It would start in 2020 after all future traded picks are cleared.
Zack Lowe: Fix the Lottery to take away need for tanking
- Thread starter green
- Start date
It would start in 2020 after all future traded picks are cleared.
green
Well-Known Member
Top 5 team salaries. Clips are #6.
Lol. Count the titles among them.
I think the lottery should be eliminated and they should average out the last 3 to 5 years for draft spots. If you want a top pick you gotta want to be bad for the long haul. It won't completely destroy tanking, but a lot of teams can't be bad for 3 straight years to get a top spot. Most teams (like 95% of teams) will at least try to be good. And if for some reason you are bad for a few years in a row, you'll have a good pick that you can hopefully build around and move forward. It's really the only way.
I'm also for taking the top 16 best teams in the NBA for the playoffs. have division titles/conference titles, but they don't mean you get a playoff spot.
I'm also for taking the top 16 best teams in the NBA for the playoffs. have division titles/conference titles, but they don't mean you get a playoff spot.
Guitaro
Well-Known Member
You're assuming way too much. It's been pointed out that just because they pick at these positions doesn't mean those players would be available at those positions. Trades, team needs, etc, would change every draft dramatically. Think about it. If a team is already good, and they get a top 6 pick, they don't need to pick the BPA. A good team can pick on need every time.
Basically, the middle teams greatly benefit from this, like the Jazz usually are. The bottom teams get hosed quite a bit. The top teams are the biggest winners. Big markets, for example, not only have a huge advantage in Free Agency, now you've given them top picks while they're great! That's less top picks for the bad teams.
In other words, let's say Cleveland still gets Lebron and then subsequently loses Lebron to Miami. How is Cleveland going to survive that if Lebron leaves outright with no sign-and-trade? Now Cleveland has to wait X amount of years before they can even get a chance at a top 3 pick. Let's face it, most years, there's usually a huge drop-off after the first 1-3 picks. It's rare when there's more than 5 All-Star caliber players. Therefore, without a trade or free agency, a team would be stuck in the middle of the pack for many years. They'd have to draft really well to make up for their loss.
Also, do you really think teams would trade away their picks as much as they do now? Teams trade away future picks with reckless abandon now because they don't think those picks will be any good because they think they'll be good. Do you really think the Nets would have given us so many picks if they knew exactly what they'd be? In other words, there'd be less of a chance of getting the better value out of a trade because the value, on both sides, would be much more quantifiable.
The Lakers, for example, wouldn't have had to trade so many picks to get Nash. The Nuggets and Magic recent trades, would've ended up less in favor of them, I would think. In other words, small-market teams would have less of a chance to recuperate their losses in free agency with a balanced draft. You're basically taking away an entire strategy, for building a team, away from the small markets that the big market teams don't use nearly as much. Why do you think the Lakers gave up so many draft picks? They don't need the draft like smaller market teams do.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Combine the teams and call them the Kraptors and put em in boise
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
I would bet that when the owners vote on this "draft wheel" that the lakers, knicks, nets, bulls ect all vote to bring in the new system.
Meanwhile the jazz, suns, timberwolves, bucks ect ect will vote against.
Probably a good reason for that
Meanwhile the jazz, suns, timberwolves, bucks ect ect will vote against.
Probably a good reason for that
Ok, I'l play.
Armed with 20/20 hindsight Jazz would pick up where they actually drafted:
1984: Stockton
1985: Malone
1986: Hornacek
1987: Reggie Lewis
1988: Mason, (Strickland)
1989: Divac
1990: Antonio Davis (Ceballos)
1991: Rick Fox
1993: Sam Cassell
PG: Stockton (Cassell)
SG: Hornacek
SF: Reggie Lewis (Fox)
PF: Malone (Mason)
C: Divac (Antonio Davis)
This team with properly picked up role players would take at least couple of championships by mid-90's
Should I go on?
Guitaro
Well-Known Member
Yep, you're giving the big market teams another huge advantage here. Free agency, resources, premier coaches (would Jackson ever consider coaching a smaller market team?), and now you've given them a balanced draft. Big market teams didn't need that advantage and now you're handing it to them on a silver platter. Bad teams need it and now you've pushed out their recovery process over a long period of time. 1-2 bad drafts and you fall behind pretty fast since every team gets the same amount AND since your next quality selection list could be years down the road. You just have to pray that your top 6 pick lands in a good draft. Otherwise, welcome to mediocrity and loserland for years to come.
So most everyone skipped over my balancing method. Give teams with bad records salary cap incentives instead of draft position. I think it changes things and makes this a good system. Add a hard cap, or at least a hard cap to the playoff teams and we could get somewhere.
In my opinion you need a fair draft combined with hard cap exceptions for the bottom dwellers and you have a better league.
In my opinion you need a fair draft combined with hard cap exceptions for the bottom dwellers and you have a better league.
Guitaro
Well-Known Member
Guys, you can't apply this to the past. Players like these don't exist anymore. It's all "one and done" players now. They have no experience and need time to get better. We actually have a lot of high lottery picks on this team and we stink. You guys think a balanced draft would be better? You're also assuming teams like Minnesota would have traded us Big Al. You're also assuming we would have been able to draft Deron, Stockton, Malone, etc.
I say again, you really think the draft is the same quality of players as in years past? Paul Pierce went #10 in his draft. Next draft he would go #1-2. Guys with big potential or bust potential are going #1-4. In the past, they went #5-20s. Players don't seem to have the same fundamentals. The ones that do are going really high. Add the current CBA, where trades and free agency are less likely unless you can promise big advertising $, and you've created a new problem for smaller markets. Big markets would rejoice for sure!
Guitaro
Well-Known Member
You're assuming that would even affect teams that can't attract free agents. Just look at where our own free agents went to: Atlanta and Charlotte and Portland. All 3 teams are warmer weather. 2 are larger markets. Granted, that would give them more incentive to go to a team without a hard cap. I still think it makes it hard for those teams to rebuild completely because there's less chance for them to get a franchise player. While teams like Miami, who built almost their entire team through free agency, now also have top 6 picks to add to that awesome team. Once a big market like that gets there, it'd be a revolving door of free agents and awesomeness, year after year.
With a hard cap and extra cap room or an exemption for players signed by bottom dwellers I think money talks and BS walks. The hard cap plus room for bottom teams I think you DO see top FAs go to teams who can give them more money.
That would change focus of tanking from draft to loaded free agent classes.
Interesting thought, although it would give an advantage to large market teams who suck, versus the small market teams who can't afford to go over the cap
Which will gut teams of continuity and probably the reason for a soft cap in the first place.
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
Besides what I mentioned earlier of the slight adjustment on your predetermined pick based on record another idea I just thought of (stolen from baseball and football) that could help counteract the FA worry of the big market teams is and I think this would just apply to max contract (although could extend to AS players I guess) is draft pick compensation if you sign away another teams player.
This would stop or make it near impossible to do what MIA did as to sign away Bosh they would've had to give up their first round pick and then they wouldn't have had a draft pick to give in compensation for Lebron unless they did a trade for future first round picks. Again like my first post this is just a basic overview and would be more detailed to actually work.
This would stop or make it near impossible to do what MIA did as to sign away Bosh they would've had to give up their first round pick and then they wouldn't have had a draft pick to give in compensation for Lebron unless they did a trade for future first round picks. Again like my first post this is just a basic overview and would be more detailed to actually work.
risk
Not quite this simple.
To be more precise, The Jazz gave up having DWill for <1 year in return for 3 first round draft picks. The giveup is what DWill could have produced in that year -- that is it.
Risk to NJ: DWill signs elsewhere and they give up three first round draft picks for <1 year of DWill.
You can't ignore this NJ risk just because in hindsight it did not happen. The odds of it happening (at the time) were not insignificant. NJ played its cards right and courted DWill, stroked his ego, etc, and he signed.
Much riskier move for NJ, not even close.
Not quite this simple.
To be more precise, The Jazz gave up having DWill for <1 year in return for 3 first round draft picks. The giveup is what DWill could have produced in that year -- that is it.
Risk to NJ: DWill signs elsewhere and they give up three first round draft picks for <1 year of DWill.
You can't ignore this NJ risk just because in hindsight it did not happen. The odds of it happening (at the time) were not insignificant. NJ played its cards right and courted DWill, stroked his ego, etc, and he signed.
Much riskier move for NJ, not even close.
green
Well-Known Member
EXACTLY. This is why the set draft would be better. Small market teams have no chance right now. At least with a set order you could plan for, small market teams could have a chance.