What's new
By:

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

Thee jazz fan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Also, stacking your team doesn't work out as much as we think it does. MLB has the most parity and the smallest markets winning titles out of the big three professional sports.

Look at the top 5 teams in the NBA: LA, Brooklyn, NY, Miami, and Chicago. Four of those five teams SUCK.
 
green said:
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).
Click to expand...

But that's just my point big markets can turn around and do just the same thing
 
Look at what I wrote again:

"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 that that Utah wouldn't have better access to better players under a fixed draft vs a lottery. Utah would have had a MUCH BETTER shot at better players under a fixed draft.

A fixed draft gets rid of tanking and gives small markets a better chance at better players. I really don't see an argument that proves otherwise.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
But that's just my point big markets can turn around and do just the same thing
Click to expand...

Read post #43. Big markets will ALWAYS have an advantage. The whole point is to try to give smaller markets a shot at better players. Which draft system would have exposed Utah to better players? The fixed draft by a LARGE margin. Not even close.
 
green said:
Also, stacking your team doesn't work out as much as we think it does. MLB has the most parity and the smallest markets winning titles out of the big three professional sports.

Look at the top 5 teams in the NBA: LA, Brooklyn, NY, Miami, and Chicago. Four of those five teams SUCK.
Click to expand...

The draft has and always will be the best way to build your team and now the Lakers and Miami Heat can do the same. And the Knicks won't suck forever.
 
green said:
Read post #43. Big markets will ALWAYS have an advantage. The whole point is to try to give smaller markets a shot at better players. Which draft system would have exposed Utah to better players? The fixed draft by a LARGE margin. Not even close.
Click to expand...

It definitely helps small markets but I just think it helps big markets even more. It's obvious you know more about this and I do, I just can't help but see the lakers and nets eyes popping out in this gift they are being given.
 
green said:
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?
Click to expand...

This post shows how much better a fixed draft is. There is no argument. NONE. A fixed draft exposes small markets to better players more often. That is the goal.

Big markets will ALWAYS have an advantage. ALWAYS. Get over this hurdle. Forget about big markets. Realize they will ALWAYS have an advantage. What can the NBA do to give smaller markets a chance? This. This is proof this is better.

Show me a better way to expose high quality players to small markets. Please, do.
 
As soon as Utah/OKC/SA get 2-3 good players they are out of the adding players game. LA, NY, Boston are always in the adding good players game. A fixed draft gives smaller markets a chance to not only get 2 great players, but three. Or 4. Or 5.

Compare the draft that Utah has had since the Stockton draft to the one they had under the lottery system. Utah would have had a shot at Steph Curry, Grant Hill, Steve Nash, Andre Miller, Glenn Rice instead of...Ostertag? Was he the best player they drafted in that time frame?

This way helps small market teams build stronger teams.
 
Meh, this "solution" is much worse than Tanking. You want better basketball, make some of those Eastern conference playoff slots available to Western Conference teams. Sub .500 teams making the playoffs is more of a problem to me than tanking. Only lock in the first 6 spots for each conference. The last two slots would be wildcards up for grabs with the other conference. Once the season ends, the Western teams that steal a slot would be seeded into the Eastern Conference so a 50 win team doesn't get a 7 or 8 seed. Frankly the teams worth a damn won't tank enough for this to be a big deal. As a Jazz fan to only times I cared about tanking was when we had the GS pick and this year. After this year I suspect that I won't care about tanking all over again.
 
green said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you're going to use revisionist history on your new draft you have to do the same thing on your old draft. For example, Curry would have gone near the top of the draft in either scenario if the GM's had the benefit of hindsight like you do in your revised scenario. Your comparison method is penalizing reality.

That said, one thing that worries me about your system is that top prospects might withhold entering a draft in a year where they don't like the teams who get the top few picks. Imagine if Utah, Toronto, Cleveland, Minnesota and Sacramento are at the top of the draft this year, and next year it is going to be LA, Miami, Boston, New York and San Antonio. This is obviously an extreme scenario, but it could happen. Would Parker, Wiggins, Exum, Embiid, Randall, Smart, etc decide to stay in school another year? It could lead to a stacked draft in the years that the most desirable teams end up on top and a ****ty draft in the years that the teams who need the talent the most are on top.

Also, imagine the impact ownership of the #1 pick would create if a superteam scenario was coming together. If Miami had the top pick this coming year they might be able to add Wiggins, retain their current talent, and even add more top guys who are at the end of his career and potentially willing to chase a title for a discount.

All that said, I hate the current system (because of tanking) and I can see that the one you are proposing would definitely fix that problem so I think it's worthy of serious consideration. It would be extremely hard to swallow watching teams who already have major advantages picking the very top talent, though.
 
Joe - players already have a good idea of where they will go and some players already do wait (Joe Sullinger, Harrison Barnes). Sure, they could wait, but they'd be risking MILLIONS of dollars. Even take this year: Wiggins could go anywhere from #1 to #4.

So, you would have to space large market teams out to try to prevent this. No biggie.

Sure, there might come a year where Miami has LeBron, Wade, Bosh and the #1 pick. But guess what? There would come a year when Utah has Hakeem, Malone AND a shot at Grant Hill. Miami will always have shots at a super team. Utah NEVER will...unless there is a fixed lottery.

A well run small market team gets royally screwed in the current system because they don't have the same access to free agents or top draft picks. This gets rid of that.

Get over this idea of unfairness for the top teams. Does it give the bottom a better shot? THEN DO IT. The top will always have advantages. I don't get why people would give up a chance for Utah to have Hakeem, Malone, Hill and Nash because Miami might have an advantage.

I'll do this with San Antonio and Portland (two well run small market teams) and LA, Chicago and New York and see what happens.

Also, I know Utah might not have drafted Malone/Hill/Nash but at least they would have had the opportunity to do so. This is all about ACCESS to better players for small market teams and stopping tanking.
 
A player not coming out for wanting to play on another team is not a smart idea. They're an injury away or a player away from going to a completely different team.

Look at it this way, Wiggins was a no-contest #1 this year and a lot of people are wondering if he could go as late as #4.
 
One Brow said:
4 of those 6.
Click to expand...
Hey One Brow, how many fingers am I holding up?
sixfinger%5B1%5D.jpg
 
One Brow said:
4 of those 6.
Click to expand...

10-16 is good? I assume you are talking about Chicago as being a good team. Let's look at those FIVE teams:

LA 13-15 (I'm surprised they aren't worse)
Brooklyn 9-18
NY 9-18
Miami 21-6
Chicago 10-16

I'm not sure who this mythical awesome 6th team in the top 5 is though...
 
Jazz4ever said:
Even if they drafted good and got MCW or Oladipo, they are far cries from franchise changers. Not to say this system doesn't have potential. If the picks were given some variance (say from +3 to -3) depending on your trailing 3 year record, it could be interesting.
Click to expand...

That would have to be the system. Face it, some markets are always going to attract the top FA's. I don't think any kind of competitive balance can be obtained by also giving them years in which they also get top picks. I think "tanking" has only been a problem a couple of times. Obviously this season there is incentive. But part of that is also due to the new CBA which will begin to punish teams over the tax threshold. So coincidentally, a perfect time to rebuild for many teams. Shed salaries, get a great pick. The GS "tank" was partly Utah's problem. It was a distinct possibility GS would finish with the 7th-worst record. GS reportedly tried to work a deal to keep their pick, KOC refused to negotiate and GS won by losing. Great strategy by GS as the league was powerless to intervene.

IMO, this is probably the best system, although I would remove the barrier preventing playoff teams from participating in the lottery. I think the 9th-11th teams in the WC are better than perhaps 3 EC playoff teams. Just take the 14 worst records. Or limit it to 10 for the lottery. Then record determines draft order. So the 38 win EC conference teams that make the playoffs still pick ahead of the 46-50 win WC that miss the playoffs.
 
green said:
10-16 is good? I assume you are talking about Chicago as being a good team. Let's look at those FIVE teams:

LA 13-15 (I'm surprised they aren't worse)
Brooklyn 9-18
NY 9-18
Miami 21-6
Chicago 10-16

I'm not sure who this mythical awesome 6th team in the top 5 is though...
Click to expand...

LA is 20-9. We ere discussing the top markets, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top