Zack Lowe: Fix the Lottery to take away need for tanking

[AlaskanAssassin]

I like these two ideas:

1- Make the 3 worst teams in the league ineligible for a top 3 pick. Keep the lottery the same but just remove those 3 teams ping pong balls. This will eliminate season-long "GM Planned" Tanking.

2- I know Bill Simmons wants this one. We need to have a season ending tournament for the #8 seed. The teams that can't get in the top 7 of their conference have a single elimination tournament (similar to March Madness) for the #8 seed. It would be a difficult decision to tank if you are worsening your positioning for the season ending tournament. There are financial implications here too, as owners want the $ that comes from additional games played.

 

[green]

I like these two ideas:

1- Make the 3 worst teams in the league ineligible for a top 3 pick. Keep the lottery the same but just remove those 3 teams ping pong balls. This will eliminate season-long "GM Planned" Tanking.

2- I know Bill Simmons wants this one. We need to have a season ending tournament for the #8 seed. The teams that can't get in the top 7 of their conference have a single elimination tournament (similar to March Madness) for the #8 seed. It would be a difficult decision to tank if you are worsening your positioning for the season ending tournament. There are financial implications here too, as owners want the $ that comes from additional games played.

I hate the eliminate the top 3. If you are going to have a lottery, you have to give the worst team the best chance at winning it. You have to. If you don't, the same three teams will be in the bottom three every year.

I don't like the entertaining as hell tourney. It would be fun, but be terrible for some teams. So, Utah would give up a shot at Jabari, to get killed in the first round? No way. Not worth it. The two weeks it was played would be fun, but after would be terrible buyer's regret.

 

[green]

Parity is easy.

1. Shrink by 4 teams.

2. Share revenue.

3. Fine flopping with playoff games. LeBron would lose 4-5 more games every season.

I'm not a socialist...except for sports. I like revenue sharing. I think teams can keep "their" money (tickets, jerseys, anything that ONLY has their name attached to it), but "shared" revenue (mainly tv revenue) needs to be shared. LA can't exist without Utah. They need someone to play. That way big markets still have some advantage with money (charge more for seats, put their players on billboards, ads, etc) but smaller markets still have a chance.

I think contraction needs to happen. There are too many teams out there right now.

Like I said, contract 2 teams (4 would be ideal). Don't barter, argue, pull out of a hat. Look at the bottom 4 profitable teams the last 10 years. Bang, gone. Then, revenue share any dollar that has more than one team attached to it. Equally. Third, I really like the fixed draft order. You can then plan for future knowing where you will be and what you need to get to.

Also, people are worried about NY having a #1 pick, but with their buying power, I would put money down that they would have traded that thing long before they pick with it. Teams with money are stupid with their other assets. They feel they can buy their way out of problems and they don't value picks.

Also, this would make picks a lot more valuable this way. You could demand more for your picks. Can you imagine if the Lakers came to Utah and said, we have the #3 pick in 2017, we want to trade that for Hayward. Boom. You could do it.

As far as people delaying entering the draft, yeah, sure it could happen. Just like how Barnes delayed coming into the draft when he was thought of as a top 3 player. It already happens now-a-days. And, in the NBA, only one player has been good enough to demand where he wanted to go (Kobe). And in the NFL, only two players have pulled that off (Elway and Manning). I just don't think it is as big of a deal as people make it out to be. AND, let's say Wiggins didn't want to be in Utah and Utah had the #1 pick. The fixed draft protects Utah, because now they can make a trade and KNOW what they are getting back for it.

You want Wiggins? Sure, I want two top 5 picks (a #1 and another one) and this player. Instead of protected picks and what happens if the team is great, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

Say goodbye to all the small market teams. Just say no to this nba!

 

[sdizzle]

I hate the idea. If you miss on your pick the one year you get a top pick you're screwed for a long time. Make it so that every team that misses the playoffs has the exact same odds of winning the lottery.

 

[The Midnight]

If the NBA were to do this, I would also want to do a two team contraction. Find the two teams that have been the least profitable in the last 10 years and contract them. Do a second draft, where every team is weighted equally in a lottery, and let them choose the players off those teams. All contracts follow the players, and all salary cap rules must be abided by.

For example, if Charlotte is contracted, and the Lakers get the #1 pick, they can't take Al Jefferson, because his contract is what they would have to sign him to, and they can't bring on a FA with a deal that big. NOW, I would be okay with teams trading their picks around. So, LA gets #1. They want Kemba. They trade the #1 for the #2 and whatever else they agreed to so they could take Kemba and pick a draft pick along the way. Or dump salary. Or whatever.

LOL.. bro.. you can't just "contract" a team or two.. each teams are worth upwards of $600m nowadays - do you have $1.2billion just laying around to pay of them owners???

 

[The Midnight]

Parity is easy.

1. Shrink by 4 teams.

2. Share revenue.

3. Fine flopping with playoff games. LeBron would lose 4-5 more games every season.

LOL.. bro.. you can't just "contract" a team or 4 or 5.. each teams are worth upwards of $600m nowadays - do you have $2.4billion - $3billion just laying around to pay off them owners???

 

[green]

Say goodbye to all the small market teams. Just say no to this nba!

Please go re read my posts. This would give small market teams more leverage and certainty in trades and roster moves. This wouldn't hurt small market teams at all.

Do you realize that out of the big three (NFL, MLB, and NBA) the NBA has the least amount of parity?

 

[//r00t 4 Jazz]

In someways I like it and in others I don't. I think there could be a way to have a little wiggle room, instead of it setting your exact pick have it set within a range of 3 or maybe 5 with the worse record of those 3 teams getting the better pick. So the wheel will determine like it's designed to with the understanding that based on your record you could move up or down 3 spots, obviously there would be a little more to it then my simplistic overview but I think that way it would keep power houses from getting the best picks and keep teams that are down a little bit of help and still minimizing the tanking.

 

[Doublea]

I don't like this at all. I like the current system better. The current system allows a team like Utah to suck for one or two years than get back into the playoffs. Your system would take a rebuild from 2-5 years and make it 5 years minimum. You would have to suck for too long to have a shot at a franchise player. This system is much better. Suck for a year, get your guy, get back to the playoffs.

But we are trying to take out tanking not bad teams.

 

[green]

But we are trying to take out tanking not bad teams.

Averaging out over three seasons requires MORE tanking. You can't just San Antonio/Chicago it and then contend again. You have to suck for three years instead of one.

Averaging out is the worst idea out there.

 

[green]

So, here is the worst possible ordering for the Jazz:

Here are the players we would have drafted going backwards from last year:

30 - Nemanja Nedovic - ????
19 - Andrew Nicholson (Sullinger, Plumlee, Crowder avail)
18 - Chris Singleton (Faried, Brooks, Chandler Parsons avail)
7 - Greg Monroe
6 - Flynn (Steph Curry avail)
25 - Batum (Hill, Pekovic, Dragic avail)
23 - Wilson Chandler (Splitter, Landry)
14 - Brewer (Rondo)
11 - Vazquez (Granger, Warrick)
2 - Okafor (this draft sucks. Utah gets SCREWED)
29 - Josh Howard
20 - Rush
17 - Bradley
8 - Jamal Crawford
5 - Andre Miller (it was Bender here, but I don't see Utah passing up on Miller)
26 - Sam Jacobson
22 - Ed Gray
15 - Steve Nash
10 - Kurt Thomas
3 - Grant Hill
28 - Lucious Harris
21 - Jon Barry
16 - Chris Gatling
9 - Willie Burton
4 - Glenn Rice
27 - Shelton Jones
24 - Freddie Banks
13 - Dwayne Washington
12 - Malone
1 - Hakeem Olajuwon - No Stockton

 

[green]

So, if this were how the draft were set up, Utah would have started off taking Hakeem #1. The next year, Malone would have gone #12. The following year, Scott Skiles or Mark Price were available. A few (4), Glenn Rice is available. That makes this your starting lineup:

C - Hakeem
PF - Malone
SF - Rice
SG - ???
PG - Price

So, a small market team couldn't handle that? How would LA take away Hakeem, Malone, Rice and Price? Over a 7 year period? Then, a couple years later, the Jazz would have ended up with GRANT HILL.

Here are the players that you could have paired up with Hakeem and Malone:

Rice, Jon Barry, Grant Hill, Kurt Thomas, Steve Nash, Andre Miller, Jamal Crawford, Brandon Rush.

Compared to the players Utah drafted during that same time period:

Stockton, Malone, Dell Curry, Ortiz, Leckner, Edwards, nobody, Murdock, nobody, Wright, nobody, Ostertag, Muurrsep, Vaughn, Mohammed, Lewis, Stevenson, Lopez, Humphrey

Tell me which system would have worked better for the Jazz over the last 30 years? The lottery?

 

[green]

The more I look into this, the better and more equitable this system is. Look at what has happened with Deron. We traded Deron for Favors, Kanter's pick (#3) and the GS pick this year (???). The GS pick could be anywhere from 8-22. HUGE range. So, in that trade, who took on the biggest risk? NJ? Nope. They had a pretty good idea what they were getting. But for Utah, they had a pick that turned into Kanter, and this GS pick, where they have already been screwed out of Harrison Barnes.

Do you realize that Utah traded Deron for potential picks that could have fallen from 1-30? Do you realize that if GS is in the lottery and GS gets the #3 pick, Utah gets two second round picks instead of GS's pick? How bad would that suck for Utah?

Wouldn't it have been better if Utah had traded Deron for NJ's #3 pick and GS's #7 and Favors? That would have been a much "safer" trade for Utah than what they did.

Why would you ever tank in this system? You could actually be smart and plan ahead.

Remember:

EVERY TEAM WOULD BE GUARANTEED ONE TOP-SIX PICK EVERY FIVE SEASONS, AND AT LEAST ONE TOP-12 PICK IN EVERY FOUR-YEAR SPAN.

A top 6 pick every five years and a top 12 pick every four years. Every 8 years, you would have a top FIVE pick and two top TWELVE picks. Deron wants to leave? Great, NJ gives up their top 5 pick, and a top 12. That means that in the next 8 years, Utah has TWO top FIVE picks and FOUR top TWELVE picks.

The more I look into this, I don't see how you can argue this isn't better.

 

[Doublea]

So, if this were how the draft were set up, Utah would have started off taking Hakeem #1. The next year, Malone would have gone #12. The following year, Scott Skiles or Mark Price were available. A few (4), Glenn Rice is available. That makes this your starting lineup:

C - Hakeem
PF - Malone
SF - Rice
SG - ???
PG - Price

So, a small market team couldn't handle that? How would LA take away Hakeem, Malone, Rice and Price? Over a 7 year period? Then, a couple years later, the Jazz would have ended up with GRANT HILL.

Here are the players that you could have paired up with Hakeem and Malone:

Rice, Jon Barry, Grant Hill, Kurt Thomas, Steve Nash, Andre Miller, Jamal Crawford, Brandon Rush.

Compared to the players Utah drafted during that same time period:

Stockton, Malone, Dell Curry, Ortiz, Leckner, Edwards, nobody, Murdock, nobody, Wright, nobody, Ostertag, Muurrsep, Vaughn, Mohammed, Lewis, Stevenson, Lopez, Humphrey

Tell me which system would have worked better for the Jazz over the last 30 years? The lottery?

Just because those players were drafted at those spots doesn't mean the Jazz would have picked them. Drafting sucks and there really isn't anyway a team can be certain in what they are getting with a player.

 

[The Thriller]

A better way to stop the tank?

Get rid of some of the ridiculous franchises like the kings and raptors that don't give a damn.

Adjust the playoff schedule. Right now the best of 7 game series favor the few teams that can survive it. Turn them into shorter series or just one games, and teams that maybe come in as 8th seeds will have the feeling that they can cause legit damage. As it's constructed now, even 5th or 6th seeds feel unable to do anything in these long series. Make it one and done and suddenly teams will crave just to get into the playoffs knowing that they are just a few games away from the championship.

Imagine if the NY giants had to play in playoff series? They'd have no Super Bowls. Imagine if Peyton got to play in series? Hed probably have 3-4 rings.

Make it one and done or a shorter series and things suddenly get interesting. A no name team might get hot one game or two and knock out the spurs or heat.

 

[green]

Right now, our lineup could have Andre Miller, Steve Nash, Brandon Rush, Okafor, Brewer, Wilson Chandler, Batum, Steph Curry, Greg Monroe. Our lineup would be:

PG - Nash, Andre Miller
SG - Curry
SF - Barum, Chandler, Rush, Brewer
PF -
C - Monroe

vs

PG - Burke
SG - Hayward
SF - Jefferson
PF - Williams
C - Favors

Uhhhh. Tell me the fixed draft isn't better. Please do.

 

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

Please go re read my posts. This would give small market teams more leverage and certainty in trades and roster moves. This wouldn't hurt small market teams at all.

Do you realize that out of the big three (NFL, MLB, and NBA) the NBA has the least amount of parity?

Maybe I don't understand how this works, but bigger markets would be able to really stack their teams with very good players for cheap, then still have the money to go get the high priced allstars. Small markets can't compete with that. The lakers and Knicks could really stack there teams with stars from the draft and Freeagency, where as before the small markets had the draft to compete with the Miami's and Lakers of the world, and now they have the draft as well. It wouldn't be an even playing field anymore.

 

[green]

Just because those players were drafted at those spots doesn't mean the Jazz would have picked them. Drafting sucks and there really isn't anyway a team can be certain in what they are getting with a player.

And just because Jordan and Durrant aren't available doesn't mean Portland will draft them either. Both ways depend on drafting the right person. That is a weak argument because it applies whenever a draft is there. If you don't take the right guy with/without a lottery you will suck. The point is, this gives teams stability and a better chance to plan.

For example, take the GS pick we have this year. There is a chance we don't get that pick at all, but instead get two second round picks. Wouldn't knowing you are getting a 9 pick be better than this lottery protected for 20 years crap?

 

[green]

Maybe I don't understand how this works, but bigger markets would be able to really stack their teams with very good players for cheap, then still have the money to go get the high priced allstars. Small markets can't compete with that. The lakers and Knicks could really stack there teams with stars from the draft and Freeagency, where as before the small markets had the draft to compete with the Miami's and Lakers of the world, and now they have the draft as well. It wouldn't be an even playing field anymore.

Again, I disagree. You are right that the Lakers could stack their team with high priced All-Stars, but small market teams have wised up as well. Look at Deron, Howard, Carmello. They were all traded before they became All-Stars. Utah would be better off had they traded Deron for Favors, NJ's #3 pick and GS's #9 pick instead of all this lottery protected crap. Then Utah would already know what they had and would be better off for it. And NJ wouldn't have their pick.

It gives small market teams some control over their stars. Sure their stars can force their way out, but the teams could demand more. And the small market teams would know what they are getting instead of hoping GS sucks, but not too badly (if GS gets the #6 pick this year, Utah gets two second rounders, but if GS gets the #7 pick, Utah gets that pick. HUGE difference).