Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 192
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by tredigs View Post
    Not sure I like that either. Are you keeping the cap? So the Kings are going to offer Giannis 4 years, 300 million and have 25 mil a year for the rest of their **** roster while we watch him waste his best years missing the playoffs every season because he wanted his payday?
    You would definitely have to keep the cap, maybe raise it a little bit and make it a hard cap like others are suggesting... This would prevent teams from loading up and going way over the "soft cap" to build dynasties...

    Look at th NFL & NHL - teams have to make difficult salary decisions every single season because they are subject to a cap.. these decisions create parity.. In the NBA it's literally up to the owners and how much they want to spend in luxury tax to create a winning product.

    And honestly, re the Giannis point, if a player wants to accept the $$ over winning than they are 100% entitled to doing so... just like when a player accepts winning over money. It's their decision.


    I think the bottom line is that star players contracts shouldn't be "maxed", and there shouldn't be a "soft cap"... you don't see that in the NFL or NHL and they do not have these tanking problems.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,465
    Brief history of the lottery:

    Started in 1985, and for 2 years every lottery team had equal chances and every pick was drawn, not just 1-3.

    In 1987 they switched to only drawing 1-3, with every team having equal chances.

    In 1990 they switched to a weighted lottery, again only drawing the top 3 picks. The weights have changed but this is the system we use now.

    So a flat lottery, drawing every pick, was only tried for 2 years. Two trials is not enough data to decide that a random system is ineffective. Bad teams complained that the Knicks got Patrick Ewing, and so they changed the system to reward losing.

    As long as a) teams with the worst record have the best odds, and b) the worst team is guaranteed no worse than a top 5 pick, teams will always tank.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    47,792
    In a sport where teams can be so dependent and transformed by 1 player, you can't take away the ability for a bad team to get that 1 player.

    PROCESSING

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    10,685
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    In a sport where teams can be so dependent and transformed by 1 player, you can't take away the ability for a bad team to get that 1 player.
    I agree.

    The thing they really need to do is find a way for greater parity between 1-8 in each conference. That way there's a chance that a #8 can do some damage in the playoffs and teams will actually fight to get in. Right now we all know that seven's and eight's are doing much, so there's no urgency to try to get in those spots. I'm not sure how they achieve this, but they've got to start trying. A hard cap, with no individual player cap may be the only way to do it. If Durant makes $50m, it's a lot harder to build a super team with $108m.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18,706
    This has been discussed endlessly in other threads..

    until there is a significant change to the CBA there is nothing that can be done to stop tanking

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    In a sport where teams can be so dependent and transformed by 1 player, you can't take away the ability for a bad team to get that 1 player.
    agreed 100%

    This is why the Max contract needs to get removed...

    Right now, with the way that the league is currently set up, a teams highest probability of attaining a star player is through the draft lottery. So you cannot blame teams for trying to up their odds in order to compete in the future.

    However, the reason it's like this is because of the way contracts are set up.

    Players have more incentive to stay with their current teams, because these teams are allowed to offer the highest $$ amount due to the max contract system.

    So a team that rebuilds correctly, has a lot of solid pieces and is missing that one superstar, doesn't even have a realistic shot at going for a Free Agent star because they can't top the deal that the stars current team can offer.

    Player contracts shouldn't be dictated by some ridiculous arbitrary system determined by years of experience, "all star games appearances" & "all nba team votes"... It should be determined based on fair market value of their services provided.

    Until they do away with this garbage system nothing will change.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    47,792
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_noodles View Post
    I agree.

    The thing they really need to do is find a way for greater parity between 1-8 in each conference. That way there's a chance that a #8 can do some damage in the playoffs and teams will actually fight to get in. Right now we all know that seven's and eight's are doing much, so there's no urgency to try to get in those spots. I'm not sure how they achieve this, but they've got to start trying. A hard cap, with no individual player cap may be the only way to do it. If Durant makes $50m, it's a lot harder to build a super team with $108m.
    I rather see tiered flat odd, and the 7 and 8 seed from each conference included in the lottery.

    18 teams in the lotto
    3 pods of even odds (6 teams per pod)
    Pull for the top 4, go chalk after that


    Now it doesn't matter if your the worse or 4th worse team. The need to sink all the way down is smaller. With the 7 and 8 seeds included, there's little incentive to miss the playoffs for that slim chance.

    PROCESSING

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    21,982
    Quote Originally Posted by tredigs View Post
    Ah you know what, the board of governors voted to change the rules last year, but I'm looking at it right now and it does not go into effect until NEXT season. I did not realize that.

    Look those up if you're not familiar.
    Yeah, I'm familiar.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    21,982
    Quote Originally Posted by jimboslice15 View Post
    You would definitely have to keep the cap, maybe raise it a little bit and make it a hard cap like others are suggesting... This would prevent teams from loading up and going way over the "soft cap" to build dynasties...

    Look at th NFL & NHL - teams have to make difficult salary decisions every single season because they are subject to a cap.. these decisions create parity.. In the NBA it's literally up to the owners and how much they want to spend in luxury tax to create a winning product.

    And honestly, re the Giannis point, if a player wants to accept the $$ over winning than they are 100% entitled to doing so... just like when a player accepts winning over money. It's their decision.


    I think the bottom line is that star players contracts shouldn't be "maxed", and there shouldn't be a "soft cap"... you don't see that in the NFL or NHL and they do not have these tanking problems.
    There is tanking in the NFL and NHL it's just not as blatant, and roster sizes in both sports make a single draft pick mean a LOT less.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    21,982
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyRealist View Post
    Brief history of the lottery:

    Started in 1985, and for 2 years every lottery team had equal chances and every pick was drawn, not just 1-3.

    In 1987 they switched to only drawing 1-3, with every team having equal chances.

    In 1990 they switched to a weighted lottery, again only drawing the top 3 picks. The weights have changed but this is the system we use now.

    So a flat lottery, drawing every pick, was only tried for 2 years. Two trials is not enough data to decide that a random system is ineffective. Bad teams complained that the Knicks got Patrick Ewing, and so they changed the system to reward losing.

    As long as a) teams with the worst record have the best odds, and b) the worst team is guaranteed no worse than a top 5 pick, teams will always tank.
    Even a flat lottery will not stop tanking. There was tanking in those years too. Add to that a flat lottery would encourage a team to tank out of the playoffs because they'd have an equal chance to get the #1 pick and quickly be contenders.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    21,982
    My favorite solution is to have the teams draft other teams finishing spot for the next year, so the team with the worst record gets to pick another team for the next year, then the draft is run straight by finishing record and you get the pick of the team drafted.

    There is never a reason to tank since you don't ever get your pick, and winning actually improves your draft position, but at the same time the worst teams will still have the best chance of getting a good pick.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    47,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    My favorite solution is to have the teams draft other teams finishing spot for the next year, so the team with the worst record gets to pick another team for the next year, then the draft is run straight by finishing record and you get the pick of the team drafted.

    There is never a reason to tank since you don't ever get your pick, and winning actually improves your draft position, but at the same time the worst teams will still have the best chance of getting a good pick.
    That will never happen because of charges of collusion.

    PROCESSING

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    There is tanking in the NFL and NHL it's just not as blatant, and roster sizes in both sports make a single draft pick mean a LOT less.
    Provide some specific evidence of tanking in either league please, because I haven't seen it.

    Some times teams rebuild but they don't get to the point of resting healthy players in order to lose games.

    Last nights Suns/Mavs game was a disgrace to the NBA.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,465
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    That will never happen because of charges of collusion.
    Collusion was my first though as well. Charlotte and Phoenix could cut a deal to pick each other right as they are blowing up their rosters, and end up with #1 and #2

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Even a flat lottery will not stop tanking. There was tanking in those years too. Add to that a flat lottery would encourage a team to tank out of the playoffs because they'd have an equal chance to get the #1 pick and quickly be contenders.
    My actual plan was to give lottery teams 2 balls and teams eliminated in the first round 1 ball. Is there reason to tank out of the playoffs? Yeah, a slightly better odds at moving up, versus the playoff revenue.

    Does that mean it'll be hard for bad team to get better through the draft? Yes. Does it mean some marginal playoff team is likely to get a top 10 draft pick? Also yes. But I'd like more contenders, and giving a middling team a star draft pick can do that.

    What it also does is lessen the reliance on the lottery for bad teams to get better. Instead of putting their effort into being as bad as possible, they can put it into running a better organization, developing players internally (yay G League!), and making shrewd trades.

    Sports success should not be the luck of the draw, it's should be a meritocracy. The best run organizations should succeed, and the poorly run ones should get better.

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •