't have a problem on our hands.

I made this post in your "The East is historically bad" thread, but after it had kinda died. It got no attention.



The East may or may not be "historically bad" (doubt it), but the bottom of the league is NOT anything out of the ordinary. The notion that this is some new problem that now all of a sudden exists is, well, silly.

Note: "sub-40%" is really "40.5% and lower"...or "40% and lower", with rounding up to 41% or down to 40%.

2014: 9 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2013: 10 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2012: 10 teams sub-40%, 1 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2011: 8 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2010: 10 teams sub-40%, 2 sub-30%, 2 sub-20%
2009: 9 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2008: 9 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2007: 10 teams sub-40%, 2 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2006: 7 teams sub-40%, 2 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2005: 8 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2004: 8 teams sub-40%, 2 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2003: 7 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2002: 8 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2001: 9 teams sub-40%, 4 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2000: 8 teams sub-40%, 4 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
1999: 8 teams sub-40%, 4 sub-30%, 2 sub-20%
1998: 8 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 2 sub-20%
1997: 10 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 2 sub-20%
1996: 9 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
1995: 8 teams sub-40%, 4 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%

That's 20 years. You tell me if this "epidemic of 'tanking'" is real or not...

I think it's worth noting that Philly will finish the season "sub-20%". NYK are trending upwards so the "sub-40%" figure probably stays the same.


I think it's silly to be SOOOO desperate to never have bad teams. It's ALWAYS going to happen and ALWAYS has happened. The question that never gets answered is: what do you want Orlando, Philly, Boston, LAL, etc. to do instead of what they've done? You basically are saying that you want them to do everything they can to be mediocre...but "mediocre" is the worst place in the world to be. These teams are doing what they need to do: get rid of old veterans, free up future cap space, acquire AND play young talent, and so on. Yes, there is bonus incentive because of the draft lottery, but not focusing the attention on the immediate present or short term is absolutely unequivocally the RIGHT thing for these teams to do. Looking forward is absolutely NOT the wrong thing.

I kinda have the opposite global view of this: I don't think we should disincentivize worrying little about the present and focusing on the future at all.

I mean, hell...you're a Pistons fan, right? You saw what happened when the Pistons tried to "Express Rebuild" in 2008 (I think it was 2008). Overspend on players to stay afloat. Trade for old/washed up veterans to stay afloat. Bring back old veterans (Wallace) to stay afloat. How'd that work out? I don't think there should at all be any incentive to force teams to do that stuff. Rebuild properly...and if it means some bad seasons, so be it.

But again, I don't think we're seeing an epidemic like the world is trying to make it out to be. I'm glad we're finally hearing some backlash about the whole "tanking" thing. Silver shot it down, as he should. We're hearing a lot of the Grantland guys mock the notion. Matt Moore has shot it down. A billion others have.

There's one obvious tanking team. That sucks. The rest? Not unprecedented.


I meanted to keep this short, but we all know I'm not concise. I'll try to respond more in depth to your other posts. But I think realizing that we're not seeing losing on ridiculously unprecedented levels is a good first realization before throwing around DRASTIC changes. I do think there are small tweaks needed, but I think re-doing everything is an overreaction to something that's not really there.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 12:25 PM
The wheel is the worst idea I can imagine. Just terrible. If you're the Milwaukie Bucks what hope do you have to look forward to in the wheel? Let's say they started out with the 1st pick in the next draft, here are the picks they'd get the next several seasons: 30th, 19th, 18th, 7th, 6th.

There would be no hope. They would get the #1 overall pick and then have to wait an absurd 3 years to even get near the top again. Most teams aren' finished rebuilding after 1 player. Who from this draft could the Bucks take to get them to be a viable playoff team?

Most teams that suck are several high picks away from contending or being in the playoffs, not 1. If you're the Milwaukie Bucks, or Orlando Magic, or 76ers right now, the wheel would basically be way of ensuring you suck forever.

The worst idea in sports.


Let's take the Bucks: They get 1st, and then within a 6 year cycle also 6 and 7. That would be three picks that are HIGHER than ANY pick they've had since 2007, DESPITE the fact that they have SUCKED every season since.


And as to the 1# picks, how helpful have Bogut and Glen Robinson been? They weren't even the best players in that draft?

Not to mention that there are teams who have been bad for a LONG time and have NEVER had the first overall pick.



There are also trades and free agency. You can build through that. If you have good management, players will come.

Chronz
03-25-2014, 12:36 PM
Not sure how the wheel would fix anything, dont see why teams should be given a franchise tag when they already have the far superior option of Restricted Free Agency nor do I think turning the regular season into a joke by allowing all teams into the playoffs would be worthwhile, it would help revenues by virtue of there being more games. The league is fine as is, aside from the 70's, NBA basketball has never been about parity, but star power.

If you want to make changes, start by improving the quality of games by shortening the RS to 62 games, if you want to give fans something to look forward to even with their teams tanking, start what Bill Simmons dubbed the "entertaining as hell" tourney, where all lotto teams have a late season tourney to battle it out for the final seed.

As for the draft, just tweak the percentages to give the 9th seed a much higher chance at landing in the top5. This will allow teams who are trying to win, to get an additional asset for next year. Some of the best rebuilds are when teams that are close to the playoffs somehow land a young star. Bulls with Rose, Orlando with Penny are 2 examples.

valade16
03-25-2014, 01:05 PM
JasonJohnHorn – For some reason my internet is being ridiculous and I cannot quote your response so I’ll respond here.

A 6 year cycle should not be a selling point when saying they will get 3 Top 7 picks.

Asking fans to wait 6 years as a minimum is a sure way to get the entire Franchise relocated. Think about that. The 1st overall pick in 2014. Then the next lottery pick in 2018 and 2019.

Imagine being a Milwaukie Fan right now and saying “Man, we are gonna be so good in 2020!” Nobody wants to wait that long. The reason the current system is better is because there is hope that you could get better sooner.

And that’s not even getting into the fact that they might not hit on all 3 of those lottery picks. If that’s the case round and round we go. Then they have to wait another 3-4 years to get another high pick and suddenly their awesome team starts to come together somewhere around 2024.

And has ManRam has said, what if the superstar college player is a Freshman and Milwaukie has the #1 pick this year but the New York Knicks have the #1 pick the next year. He is likely going to wait and go to NY. The idea that if you are a well run team in a small market people will want to play there is erroneous, and recent history bores that out.

The Nuggets had one of the best run franchises in the league and that didn’t stop Carmelo from wanting to leave them and go to the big market Knicks, who are one of the worst run franchises.

Howard left the Magic, a well run franchise with a good coach. He wanted to go to the Nets, who weren’t exactly a well run franchise at the time either.

Chris Paul wanted out of NO and had a short list of teams he wanted to play for: all big markets.

The reason the wheel is so terrible is because aside from the fact that it is self-evidently terrible, is that it does nothing to actually solve the parity problem people say it’s supposed to.

mdm692
03-25-2014, 01:18 PM
The wheel is the worst idea I can imagine. Just terrible. If you're the Milwaukie Bucks what hope do you have to look forward to in the wheel? Let's say they started out with the 1st pick in the next draft, here are the picks they'd get the next several seasons: 30th, 19th, 18th, 7th, 6th.

There would be no hope. They would get the #1 overall pick and then have to wait an absurd 3 years to even get near the top again. Most teams aren' finished rebuilding after 1 player. Who from this draft could the Bucks take to get them to be a viable playoff team?

Most teams that suck are several high picks away from contending or being in the playoffs, not 1. If you're the Milwaukie Bucks, or Orlando Magic, or 76ers right now, the wheel would basically be way of ensuring you suck forever.

The worst idea in sports.

If you're the Milwaukee Bucks you don't Tank because tanking is the worst thing that's happened to sports period. If Milwaukee can't put on good product then relocate to Vegas or Seattle.

valade16
03-25-2014, 01:21 PM
Mdm692 – There is this whole obsession with the idea that teams are tanking.

My question is, how would you prove that a team is actually tanking? Do you believe the Milwaukie Bucks are a better team than what their record indicates?

If I had to pick the worst team in the league, it would probably be the Milwaukie Bucks. So why when they play to the level of the talent they have do we assume they are tanking?

mdm692
03-25-2014, 01:49 PM
Look at the talent being put on the floor. Not a single move to try to get better through trades or FA aside from Mayo. Just waiting to draft each year. Philly, Lakers all doing the same even though in the Lakers case is more due to injury. Force teams to put the best product possible instead of playing possum. How is it that the Rox and Suns were able to turn their franchise around in a year each?

Jamiecballer
03-25-2014, 01:56 PM
i agree with the wheel and the franchise tag or something similar. but why do you need all the teams to make the playoffs? i like upsets as much as the next guy but i don't want to see a top team go out to this years 76ers because of a bad week.

Jamiecballer
03-25-2014, 01:59 PM
The wheel is the worst idea I can imagine. Just terrible. If you're the Milwaukie Bucks what hope do you have to look forward to in the wheel? Let's say they started out with the 1st pick in the next draft, here are the picks they'd get the next several seasons: 30th, 19th, 18th, 7th, 6th.

There would be no hope. They would get the #1 overall pick and then have to wait an absurd 3 years to even get near the top again. Most teams aren' finished rebuilding after 1 player. Who from this draft could the Bucks take to get them to be a viable playoff team?

Most teams that suck are several high picks away from contending or being in the playoffs, not 1. If you're the Milwaukie Bucks, or Orlando Magic, or 76ers right now, the wheel would basically be way of ensuring you suck forever.

The worst idea in sports.
call me a sick-y but i love the idea. want to have a chance to compete? get a competent management team. i love the idea of the best run teams being the teams that experience the most success. seems like a pretty pure idea to me. and i imagine bad management would get turned over a lot quicker and standards would be much higher.

valade16
03-25-2014, 02:27 PM
^ I don't see how the wheel allows quality management to flourish anymore than the current system.

Also, if you are the Bucks and you fire your management team due to incompetence after they bomb the #1 pick. What competent GM or coach would want to go to a place berift of talent and having to wait at least 3 years to see another Top 10 pick?

If anything it would make the gap between the haves and have nots even bigger.

abe_froman
03-25-2014, 02:46 PM
call me a sick-y but i love the idea. want to have a chance to compete? get a competent management team. i love the idea of the best run teams being the teams that experience the most success. seems like a pretty pure idea to me. and i imagine bad management would get turned over a lot quicker and standards would be much higher.

competent management is about 70% luck,its so circumstance based its hard to game plan for and tell who's really good and who's bad.and as valade said,what good gm would want to come into a situation where they have to wait years for a good pick

Shammyguy3
03-25-2014, 03:30 PM
I get the whole "good management should be rewarded" idea, but just like abe said - it has a lot to do with luck. A perfect example is Portland and Oklahoma City. Portland took Greg Oden in the 2007 draft, they already had Aldridge and Roy so Oden's potential Bill Russel, Tim Duncan type of defensive juggernautish play is exactly what they needed.

Then **** hit the fan. One of the best managed teams in the league lost their two franchise players to injury for practically forever (Roy & Oden). Seattle, who picked second, had the easiest draft choice of all time since nobody was on the level of Kevin Durant.

Say Seattle won the lottery, and took Greg Oden first... and Portland had Kevin Durant instead. My oh my, the major players at the poker table would be quite different if you ask me.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2014, 03:37 PM
Imagine being a Milwaukie Fan right now and saying “Man, we are gonna be so good in 2020!” Nobody wants to wait that long. The reason the current system is better is because there is hope that you could get better sooner.


Thank you for your courteous response.

The thing is, I'm looking at the Bucks and thinking: what good has the lottery done them? they made it to the conference finals once in since the lottery was introduced. Is the reason for that the lottery? They only got two first picks, which is about what they would have gotten with the wheel in the same time frame, and the Wheel at least makes sure they WILL get a first pick, where as with the lottery they might not get one for another 50 years.

The Bucks are the PERFECT example. They are simply a poorly run team. They've had two first picks, and neither was the right choice for the draft and neither was a franchise player.

The last few years they've sucked, but they've hardly even gotten a top-ten pick to build around. when they did get a good top-ten pick (Dirk), they traded him.

The Wheel would have at least given the Bucks a top 5 pick during the last five years, as well as a top 10 pick, where as sitting on the cusp of the playoffs, and falling into the lottery, has only gotten them top 15 picks, and that is NOT helping them.


If you gave Buford and Pop the Wheel.... they would have an amazing roster with the Spurs, despite playing in a less prestigious market. a great GM will excel with the Wheel, so all you need is a good GM.

The Bucks are awful because they don't know how to use their picks, not because they don't get high picks. They drafted Jimmer over Klay, and Leonard and Vucevic.

You give them the first overall pick, they pick Glen Robinson over Jason Kidd and Grant Hill. They draft Bogut over Deron Williams and Chris Paul. Or they draft Yi over Noah with an early pick.

The Bucks would suck even if they got a top-five pick every year, for the same reason the Cavs such despite getting 4 top 4 picks in 3 years: because they have a horrid GM. Give them five more top 5 picks and they will STILL suck with that GM. It doesn't matter how many picks you give a bad GM, they will still build a $#!TTY team.


I want to see cities like Milwaukee do better, but the bottom line is, the current system isn't helping them at all, and the sooner all the teams realize that the current system is killing the small markets, the sooner they will realize that things need to change.

With the Wheel and a good GM, you will build a contender.

If you give a team 6, 25, 23, 14, 11, 2, and they have a good GM, they will have a solid starting five there. You throw in trades and free agency, that team should be able to build a contender. If you told any GM in the league that you could promise them the 6th, 2nd, 11th and 14th picks over the course of 6 seasons, they would say yes to that. Franchise players can be drafted at 11. Dirk was the 9th pick!

I just don't get why fans support the lottery when it has done nothing for teams. You get a guy like James with the first pick, he walks away. You get the first pick in a $#!t year, its worthless (as the Raptors). You trade an unprotected pick to get help, you have NO CLUE what you are giving away. It's all so much of a gamble. Why would anybody want to build a team on the luck of the draw?

Shammyguy3
03-25-2014, 04:15 PM
If your basis of switching up the draft via the wheel system is that the draft doesn't do much of anything for teams without good GMs, then why don't we have a lottery wheel draft for the current GMs currently under contract.

In all seriousness, there will always be bad teams. Bad teams generally cycle in and out with good teams. If the idea is parody while getting rid of "tanking" then simply using the teams record over the last 2 or 3 seasons would do far more justice than the Wheel system.



And the wheel system doesn't take care of "luck of the draw." Draftees aren't guaranteed to be anything. Remember the Marcus Fizer draft? Or the Kwame Brown draft? The team that had the #1 pick that year wouldn't benefit from the wheel system at all. It would **** that team over, even if the GM of that team was the best in the business.

torocan
03-25-2014, 04:23 PM
dont see why teams should be given a franchise tag when they already have the far superior option of Restricted Free Agency.

RFA only applies to players on their rookie deals. It doesn't apply to established stars, and thus is of NO help to those teams that drafted those players *after* those players have been developed. Given the current salary cap, and the realities of being in smaller markets, what pull will ANY of those teams have in retaining their Superstars beyond their Rookie deals? When you have a franchise tag, now suddenly a smaller market *CAN* compete with a bigger market, because a bigger market will more often than not *already* have a Franchise player.

And if they don't, does the big market pass on a top 10 Superstar in the hopes of landing a top 5 Superstar? Do they trust in their ability to draw the biggest name? If they do it just opens the door to the small/mid market team to swoop in and snag them.

Imagine you're Cleveland and have drafted Lebron. Free Agency is coming up, so you tell him that you'll give him the Franchise tag, which allows you to increase his salary from the normal Max of $16M to $32M. Sure, he could go team up with Wade, but BOTH of them couldn't have the franchise tag simultaneously. Which means Lebron or Wade would be taking a $16M/year pay hit for leaving to a team that *already* has a franchise player.

Lebron could *still* leave, but if he didn't want to take a huge pay hit, he'd have to move to *another* team without a designated Franchise player. And because Lebron has the franchise tag, and it doesn't impact either the salary cap OR the luxury tax, he doesn't have to worry about it impairing the ability of his team to build a viable Championship team around him no matter HOW much he gets paid.

The Franchise player gets paid closer to what he's actually worth, there's still a salary cap on the other 14 players to force Management to handle their roster intelligently, and now the emphasis for building a Championship team is simply land ONE Superstar and then build the best team you can.

This increases the value of the draft and the importance of spotting and developing the right talent for your roster. It also means that a SINGLE #1 pick can turn you into a contender. You don't have to hope for Wiggins AND another future Harden AND a Westbrook to compete. All you need is Wiggins OR a Harden OR a Westbrook and you're in the thick of the fight.

A Franchise tag helps in that it limits the ability of teams to poach multiple Superstars and build a Super team. There's a fixed number of Tier 1 players (let's say top 15) in the NBA. The way the system is now, the teams with the biggest money available who can basically ignore the cap due to income stream, or the teams that manage to persuade those stars to take minor pay hits are able to Stack more than 1 of those stars on their team.

However, let's say that you had the Franchise tag. The result is that a team that already has Kevin Durant would be at a bidding advantage to get Chris Paul or Melo on TOP of Kevin Durant.

Yes, a Lebron or Kevin Durant might be far and away the best players in the NBA, however if you ONLY had Lebron, then a lot of the emphasis would go to finding the right 2nd tier stars and role players. If Lebron or KD picked the wrong team, then a team that was led by Chris Paul, or Melo, or James Harden would still have a solid chance of winning IF their FO chose the right role players and 2nd tier stars.

The result would be you now have 15 DIFFERENT teams with tier 1 Superstars. If you don't have a Superstar, assuming you're not giving the Franchise tag to players like Joe Johnson, then you can offer MORE money than any team that *already* has a superstar. This would massively level the playing field across a multitude of teams.

Toss in a once every 5 year amnesty provision (in case you make a horrible mistake like Oden), and you have the potential to have LOTS of high caliber teams competing through the play offs and for a championship. And you won't see as many Superstars marginalized because they feel they *must* team up to get a ring.

As a *basketball* fan, would you rather see Wade sacrifice his game? Or play his game at his highest level, not worried about fitting beside Lebron? Would you rather see Bosh playing the 3rd wheel? Or Bosh being the go to star on a team?

Apply that to any number of stars and what you'll see is very high level INDIVIDUAL basketball AND a greater emphasis on TEAM basketball, since not even Lebron or KD can win a championship by themselves.

RFA does none of that, unless you plan on making RFA 10 years long...

mdm692
03-25-2014, 04:23 PM
I get the whole "good management should be rewarded" idea, but just like abe said - it has a lot to do with luck. A perfect example is Portland and Oklahoma City. Portland took Greg Oden in the 2007 draft, they already had Aldridge and Roy so Oden's potential Bill Russel, Tim Duncan type of defensive juggernautish play is exactly what they needed.

Then **** hit the fan. One of the best managed teams in the league lost their two franchise players to injury for practically forever (Roy & Oden). Seattle, who picked second, had the easiest draft choice of all time since nobody was on the level of Kevin Durant.

Say Seattle won the lottery, and took Greg Oden first... and Portland had Kevin Durant instead. My oh my, the major players at the poker table would be quite different if you ask me.

That's a horrible example because that medical staff was pathetic. If the FO can't hire a competent training/medical staff that's not anybody else's fault but theirs. Phx and Hou have proven that all it takes is a good FO to turn things around in less than 2 years so please someone enlighten me and tell me why the Bucks or 76ers can't do the same?

abe_froman
03-25-2014, 04:27 PM
And the wheel system doesn't take care of "luck of the draw." Draftees aren't guaranteed to be anything. Remember the Marcus Fizer draft? Or the Kwame Brown draft? The team that had the #1 pick that year wouldn't benefit from the wheel system at all. It would **** that team over, even if the GM of that team was the best in the business.

this brings up a great point,it assumes that all drafts are equal,that the only reason otto porter isnt kevin durant is a failure on the team's part.

abe_froman
03-25-2014, 04:31 PM
That's a horrible example because that medical staff was pathetic. If the FO can't hire a competent training/medical staff that's not anybody else's fault but theirs. Phx and Hou have proven that all it takes is a good FO to turn things around in less than 2 years so please someone enlighten me and tell me why the Bucks or 76ers can't do the same?
houston didnt get lucky by james harden's contract demands? ...is that something you can count on happening? no,especially when you are the bucks that doesnt have the large market attractiveness and resources that hou does.

mdm692
03-25-2014, 04:39 PM
houston didnt get lucky by james harden's contract demands? ...is that something you can count on happening? no,especially when you are the bucks that doesnt have the large market attractiveness and resources that hou does.

That's where franchise tag would come into play.

Jamiecballer
03-25-2014, 07:40 PM
^ I don't see how the wheel allows quality management to flourish anymore than the current system.

Also, if you are the Bucks and you fire your management team due to incompetence after they bomb the #1 pick. What competent GM or coach would want to go to a place berift of talent and having to wait at least 3 years to see another Top 10 pick?

If anything it would make the gap between the haves and have nots even bigger.

I considered this for a moment or two but then I checked myself - there are always bright young basketball minds who would jump at the chance to become NBA GM's. If it discourages the practice of recycling failed GMs I think the league is better off.

Kevj77
03-25-2014, 07:51 PM
No to all inclusive playoffs it would make the playoffs too long, but what I would like to see is the top 16 teams make the playoffs regardless of conference.

No to franchise tags. Teams already get to lock up players for the rookie contract and have the right to match any offers on their second contract. If you can't build a contender around a star in 6-7 years they have a right to seek greener pastures.

No to the wheel and the lottery the worst team should pick first.

Kevj77
03-25-2014, 07:59 PM
Max contracts are part of the problem. When Lebron is realisticly worth 35-40 million per year, but he is only allowed to make 20 it gives a team enough room for another max player possibly even two if you clear enough cap space. If Lebron could make what he is worth he wouldn't give up 15-20 million per year to play for a super team and the Heat wouldn't have the money to sign both Wade and Bosh.

Not all max players are equal.

mdm692
03-25-2014, 08:29 PM
Max contracts are part of the problem. When Lebron is realisticly worth 35-40 million per year, but he is only allowed to make 20 it gives a team enough room for another max player possibly even two if you clear enough cap space. If Lebron could make what he is worth he wouldn't give up 15-20 million per year to play for a super team and the Heat wouldn't have the money to sign both Wade and Bosh.

Not all max players are equal.
So get rid of max contracts and establish a hard cap of around 70-80 mill? I would actually be all for that.

Kevj77
03-25-2014, 08:50 PM
I could see it working with a hard cap of around 80 million, but the cap would actually have to be a percent of BRI and not set in stone. Maybe an exception to re-sign one drafted player over the cap or get rid of guaranteed contracts like in the NFL something I'd be all for the ability to cut a unproductive player to re-sign someone you don't want to lose, but the players probably wouldn't go for that.

mdm692
03-25-2014, 08:57 PM
I could see it working with a hard cap of around 80 million, but the cap would actually have to be a percent of BRI and not set in stone. Maybe an exception to re-sign one drafted player over the cap or get rid of guaranteed contracts like in the NFL something I'd be all for the ability to cut a unproductive player to re-sign someone you don't want to lose, but the players probably wouldn't go for that.

I agree. NBA players have it good IMO and yet they are greedy as hell. Maybe offer one amnesty per 4-5 year period. Don't want to make it too easy for their mistakes either though.

Kevj77
03-25-2014, 09:11 PM
A hard cap of around 80 million without a limit on max contracts and each team gets an amnesty every 4 years. That actually sounds fair for all teams. It would create more parity the problem is convincing the players it is good for them too.

Puck017
03-25-2014, 09:34 PM
Don't really like the all inclusive 30 year draft wheel. I think it would cause fans of bad smaller market teams to lose interest in their teams during certain stretches when they know their teams won't get a decent pick. I honestly think it would make many teams less profitable. I do believe that a draft wheel used in combination with a lottery does have some merit. Basically the draft wheel would determine which teams are in the lottery. So instead of using the lottery to determine the top three picks the draft wheel has already selected which teams it will be and the teams are given at worst a 20%, 35%, or 45% to win the lottery based on the teams win % since the last time they picked in the lottery or over the last 10 years for the first cycle of the wheel. If the teams records have been reasonably close over that time the percentages could be adjusted to reflect that. The draft position of the other 27 teams would be determined by their record or the same system as the NFL. The biggest hangup on this is how you would group teams together. This could also be done with 5 or 6 teams making it a 6 or 5 year cycle for the lottery wheel.

I think small markets can really benefit from the franchise tag idea. Not a huge fan of the all inclusive playoff system though, it just doesn't seem all that interesting to me.

mdm692
03-25-2014, 09:35 PM
A hard cap of around 80 million without a limit on max contracts and each team gets an amnesty every 4 years. That actually sounds fair for all teams. It would create more parity the problem is convincing the players it is good for them too.
They'd be stupid not to see how this benefits them. Not only does it allow the players to get an actual fair value for them but it also allows teams to keep their core and benches together if they want. This removes the obstacle that was the feared luxury tax which is why so many small markets haven't been able to keep their stars. It would no longer be about the money since everybody can offer you the same it would be about which FO does a better job in an even playing field which is what it should be.

NBA_Starter
03-25-2014, 10:05 PM
A hard cap of around 80 million without a limit on max contracts and each team gets an amnesty every 4 years. That actually sounds fair for all teams. It would create more parity the problem is convincing the players it is good for them too.

I guess it makes too much sense for them.

Shammyguy3
03-26-2014, 04:14 PM
That's a horrible example because that medical staff was pathetic. If the FO can't hire a competent training/medical staff that's not anybody else's fault but theirs. Phx and Hou have proven that all it takes is a good FO to turn things around in less than 2 years so please someone enlighten me and tell me why the Bucks or 76ers can't do the same?

Not horrible. No medical staff would have been able to save those two guys. Look at Brandon Roy's degenerative knee condition. How is that to blame on a medical team? Look at Greg Oden, he's had countless surgeries since he's left the Blazers. Before this season the guy missed the 2011, 12, and 13 seasons. You dont' think he had the opportunity to get THE BEST medical treatment imaginable since he was no longer playing under the Blazers? Every single player gets 2nd opinions also.

It's not a horrible example, not at all.