Jazz Vote No To Lottery Reform

[bjunior]

I disagree. Outside of Eric Bledsoe playing half the year, Phoenix didn't really add to their talent pool last year. They added a coach and a system that complemented their players and allowed them to be competitive in the West. That's what ALL teams should be doing. Winning as many games as they can with the talent that they have.

Does anyone really think the Suns have a drastically more talented roster than the Jazz, Sacramento, Minnesota? Certainly no one did before last season. Why "punish" them for doing the best they could with the roster they had? The Suns are now stuck in no-mans land. Too well-run to add talent (with a top pick) and not good enough to be anything more than a 7th or 8th seed at best.

Which position would you rather be in? A team overachieving with virtually no potential to add to their talent pool (Suns) or a team with multiple young players that can potentially grow into stars and make you a playoff team (Utah)?

yes

if some of the teams actually cared about how to become better, talented coaches like blatt would've came sooner in the nba and coaches like corbin would never stayed for 3 years

 

[oldtimer]

I disagree. Outside of Eric Bledsoe playing half the year, Phoenix didn't really add to their talent pool last year. They added a coach and a system that complemented their players and allowed them to be competitive in the West. That's what ALL teams should be doing. Winning as many games as they can with the talent that they have.

First Eric Bledsoe is an absolute stud. Second Phoenix had a great coaching staff and had some very good draft picks. That doesn't change the fact that I would have hated it if Phoenix had moved ahead of the Jazz in the draft last year. My point is you don't want team on the verge of making the playoffs to jump ahead of the teams that completely suck. Intentionally tanking aside, I think its best if the worst teams get the better players.

 

[♪alt13]

The reform would have been good for us in the short term, but not the longterm.

How do you figure? The Jazz just went through their worst season since I have been watching and they ended up in 4th. I am certain that the Jazz will have more 4-14 worst seasons than bottom 3.

 

[BTP]

I think it's a slippery slope and I see why teams shied away from the proposal that leaked through the media.

But on the other hand the direction is a good one in my opinion.
Make it flat for the last 4 teams I'd say. 30 teams in a league, and franchise players can usually give a team 10 very strong years. This should result in 3 teams every year that require the restart button from an on court standpoint. So give 4 teams 15% odds each and have a declining system afterwards that makes sure a team outside the bottom 8 rarely getts something and it would be fine. Also make the lottery 4 teams deep, so the worst team can slip to 5th worst case.

This should pull some competition for the worst team out of the system and teams can highlight good coaching and player development while veterans are present to sneak out an improbable win or two during rebuilding. This should also help the league generally in terms of player development in terms of minimizing the amount of wasted talent when you bring them into a better culture and give them more veteran guidance.

Also introduce a lockout for teams that won a #1 slot for the next year to keep them out of the top4 even if they are the worst team again.
For other lottery teams you are only eligible to hit the lottery 2 times in a row(e.g. 2nd pick 2014, 3rd pick 2015 results in best case 5th pick 2016)

 

[Stifle Tower]

I disagree. Outside of Eric Bledsoe playing half the year, Phoenix didn't really add to their talent pool last year. They added a coach and a system that complemented their players and allowed them to be competitive in the West. That's what ALL teams should be doing. Winning as many games as they can with the talent that they have.

Does anyone really think the Suns have a drastically more talented roster than the Jazz, Sacramento, Minnesota? Certainly no one did before last season. Why "punish" them for doing the best they could with the roster they had? The Suns are now stuck in no-mans land. Too well-run to add talent (with a top pick) and not good enough to be anything more than a 7th or 8th seed at best.

Which position would you rather be in? A team overachieving with virtually no potential to add to their talent pool (Suns) or a team with multiple young players that can potentially grow into stars and make you a playoff team (Utah)?

Or they just make head-scratching personnel moves, like committing to matching any offer for Bledsoe, but still going out and acquiring a pretty high-priced third PG in Thomas and drafting Ennis. Every team faces different personnel decisions in FA, the draft and trades. Phoenix seems to be going small ball. Can they win in the playoffs with Plumlee and the Morris' as their bigs?

 

[The Midnight]

The reform would have been good for us in the short term, but not the longterm.

This.


In the long term there is a clear advantage of benefit to the bigger market teams, which is why I think the Jazz (and Spurs, and OKC, and Miami) took the long term view and voted "No".

 

[The Midnight]

Surprised CHI voted "NO" though... aren't they supposed to be one of the bigger market teams?

 

[Jeffrey32]

I think it needs reforming, but not sure the proposed reform was the right way to go.

 

[BTP]

Surprised CHI voted "NO" though... aren't they supposed to be one of the bigger market teams?

a) The Reinsdorf's are historically greedy and have one of the most successful scouting teams and they like having sold out venues while still reaping huge profits in rebuilding seasons. In addition they may feel they have the smallest advantage of all the big market teams in terms of recruiting because superstars dont like stepping into the gigantic footsteps of Jordan.

b) They are really emphatic with the rest of the league and like a good portion of competitive balance

 

[fishonjazz]

personally I thought the proposed changes went too far. It opened the first six positions of the draft to the lottery so the worst team could have ended up with the 7th pick and the odds were way too flat. Almost every team in the lottery had a chance at the number 1 pick. I would have hated having phoenix win the number one pick last year after almost making the playoffs in the West.

I think the proposal went too far. They should make it so that the four or five worst teams have the same odds of winning but the drop off is substantially after that. The 14th worst team should have almost no chance at number 1. And they should keep it so that only the first three spots are open to the lottery. This draft reform would have helped tanking and I think the small market teams could have gotten behind this option.

I kind of thought it was cool that the team that fought hard to make the playoffs, but narrowly missed, could get rewarded for thier efforts since they didn't make the playoffs.

The current system means that a team like Phoenix last year is the most screwed team in the league..... It's the least desirable position. Phoenix should have tanked tbh

 

[fishonjazz]

I disagree. Outside of Eric Bledsoe playing half the year, Phoenix didn't really add to their talent pool last year. They added a coach and a system that complemented their players and allowed them to be competitive in the West. That's what ALL teams should be doing. Winning as many games as they can with the talent that they have.

Does anyone really think the Suns have a drastically more talented roster than the Jazz, Sacramento, Minnesota? Certainly no one did before last season. Why "punish" them for doing the best they could with the roster they had? The Suns are now stuck in no-mans land. Too well-run to add talent (with a top pick) and not good enough to be anything more than a 7th or 8th seed at best.

Which position would you rather be in? A team overachieving with virtually no potential to add to their talent pool (Suns) or a team with multiple young players that can potentially grow into stars and make you a playoff team (Utah)?

Agreed

 

[fishonjazz]

My point is you don't want team on the verge of making the playoffs to jump ahead of the teams that completely suck.

I don't know about you, but I would love it if the jazz just barely missed the playoffs and then got a top pick too

 

[fishonjazz]

Also introduce a lockout for teams that won a #1 slot for the next year to keep them out of the top4 even if they are the worst team again.
For other lottery teams you are only eligible to hit the lottery 2 times in a row(e.g. 2nd pick 2014, 3rd pick 2015 results in best case 5th pick 2016)

I like this idea

 

[LogGrad98]

https://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11744283/nba-owners-fail-pass-draft-lottery-reform

Final vote looks like it was 17 (yes) -13 (no). That is 6 votes shy of the 23 needed to pass.

Adrian Wojnarowski: Here were the 13 "No" votes, sources told Yahoo: PHX, PHL, OKC, NO, DET, MIA, MIL, San Antonio, Utah, Wash, ATL, CHA and Chicago. Twitter @WojYahooNBA

Thoughts?

Personally I am kind of bummed.

Most of those teams are either on the cusp (Phx), current lottery teams (us for example), or can see in the future that their era will pass and they don't want changes to the lottery to mess up their rebuild (San Anton, OKC, etc.). In short, the teams that have a view of the lottery either in the very recent past, currently, or in the semi-near future (say 5 years out or so) voted no. So that means they prefer the current tank system. Kind of disappointing.

 

[BTP]

I like this idea

Yep I don't like badly drafting teams. If you're having a #1 pick already who's really good you shouldn't be getting a 2nd superstar for competitive balance, but be able to draft a very good "Pippen" at #5 and if you're good at drafting you can find gold at #5 as well in most drafts.

If your number 1 from the previous year was bad you can compete for another #1 in the year after or secure 2 more lottery picks in the following years.

Discourages continued tanking and rewards good roster management and drafting.

 

[oldtimer]

I don't know about you, but I would love it if the jazz just barely missed the playoffs and then got a top pick too

Absolutely but you don't set rules on the best case scenario. When your talking about rule changes and you are a small market team you have to plan for worse case scenario. The Jazz were bad last year and if the changes proposed had been in effect last year the Jazz could have picked 10th if other teams had moved up.

I guess I have never been a really lucky person. Small market teams need to be sure they have a mechanism to get a very good pick when they are truly bad. Free agents aren't coming to Utah all that often. So when were bad we need a system that will give fans hope that we can turn it around. The proposed changes basically meant its a crap shoot in the lottery.

 

[fishonjazz]

Absolutely but you don't set rules on the best case scenario. When your talking about rule changes and you are a small market team you have to plan for worse case scenario. The Jazz were bad last year and if the changes proposed had been in effect last year the Jazz could have picked 10th if other teams had moved up.

I guess I have never been a really lucky person. Small market teams need to be sure they have a mechanism to get a very good pick when they are truly bad. Free agents aren't coming to Utah all that often. So when were bad we need a system that will give fans hope that we can turn it around. The proposed changes basically meant its a crap shot in the lottery.

Solid

 

[♪alt13]

Absolutely but you don't set rules on the best case scenario. When your talking about rule changes and you are a small market team you have to plan for worse case scenario. The Jazz were bad last year and if the changes proposed had been in effect last year the Jazz could have picked 10th if other teams had moved up.

I guess I have never been a really lucky person. Small market teams need to be sure they have a mechanism to get a very good pick when they are truly bad. Free agents aren't coming to Utah all that often. So when were bad we need a system that will give fans hope that we can turn it around. The proposed changes basically meant its a crap shot in the lottery.

No it did not mean it was a crap shoot. The 14th team still had a 95.9% chance of picking 14th.

 

[oldtimer]

A 4.1% chance of moving up is not irrelevant, but that only a small part of my concerns. The proposed system flattened the odds so that essentially the worst 7 teams had identical odds of winning. That is a huge change from the current system.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

My point is you don't want team on the verge of making the playoffs to jump ahead of the teams that completely suck. Intentionally tanking aside, I think its best if the worst teams get the better players.

I have no problem with teams close to the playoffs getting a top pick a small percentage of the time. My point is that the difference between the worst teams in the league and the teams barely missing the playoffs is very little, and doesn't have much to do with talent. Most of the "worst" teams were making a conscious decision to be bad (Utah, Philly, Orlando). All of these teams made obvious decisions that they knew would negatively affect their team in the short term. If you are making a conscious decision to win less games for any reason, it is a form of tanking. Why are we rewarding teams for doing this?

If we smooth out the draft percentages (as the denied proposal suggested) it makes it less rewarding to be a terrible team intentionally, and also makes it less of a death-sentence to be a middle-tier team stuck in mediocrity.