PDA

View Full Version : The 2016 Lottery Playoffs



mudvayne387
04-19-2016, 09:15 AM
Winner gets top pick in the 2016 NBA draft

The Bulls and Wizards receive a first round bye for finishing with the best (non playoff team) record.

1st Round Match ups

76ers @ Jazz
Lakers @ Magic
Nets @ Kings
Suns @ Nuggets
Wolves @ Bucks
Knicks @ Pelicans

One and done. Lose and you go to the bottom of the draft lottery. Provides excitement akin to the NCAA Tourney. You can now shorten up the actual NBA playoffs to a best of 5 first round.

My only two questions is how to prevent a fringe playoff team from deliberately missing the playoffs to get a #1 seed in the lottery playoffs and (B) will the players really put their heart in soul into these games ? Perhaps some bonus incentives ?

Could something like this work ?

BallDontLie
04-19-2016, 09:29 AM
no. there is no incentive for players to risk injury in something like this and will allow teams in contention for 7-8 seeds to tank for a shot at the first rather than get whooped in the first round. This is how bad teams stay bad.

Scoots
04-19-2016, 12:01 PM
This is all about stopping tanking and that's easy to do without all this stuff.

Just do away with the draft. Each team gets the same small budget for first time eligible rookies (formerly draft eligible). Each team can only sign 2 first time eligible players, the rest can go back to school or to the d-league. Rosters can be filled with players who have been in the d-league or elsewhere for at least a year after their first time eligibility has passed.

Done. No more tanking.

dhopisthename
04-19-2016, 12:03 PM
I can't be the only one who thinks this is unbelievably bad? A team like the wizards or jazz who were very close to making the playoffs, but had some injury issues should not have a great chance to get the first pick.

Scoots
04-19-2016, 12:03 PM
Solution #2 for tanking. Owners of teams that don't make the playoffs are only allowed to attend half as many games as their team won the previous season. i.e. Josh Harris would only be allowed to attend 5 games next year.

dhopisthename
04-19-2016, 12:10 PM
This is all about stopping tanking and that's easy to do without all this stuff.

Just do away with the draft. Each team gets the same small budget for first time eligible rookies (formerly draft eligible). Each team can only sign 2 first time eligible players, the rest can go back to school or to the d-league. Rosters can be filled with players who have been in the d-league or elsewhere for at least a year after their first time eligibility has passed.

Done. No more tanking.

just to make sure every team gets the same budget or can you go into more detail.

PhillyBronco08
04-19-2016, 12:31 PM
Solution #2 for tanking. Owners of teams that don't make the playoffs are only allowed to attend half as many games as their team won the previous season. i.e. Josh Harris would only be allowed to attend 5 games next year.

That would be doing him a favor haha

mudvayne387
04-19-2016, 01:02 PM
I can't be the only one who thinks this is unbelievably bad? A team like the wizards or jazz who were very close to making the playoffs, but had some injury issues should not have a great chance to get the first pick.

Why not ?

It would create more of a competitive balance IMO.

And whos to say that they wouldn't get knocked out first round of the tournament ?

mudvayne387
04-19-2016, 01:04 PM
This is all about stopping tanking and that's easy to do without all this stuff.

Just do away with the draft. Each team gets the same small budget for first time eligible rookies (formerly draft eligible). Each team can only sign 2 first time eligible players, the rest can go back to school or to the d-league. Rosters can be filled with players who have been in the d-league or elsewhere for at least a year after their first time eligibility has passed.

Done. No more tanking.

The top tier players would then just sign on with the best teams. Talk about players recruiting now, imagine the bologna we'd have to put up with if LeBron got in the ears of an 18 year old rookie ?

PhillyFaninLA
04-19-2016, 01:20 PM
This would be a bad idea...we are in position for the 8th seed but the next Lebron James is coming out, and we are substantially better than the other non playoff teams, so lets intentionally lose these last few games, miss the playoffs, and dominate that serious and get the great player.

PhillyFaninLA
04-19-2016, 01:26 PM
This is all about stopping tanking and that's easy to do without all this stuff.

Just do away with the draft. Each team gets the same small budget for first time eligible rookies (formerly draft eligible). Each team can only sign 2 first time eligible players, the rest can go back to school or to the d-league. Rosters can be filled with players who have been in the d-league or elsewhere for at least a year after their first time eligibility has passed.

Done. No more tanking.

And for the 5th year in a row the Warriors get the best college player, 35 years later, will the Warriors ever have a bad year.

See my point, you can't do this.

I have suggested that you don't allow the first pick to be a lottery pick, it is untradeable and goes alphabetically to ever team in the league (by city name, if you move to another city your former city needs to be passed before you are back in the mix.

or

Top 3 picks untradeable....if you end up winning the lottery you cannot be top 3 again for 3 years, get number 2 its 2 years, and 3rd means you can't be in again the following year....meaning you win the lottery you can't draft better than 4th overall for the next 3 years.

This would encourage teams to have to tank differently...as long as the NBA is so star driven you can't get rid of tanking completely.

basch152
04-19-2016, 01:33 PM
And for the 5th year in a row the Warriors get the best college player, 35 years later, will the Warriors ever have a bad year.

See my point, you can't do this.

I have suggested that you don't allow the first pick to be a lottery pick, it is untradeable and goes alphabetically to ever team in the league (by city name, if you move to another city your former city needs to be passed before you are back in the mix.

or

Top 3 picks untradeable....if you end up winning the lottery you cannot be top 3 again for 3 years, get number 2 its 2 years, and 3rd means you can't be in again the following year....meaning you win the lottery you can't draft better than 4th overall for the next 3 years.

This would encourage teams to have to tank differently...as long as the NBA is so star driven you can't get rid of tanking completely.

Your bottom idea is the only good idea I've heard in here.

Everything else I've seen has very obvious and crucial megative impacts.

Scoots
04-19-2016, 02:17 PM
just to make sure every team gets the same budget or can you go into more detail.

Say every team gets $5M to sign up to 2 rookies (just to use a round number).

Scoots
04-19-2016, 02:24 PM
The top tier players would then just sign on with the best teams. Talk about players recruiting now, imagine the bologna we'd have to put up with if LeBron got in the ears of an 18 year old rookie ?

No. Do you think Dunn would sign with the Warriors? Heck no. He wants to play. Players would sign where they would have the best chance to get PT and work toward their next big contract.

Winning teams would get some advantages, but unlike college the best players don't leave in 1 or 2 years ... they stay for 10-15 years.

It would be possible to add waiver wire like claiming rules to players a year out of their first year eligibility. So, for instance, the top prospect in the d-league gets a call from 5 teams, the team with the worst record gets first dibs, 2nd worst record gets 2nd dibs, etc. That way developed players who were not quite top tier would be the advantage to help bad teams gradually improve.

Maybe make the available rookie cap be a sliding scale based on record so the worst team has the most money. The amount they could pay a single player wouldn't go up but they could sign 2 top players rather than the better teams who only have rookie cap space to sign 1 max deal and 1 minimum deal.

Team facilities and attitudes and training staffs and PR departments and arenas ... it would all matter.

Scoots
04-19-2016, 02:29 PM
I just googled it for the first time and apparently I have some supporters.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/39407/fix-tanking-ditch-the-draft
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba-news/4645462-nba-draft-2015-unfair-salary-scale-future-proposal
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1977553-stan-van-gundy-rips-76ers-would-eliminate-nba-draft

Stan Van Gundy, Kevin Arnovitz, and Danny Leroux make a case to do away with the draft.

I didn't realize it was a thing outside my own brain.

dhopisthename
04-19-2016, 03:16 PM
Say every team gets $5M to sign up to 2 rookies (just to use a round number).

you can't really think that is a good idea. teams like the warriors would sign the best rookies and would be good forever

beasted86
04-19-2016, 05:02 PM
I don't like this idea at all. It actually promotes tanking.

I think the only solution to this issue is to penalize teams monetarily. IE: 3 or more consecutive seasons in the bottom 5 records, and you no longer receive any luxury tax or profit sharing payments.

That way you can't have it both ways. You can't suck, run away all of the fans, and still make a profit (or break even). You can either win and fill your arena and try and be competitive, or you can tank indefinitely (or mismanage a team), and you can likely lose money in the process.

I wish that sort of system was in place in baseball to discourage situations like the Marlins who use baseball's revenue sharing system to stay irrelevant while still making millions for Loria the Loser.

JWO35
04-19-2016, 05:07 PM
I wouldn't mind a 1-and done tournament style for lottery teams. Only thing I would do different is allow the 2 worse teams (instead of the two best) the first round bye.

beasted86
04-19-2016, 05:09 PM
I just googled it for the first time and apparently I have some supporters.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/39407/fix-tanking-ditch-the-draft
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba-news/4645462-nba-draft-2015-unfair-salary-scale-future-proposal
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1977553-stan-van-gundy-rips-76ers-would-eliminate-nba-draft

Stan Van Gundy, Kevin Arnovitz, and Danny Leroux make a case to do away with the draft.

I didn't realize it was a thing outside my own brain.

This is equally terrible because it gives big markets preference. Dominant players would still look for fit and playing time like you suggested, but given similar situations, they would always go to LA, NY, CHI, BOS, MIA over UTH, MEM, CHA, MIN, MIL.

The other secondary problem is it revamps the valuation of draft picks being used as a bargaining chips in trades.

Scoots
04-19-2016, 09:09 PM
you can't really think that is a good idea. teams like the warriors would sign the best rookies and would be good forever

No. If the best player was a PG, SG, or PF there is no way he'd sign with the Warriors. They want to play. Also some players like to play near home or play for their favorite childhood team.

Scoots
04-19-2016, 09:10 PM
This is equally terrible because it gives big markets preference. Dominant players would still look for fit and playing time like you suggested, but given similar situations, they would always go to LA, NY, CHI, BOS, MIA over UTH, MEM, CHA, MIN, MIL.

The other secondary problem is it revamps the valuation of draft picks being used as a bargaining chips in trades.

So all the top free agents choose those cities right? Because that's what we're talking about. The incoming rookies would be free agents.

Scoots
04-19-2016, 09:13 PM
I don't like this idea at all. It actually promotes tanking.

I think the only solution to this issue is to penalize teams monetarily. IE: 3 or more consecutive seasons in the bottom 5 records, and you no longer receive any luxury tax or profit sharing payments.

That way you can't have it both ways. You can't suck, run away all of the fans, and still make a profit (or break even). You can either win and fill your arena and try and be competitive, or you can tank indefinitely (or mismanage a team), and you can likely lose money in the process.

I wish that sort of system was in place in baseball to discourage situations like the Marlins who use baseball's revenue sharing system to stay irrelevant while still making millions for Loria the Loser.

I suggested a sliding scale for revenue sharing for the bottom teams where the worse you are the less you make and people got really upset about it. 3 years in the bottom 5 seems WAY too lenient. I say 1 year in the bottom 5 should cost you something.

valade16
04-19-2016, 09:54 PM
No. If the best player was a PG, SG, or PF there is no way he'd sign with the Warriors. They want to play. Also some players like to play near home or play for their favorite childhood team.

One of the biggest complaints about this era is everyone is all buddy buddy and everyone wants to play together.

Not to mention the complaints of inherent advantages of big markets would only be amplified.

I think it amplifies most of the complaints people currently have about the NBA outside the lottery.

beasted86
04-19-2016, 10:13 PM
So all the top free agents choose those cities right? Because that's what we're talking about. The incoming rookies would be free agents.

Yes, all the top free agents are already more likely to choose big markets over small markets when the money offered is the same. Small markets overpay for Greg Monroe types or give pay days to Al Jefferson.

Like I said, fit and playing time will still matter, but no number 1 overall talent will ever willingly choose a team like Utah.

beasted86
04-19-2016, 10:15 PM
I suggested a sliding scale for revenue sharing for the bottom teams where the worse you are the less you make and people got really upset about it. 3 years in the bottom 5 seems WAY too lenient. I say 1 year in the bottom 5 should cost you something.

You're probably right.

Scoots
04-19-2016, 11:11 PM
Yes, all the top free agents are already more likely to choose big markets over small markets when the money offered is the same. Small markets overpay for Greg Monroe types or give pay days to Al Jefferson.

Like I said, fit and playing time will still matter, but no number 1 overall talent will ever willingly choose a team like Utah.

If fit is perfect and the team is good I don't see why not. Andrew Bogut was the #1 overall pick and he chose Utah (for college).

Scoots
04-19-2016, 11:13 PM
How about have a draft that is just for the 5 worst teams by record and only 1 round. The whole broadcast can be about how inept and stupid they are as teams and organizations. The rest of the players can be the no draft model.

:)

JAZZNC
04-20-2016, 01:15 AM
If fit is perfect and the team is good I don't see why not. Andrew Bogut was the #1 overall pick and he chose Utah (for college).

But how do teams like Utah ever get a good team without the draft? I mean we have one of those "quality teams missing a star" situations right now but basically all of our relevant players we drafted. I mean we might get a top 20 guy here and there but Utah, Charlotte, Cleveland, and the like would have a hard time getting a top 5 prospect signed like that. I mean the biggest FAs we've signed even since the Malone days was Boozer and Okur and that's just because we stole Boozer and Okur wasn't highly sought after. In this century that's it, Boozer and Okur and we tried to sign Brad Miller and Corey Maggette one year. Say that out loud and tell me again how this is supposed to work again? I mean it sounds good but it just further ****s the ones that already get ****ed in FA anyway.

And then you lose trade chips in draft picks to even try and trade for a player. But you could easily trade your "money" to a team for something??? Still I don't think it will work.

valade16
04-20-2016, 10:45 AM
If fit is perfect and the team is good I don't see why not. Andrew Bogut was the #1 overall pick and he chose Utah (for college).

But is he more the exception than the rule? If we're going to look at college to see how this model would work we have a pretty definitive answer.

The top recruits routinely choose the same small handful of schools: Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Arizona, etc.

Here are the top 10 recruits by year and where they signed:

2016:
1. Kansas
2. Duke
3. Duke
4. N.C. State
5. Kentucky
6. Kentucky
7. Kentucky
8. UCLA
9. Arizona
10. Duke

2015:
1. Kentucky
2. LSU
3. California
4. Duke
5. Kansas
6. Maryland
7. California
8. Miss. State
9. Kentucky
10. Kentucky

2014:
1. Duke
2. SMU
3. Arizona
4. Kansas
5. Kentucky
6. Kansas
7. Duke
8. UNLV
9. Texas
10. UCLA

2013:
1. Kansas
2. Kentucky
3. Arizona
4. Duke
5. Kentucky
6. Florida
7. Kentucky
8. Indiana
9. Kentucky
10. Florida

In the last 4 years, over 50% of all Top 10 prospects in the NCAA have signed with 4 schools (26/40). Kentucky by itself signed 1/4th (11/40) of all Top 10 prospects during that time.

It's pretty obvious what would happen if college stars got to pick what team they signed with in the NBA: They'd pick a handful of teams that are either already winning or have a premium location.

I just don't see this idea benefiting the NBA or promoting balance at all.

Scoots
04-20-2016, 10:57 AM
But is he more the exception than the rule? If we're going to look at college to see how this model would work we have a pretty definitive answer.

...

I already addressed this in that NBA players don't move on after 1 year. They stay there year after year. Rookies will prioritize playing time over everything else which means that top PGs, SGs, and PFs will never sign with the Warriors. The Spurs won't be able to recruit SFs or PFs. The Cavs PGs, SFs, PFs are going to look and say no. You can't reasonably compare college recruiting to pro recruiting. If the Lakers and Knicks are the prime destinations ... when was the last time either team brought in the top free agent?

warfelg
04-20-2016, 11:07 AM
I already addressed this in that NBA players don't move on after 1 year. They stay there year after year. Rookies will prioritize playing time over everything else which means that top PGs, SGs, and PFs will never sign with the Warriors. The Spurs won't be able to recruit SFs or PFs. The Cavs PGs, SFs, PFs are going to look and say no. You can't reasonably compare college recruiting to pro recruiting. If the Lakers and Knicks are the prime destinations ... when was the last time either team brought in the top free agent?

My only counter would be you sound like someone older who the appeal for cities don't exist as much. Tell an 18 year old kid he could make $5 mil a year, and he gets to pick between Milwaukee, Miami, NYC, LA, Salt Lake City, and Memphis, I would bet Miami, NYC, LA would be the pick 100/100 times. The glitz and glamor to YOUNG kids will always be a young pull. The reason the UFAs don't pick those teams is things like that aren't as important anymore. To them it's about money and winning.

valade16
04-20-2016, 11:16 AM
I already addressed this in that NBA players don't move on after 1 year. They stay there year after year. Rookies will prioritize playing time over everything else which means that top PGs, SGs, and PFs will never sign with the Warriors. The Spurs won't be able to recruit SFs or PFs. The Cavs PGs, SFs, PFs are going to look and say no. You can't reasonably compare college recruiting to pro recruiting. If the Lakers and Knicks are the prime destinations ... when was the last time either team brought in the top free agent?

Well Carmelo Anthony basically threatened his way to NY. NY just signed Robin Lopez and Aaron Affalo. The Lakers managed to sign Shaq from Orlando, have both Malone and Payton opt to play there for less money and then had Steve Nash opt to play there for less money as well. Not to mention perhaps the 3rd most desirable location in the NBA, Miami, signed LeBron and Bosh as Free Agents and just recently got Joe Johnson as a FA as well.

Rookies will prioritize playing time up to a point, but they will also prioritize location and teammates. How many people will want to go to Portland or Memphis because playing time over LA or NY to get that same guaranteed playing time?

It seems like the only argument you have for why this system will work is you don't think rookies would prioritize or consider things like lifestyle, teammates, winning or location when making their decision. I think most people here disagree with that assessment.

mudvayne387
04-20-2016, 11:20 AM
Ok since my lottery tournament suggestion fell on its face, how about a simple tweak to the lottery ?

Right now, the team with the worst record in the draft has a 25% chance of getting the 1st overall pick.

If we drop that down to 13% and then evenly distribute the remaining 12% throughout, would that be enough of a change to get teams to stop tanking ?

13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%

KnicksorBust
04-20-2016, 11:34 AM
I don't think tanking ruins basketball nearly as much as people think it does. Outside of Philly, what other teams are we complaining about?

Bulls-Jazz-Wizards = all were actively trying to get into the playoffs and win
Kings/Bucks = Signed Rondo, Signed Monroe. Just underrachieved
Suns/Nuggets/Pelicans = had injury problems with Bledsoe, Gallo, ADavis and more
Timberwolves/Magic = young rosters trying to figure it out who showed glimpses throughout the season
Nets/Lakers = just bad poorly constructed rosters
Sixers = tanked

I don't see the need for a drastic rule change because of one team. Especially when it seems like that team has already been punished by karma in failing year after year to get a franchise player.

dhopisthename
04-20-2016, 11:43 AM
Ok since my lottery tournament suggestion fell on its face, how about a simple tweak to the lottery ?

Right now, the team with the worst record in the draft has a 25% chance of getting the 1st overall pick.

If we drop that down to 13% and then evenly distribute the remaining 12% throughout, would that be enough of a change to get teams to stop tanking ?

13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%

I think if you really want to get rid of tanking then removing any reason to tank would be very important. So way not just make it a strait even percentage? I understand that teams might then tank out of the playoffs, but I don't think that will happen nearly as often as we see teams tank now.

warfelg
04-20-2016, 11:55 AM
I don't think tanking ruins basketball nearly as much as people think it does. Outside of Philly, what other teams are we complaining about?

Bulls-Jazz-Wizards = all were actively trying to get into the playoffs and win
Kings/Bucks = Signed Rondo, Signed Monroe. Just underrachieved
Suns/Nuggets/Pelicans = had injury problems with Bledsoe, Gallo, ADavis and more
Timberwolves/Magic = young rosters trying to figure it out who showed glimpses throughout the season
Nets/Lakers = just bad poorly constructed rosters
Sixers = tanked

I don't see the need for a drastic rule change because of one team. Especially when it seems like that team has already been punished by karma in failing year after year to get a franchise player.

Basically this post. Most teams bottom out, pick a guy, and pay a bunch of free agents ASAP to build around them.

I personally think it would have happened if Embiid only missed one year. I think at 3, Hinkie would have made either a different pick (Porzingas) and trade Noel, or he would have traded the pick to ensure a guard (whether draft DLo or nab one on the block).

But Embiid missing another year messed that all up. And Hinkie kinda screwed the pooch by not doing more to help this team this year. And where most people get upset I differ from. I think Hinkie messed up by keeping parts that worked well with Noel and forced Okafor into it. We didn't need to chase and overpay mid FAs. Hinkie just needed to find a few parts that he could bargain shop for who would work well with Okafor without making us "too good".

I doubt we ever get to this point if (1) Embiid doesn't get hurt. It would ensure Wiggins dropping to us. (2) Trade MCW. We got unbelievable value for him (LAL pick) but for some reason people still act like we bailed on a HOF player for nothing. (3) A single vet we traded for actually suited up with us rather than being bought out.

Scoots
04-20-2016, 01:04 PM
My only counter would be you sound like someone older who the appeal for cities don't exist as much. Tell an 18 year old kid he could make $5 mil a year, and he gets to pick between Milwaukee, Miami, NYC, LA, Salt Lake City, and Memphis, I would bet Miami, NYC, LA would be the pick 100/100 times. The glitz and glamor to YOUNG kids will always be a young pull. The reason the UFAs don't pick those teams is things like that aren't as important anymore. To them it's about money and winning.

Guys who have spent more than half their lives working on their game and are going into the NBA on a capped rookie deal are going to be looking at maximizing their next contract well before their night life. If they are putting night life first then they are not one of the top 5 rookies.

Scoots
04-20-2016, 01:10 PM
Well Carmelo Anthony basically threatened his way to NY. NY just signed Robin Lopez and Aaron Affalo. The Lakers managed to sign Shaq from Orlando, have both Malone and Payton opt to play there for less money and then had Steve Nash opt to play there for less money as well. Not to mention perhaps the 3rd most desirable location in the NBA, Miami, signed LeBron and Bosh as Free Agents and just recently got Joe Johnson as a FA as well.

Rookies will prioritize playing time up to a point, but they will also prioritize location and teammates. How many people will want to go to Portland or Memphis because playing time over LA or NY to get that same guaranteed playing time?

It seems like the only argument you have for why this system will work is you don't think rookies would prioritize or consider things like lifestyle, teammates, winning or location when making their decision. I think most people here disagree with that assessment.

Carmelo was traded to NY, and Lopez/Affalo were NOT the top free agents. Shaq went to LA 20 years ago, so not exactly demonstrative of "every top pick will go to NY and LA". Nash, Malone and Payton were WAY past their primes and they went to LA not because it was LA but because they thought they had a chance to win a ring.

No system is perfect for sure, a flat draft, a flat draft lottery, a graduated draft lottery ... all have issues.

Doing away with the draft could be used as a concession to get the owners some big concessions from the players in return too since the union has been against the draft from day 1.

Scoots
04-20-2016, 01:12 PM
Ok since my lottery tournament suggestion fell on its face, how about a simple tweak to the lottery ?

Right now, the team with the worst record in the draft has a 25% chance of getting the 1st overall pick.

If we drop that down to 13% and then evenly distribute the remaining 12% throughout, would that be enough of a change to get teams to stop tanking ?

13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%

How about the lottery being for more than the top 3 picks. If you pick every spot then the worst team COULD end up drafting last in the lottery if they were REALLY unlucky whereas right now the worst they can do is 4th which is still pretty good.

Scoots
04-20-2016, 01:13 PM
I think if you really want to get rid of tanking then removing any reason to tank would be very important. So way not just make it a strait even percentage? I understand that teams might then tank out of the playoffs, but I don't think that will happen nearly as often as we see teams tank now.

They tried a flat lottery and it was too far the other way.

valade16
04-20-2016, 01:19 PM
Carmelo was traded to NY, and Lopez/Affalo were NOT the top free agents. Shaq went to LA 20 years ago, so not exactly demonstrative of "every top pick will go to NY and LA". Nash, Malone and Payton were WAY past their primes and they went to LA not because it was LA but because they thought they had a chance to win a ring.

No system is perfect for sure, a flat draft, a flat draft lottery, a graduated draft lottery ... all have issues.

Doing away with the draft could be used as a concession to get the owners some big concessions from the players in return too since the union has been against the draft from day 1.

Yes he was, but he was traded to NY because he said that is the only team he wanted to be traded to and he was going to test FA (and most likely go to NY) unless he was traded there.

Carmelo is a perfect demonstration of the power of a big market considering Denver, who had a guy under contract, could not trade him to any other team but NY due to his desire to play there.

Vinylman
04-20-2016, 01:33 PM
People trying to create "a competitive balance" via the draft are clueless...............

the reason the league is top heavy and imo garbage at this point is that their is

1. no hard cap
2. restrictions on max contracts
3. to many teams

fix those problems and "competitive balance" will be restored

lottery playoff system ... LMFAO

mudvayne387
04-20-2016, 01:55 PM
People trying to create "a competitive balance" via the draft are clueless...............

the reason the league is top heavy and imo garbage at this point is that their is

1. no hard cap
2. restrictions on max contracts
3. to many teams

fix those problems and "competitive balance" will be restored

lottery playoff system ... LMFAO

Who said this had anything to do with "competitive balance" ?

It's to prevent teams from deliberately losing games, not to evenly distribute talent.

Vinylman
04-20-2016, 02:04 PM
Who said this had anything to do with "competitive balance" ?

It's to prevent teams from deliberately losing games, not to evenly distribute talent.

you did...... check your post on the first page

quit looking at the symptom and understand the disease...... the issue for the bottom teams is access to talent........... that lack of access is MOST exacerbated by the 3 issues I listed

Scoots
04-20-2016, 02:05 PM
Yes he was, but he was traded to NY because he said that is the only team he wanted to be traded to and he was going to test FA (and most likely go to NY) unless he was traded there.

Carmelo is a perfect demonstration of the power of a big market considering Denver, who had a guy under contract, could not trade him to any other team but NY due to his desire to play there.

It was also his hometown and the trade meant that when they re-signed him he could get the full max with the full escalation. If they had to sign him as a free agent his contract would have been smaller so we don't know what he would have decided to do.

Scoots
04-20-2016, 02:12 PM
People trying to create "a competitive balance" via the draft are clueless...............

the reason the league is top heavy and imo garbage at this point is that their is

1. no hard cap
2. restrictions on max contracts
3. to many teams

fix those problems and "competitive balance" will be restored

lottery playoff system ... LMFAO

1. Where would you set the hard cap? $120M?

2. Max contracts allows a team to keep multiple star players they've drafted. The Warriors have Curry, Klay, and Green who are all at or will be near max players with other large contracts for Ezeli and Barnes. If there is not max contract and there is a hard cap it will penalize teams that build from the draft the way we want them to. Bad teams will have to massively overpay for top talent and then continue to lose for years because they won't be able to build a team around them.

3. What is the right number of teams? How do you choose who goes? Where is the buyout money going to come from?

mudvayne387
04-20-2016, 02:42 PM
you did...... check your post on the first page

quit looking at the symptom and understand the disease...... the issue for the bottom teams is access to talent........... that lack of access is MOST exacerbated by the 3 issues I listed

Oh yea I did

Whoops

warfelg
04-20-2016, 02:57 PM
1. Where would you set the hard cap? $120M?

2. Max contracts allows a team to keep multiple star players they've drafted. The Warriors have Curry, Klay, and Green who are all at or will be near max players with other large contracts for Ezeli and Barnes. If there is not max contract and there is a hard cap it will penalize teams that build from the draft the way we want them to. Bad teams will have to massively overpay for top talent and then continue to lose for years because they won't be able to build a team around them.

3. What is the right number of teams? How do you choose who goes? Where is the buyout money going to come from?

On the cap/Max thing:
I think one or the other. Keep the max contract and instill a hard cap, make the max 20% of the cap.
OR
Keep the soft cap, kill the max. You can pay whoever you want but, you will be in the tax if you pay too many the max. But increased penalties.

If there's a hard cap and Max's at a smaller size exist, contracts are guaranteed. If you dump the max, there can be guaranteed money, but not 100%.

That's long where my thoughts have been. Give players the option of more money or full security. Then if they complain remind them it's what they chose.

valade16
04-20-2016, 03:54 PM
It was also his hometown and the trade meant that when they re-signed him he could get the full max with the full escalation. If they had to sign him as a free agent his contract would have been smaller so we don't know what he would have decided to do.

But we do know that he wanted to go to NY enough to force the issue. Which is my point, certain markets and places are inherently more desirable and would be so for players entering the NBA if they had a choice.

True Sports Fan
04-20-2016, 04:27 PM
This is all about stopping tanking and that's easy to do without all this stuff.

Just do away with the draft. Each team gets the same small budget for first time eligible rookies (formerly draft eligible). Each team can only sign 2 first time eligible players, the rest can go back to school or to the d-league. Rosters can be filled with players who have been in the d-league or elsewhere for at least a year after their first time eligibility has passed.

Done. No more tanking.

Yeah lets just stack more elite teams, that's what we need,

Scoots
04-20-2016, 10:25 PM
Yeah lets just stack more elite teams, that's what we need,

You could have read past that point :)

Scoots
04-21-2016, 11:48 AM
There was a discussion pulled together by fivethirtyeight about fixing the draft which came up with some interesting stuff:

No Draft: It turns out there are a lot more reasons to do this than I had thought of and their solutions were more fleshed out and included the ability to trade rookie cap money.

Tombstone Date: Draft order is determined by team wins after their playoff elimination date. The team with the most wins after they are out of the playoffs gets the 1st pick, etc.

And their winning proposal NBA draft futures: The team with the worst record selects another team whose draft pick they get next year based on that team's finishing position, then the team with the 2nd worst record selects another team for their pick, etc. So since no team gets their own pick there is no reason to tank, and in fact the better they do the better their pick is, but in a very small measure.

I really like that one.

KnicksorBust
04-21-2016, 11:57 AM
Tombstone Date: Draft order is determined by team wins after their playoff elimination date. The team with the most wins after they are out of the playoffs gets the 1st pick, etc.


This is by far my favorite solution. Games 70-82 would be extremely competitive for lottery teams trying to add to their "elimination wins." Isn't that the whole purpose of coming up with these ideas? To avoid teams tanking the last weeks of the season?

Scoots
04-21-2016, 12:15 PM
This is by far my favorite solution. Games 70-82 would be extremely competitive for lottery teams trying to add to their "elimination wins." Isn't that the whole purpose of coming up with these ideas? To avoid teams tanking the last weeks of the season?

Yeah, but that means that teams that tank SO HARD from the beginning of the season get eliminated earliest so they get the most chances to get wins. It also means that teams in the best conference would be eliminated earlier even if they have a better record. We want them to want to win every game, not just the last few weeks.

Scoots
04-21-2016, 12:26 PM
One problem with the NBA futures idea is 2 teams could get together and decide to tank together and each pick the other's future.

Scoots
04-21-2016, 01:17 PM
Adam Silver responded to the NBA futures proposal: http://genius.com/Adam-silver-adam-silver-responds-to-fivethirtyeights-letter-about-the-nba-lottery-annotated

I think it's cool that Silver responded and clearly put some thought into it.

Vinylman
04-21-2016, 01:35 PM
1. Where would you set the hard cap? $120M?

2. Max contracts allows a team to keep multiple star players they've drafted. The Warriors have Curry, Klay, and Green who are all at or will be near max players with other large contracts for Ezeli and Barnes. If there is not max contract and there is a hard cap it will penalize teams that build from the draft the way we want them to. Bad teams will have to massively overpay for top talent and then continue to lose for years because they won't be able to build a team around them.

3. What is the right number of teams? How do you choose who goes? Where is the buyout money going to come from?

where you set the cap is irrelevant ........... it is just a number ............. but simply put it should tie to the CBA in terms of BRI levels

Hard cap drives two things:

1. Eliminating the max contract forces players to choose between playing with their buddies for less or cashing in.................. the bosh/wade/Lebron thing never would have happened if they were losing $50 million each over 5 years rather than $5-$10 million over that same time.

2. Eliminates all the BS related to TPE's and going over the cap with Birds Rights players (see Cleveland) .. Don't really care how it effects teams that draft well.. it just requires them to manage their roster more.... and fwiw... I see the warriors advantage differently than you ............. its the luxury of guys like Speights, Livingston, and Bogut.

The bolded is hilarious because once the talent is redistributed THROUGH MARKET FORCES the haves and the have nots will decline significantly.

As far as the number of teams there are probably 2-4 that need to go so the bottom 30-60 players are out of the league. That would be the last thing I would move on if the first two items don't. The league has plenty of money to buy them out.

Scoots
04-21-2016, 01:58 PM
where you set the cap is irrelevant ........... it is just a number ............. but simply put it should tie to the CBA in terms of BRI levels

Hard cap drives two things:

1. Eliminating the max contract forces players to choose between playing with their buddies for less or cashing in.................. the bosh/wade/Lebron thing never would have happened if they were losing $50 million each over 5 years rather than $5-$10 million over that same time.

2. Eliminates all the BS related to TPE's and going over the cap with Birds Rights players (see Cleveland) .. Don't really care how it effects teams that draft well.. it just requires them to manage their roster more.... and fwiw... I see the warriors advantage differently than you ............. its the luxury of guys like Speights, Livingston, and Bogut.

The bolded is hilarious because once the talent is redistributed THROUGH MARKET FORCES the haves and the have nots will decline significantly.

As far as the number of teams there are probably 2-4 that need to go so the bottom 30-60 players are out of the league. That would be the last thing I would move on if the first two items don't. The league has plenty of money to buy them out.

Where you set the hard cap is relevant, if you set it to $1B per team then every team will be able to sign and keep any players they want. If you set it to $70M then most teams will have 1 star and a bunch of "role players".

I don't quite understand the hate for the Miami "super team" thing ... but blowing up the concept of teams building through the draft and through free agency as a retaliation of some sort for one team taking advantage of the system doesn't make much sense to me.

If you think a hard cap and no max contracts will change the balance of power in the league you are mistaken. The fact is that the better owners/gms/coaches will ALWAYS average better teams overall because regardless of the system the better people will rise to the top and the worse people will sink to the bottom.

What no max contracts does do is gives agents a huge amount more power again along with star players and that is not conducive to parity if that is your goal.

As far as getting rid of teams and the league having plenty of money. I don't think the NBA has a spare $8B to throw to those owners and lose the revenue those teams bring to the league too. There is no way that happens.

I've thought about it a lot and I honestly don't see any way of increasing parity in sports short of a relegation system with a salary cap. But even that is very flawed and never going to happen.

Scoots
04-21-2016, 02:05 PM
How does a league counteract a bad owner. The bad owner wants a team because it will make money so you can take money away, but then the team just gets worse. Owners also like to use the team as a show, like a little trinket they can show off, the only thing I've thought of there is you only allow owners of teams to attend half as many games as the team won the previous year.

Silly, but nothing else really works that I can think of.

IndyRealist
04-21-2016, 03:29 PM
Unnecessarily complicated. It doesn't eliminate tanking, just moves it from the bottom of the league to the bottom of the playoffs.

Removing the draft completely has too many unforseen consequences. Incremental changes are probably better than scrapping everything and starting over.

Two ping pong balls for each team not in the playoffs, one ping pong ball for each playoff team that loses in first round. Draw picks 1-22. No more tanking, worse teams can still improve.

Scoots
04-21-2016, 03:54 PM
Unnecessarily complicated. It doesn't eliminate tanking, just moves it from the bottom of the league to the bottom of the playoffs.

Removing the draft completely has too many unforseen consequences. Incremental changes are probably better than scrapping everything and starting over.

Two ping pong balls for each team not in the playoffs, one ping pong ball for each playoff team that loses in first round. Draw picks 1-22. No more tanking, worse teams can still improve.

Just to confirm I understand what you are saying ... the team with the worst record could end up picking 22nd?

There are some advantages to that system in that it really doesn't reward tanking, but it also doesn't do much to help the worst teams get better. If I was a good owner/GM I'd LOVE that system.

IndyRealist
04-21-2016, 05:08 PM
Just to confirm I understand what you are saying ... the team with the worst record could end up picking 22nd?

There are some advantages to that system in that it really doesn't reward tanking, but it also doesn't do much to help the worst teams get better. If I was a good owner/GM I'd LOVE that system.

Yup. Give absolutely no incentive to tank, and there will be no tanking. Teams will be more bunched up anyway since they're always trying to build winning rosters, so the worst team and the 22nd worst team might only be seperated by 20 or so games.

Teams in the weighted system now don't vastly improve despite having multiple years of high draft picks, since Lebrons don't come every draft. Forcing them to build competent rosters will likely net them more wins than better odds at a top 5 draft pick.

gaughan333
04-21-2016, 05:46 PM
I'm in the group that thinks that the fact that there are 2 or 3 actual contenders each year is a far bigger problem and really what leads to a team tanking. I absolutely agree that the max contract is a terrible idea, for the reasons we saw with Miami. Star players are likely going to go to a desired city or already good team. The rich get richer.

This leads to teams tanking, because the only way to get out of this cycle is to get lucky and draft a "franchise" type player because you sure as hell aren't gonna get one to come to your team in free agency because you can't pay them more than a better place or team.

Scoots
04-21-2016, 10:04 PM
Yup. Give absolutely no incentive to tank, and there will be no tanking. Teams will be more bunched up anyway since they're always trying to build winning rosters, so the worst team and the 22nd worst team might only be seperated by 20 or so games.

Teams in the weighted system now don't vastly improve despite having multiple years of high draft picks, since Lebrons don't come every draft. Forcing them to build competent rosters will likely net them more wins than better odds at a top 5 draft pick.

But the best teams are essentially always assembled by the best franchises. Giving the better talent to some of the better teams means they will be down even less time but the bad teams will have no hope to get better without the relatively easier draft choices at the top of the draft. Look at the Mavs, they should have collapsed a couple years ago by now but they are still in the playoffs because they are a good franchise ... if they have a reasonable chance of the first pick in the draft it will only keep the bad teams bad longer.

I don't like tanking, but I do believe the teams at the bottom do need extra help to get closer to parity while also hating to see most of the top talent wasted on bad franchises.

Scoots
04-21-2016, 10:18 PM
I'm in the group that thinks that the fact that there are 2 or 3 actual contenders each year is a far bigger problem and really what leads to a team tanking. I absolutely agree that the max contract is a terrible idea, for the reasons we saw with Miami. Star players are likely going to go to a desired city or already good team. The rich get richer.

This leads to teams tanking, because the only way to get out of this cycle is to get lucky and draft a "franchise" type player because you sure as hell aren't gonna get one to come to your team in free agency because you can't pay them more than a better place or team.

I don't see how the max contract is that big of a problem. Miami's big 3 didn't sign max deals, none of them did. The Spurs managed to stay together until this year without signing their roster to multiple max deals. The Cavs have multiple max deals but only one of them was not drafted by the team and he cost them 2 first overall picks ... they got to here the old fashioned way ... they tanked.

Teams tank because when they suck they can't build a team around a max player quickly enough without being really bad first. The Salary cap is a much bigger issue with keeping teams from building competitive teams because they can't sign whoever they want, the max contract actually gives them more flexibility to improve not less.

What the NBA needs to do to have more top teams is to make trades easier and maybe lower the advantage teams have of keeping players by reducing or eliminating the escalator and contract length advantages. Free agents have to REALLY want to leave to leave now which means great players get stuck on bad teams because of the money.

The NBA also needs to find a way to evaluate GMs and coaches ... if they could somehow be evaluated better the bad ones would be fired earlier and the good ones would get more rope to work. But fundamentally there is a much bigger shortage of great GMs and great coaches than great players.

beasted86
04-22-2016, 11:31 AM
How does a league counteract a bad owner. The bad owner wants a team because it will make money so you can take money away, but then the team just gets worse. Owners also like to use the team as a show, like a little trinket they can show off, the only thing I've thought of there is you only allow owners of teams to attend half as many games as the team won the previous year.

Silly, but nothing else really works that I can think of.

The team doesn't "just get worse" if they are losing money. He either complains if a CBA bargaining period is nearby or he sells... The latter is what you want anyway if he's not willing to really work his craft on making a winner and/or drawing fans to the arena.

There's no billionaire that will willingly lose millions each season while his team also loses. Hurting their pockets is the only thing that will truly light a fire underneath them.

Forget that stupid hard cap or unlimited cap/contracts talk, because end of the day you are only going to promote a Miami Marlins type of owner who is a cancer to the league. That guy will never sell the team as long as he makes his profits every year from the Yankees and such. He has a team in a brand new stadium, he mismanaged his team and STILL makes money?! That guy is living the high life! When I list it out like that I can't even hate on him for working the system.

Scoots
04-22-2016, 12:20 PM
The team doesn't "just get worse" if they are losing money. He either complains if a CBA bargaining period is nearby or he sells... The latter is what you want anyway if he's not willing to really work his craft on making a winner and/or drawing fans to the arena.

There's no billionaire that will willingly lose millions each season while his team also loses. Hurting their pockets is the only thing that will truly light a fire underneath them.

Forget that stupid hard cap or unlimited cap/contracts talk, because end of the day you are only going to promote a Miami Marlins type of owner who is a cancer to the league. That guy will never sell the team as long as he makes his profits every year from the Yankees and such. He has a team in a brand new stadium, he mismanaged his team and STILL makes money?! That guy is living the high life! When I list it out like that I can't even hate on him for working the system.

I agree.

The team gets worse with less money because the owner will want to keep making money ... so, fewer cheaper trainers, worse hotels, travel budgets get smaller, cheaper coaches, smaller cheaper coaching staffs, never extend contracts to good players, just keep drafting players high, burning them up, and moving on. Maybe get to the cap floor by trading for bad overpaid contracts. But spend as little as possible on the team. If they are still making money after all that then they just keep going, if they are not then they complain to get more out of the league, or maaaaaybe they sell. But for years and years it's a nightmare team.

I was arguing against the hard cap/no max contracts thing because I think that hurts teams doing it "right" more than the bad teams.

The only thing I could think of that might light a fire under the owners is if they were not allowed to go to the games :)