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

[green]

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.

Hate the averaging idea. It's not a good one. If you average it out, then teams like SA and Utah can't have ONE bad year, get a good player and win 56 games the next year. You HAVE to tank for 3-5 years to get your guy.

Terrible idea.

 

[green]

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.

Duh. You are missing the point. The point is this: Once Utah had Stockton and Malone, they had ZERO shot at another All-Star. ZERO.

This gives them a shot at having multiple All-Stars. Look at OKC and SA. They will NEVER bring in an All-Star through FA. Their only shot is the draft. This gives them access to more potential All-Stars, access that small market teams do not currently have.

 

[green]

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

I agree. And if they do, they are dumb.

Look at this: When Shaq was a FA, who was the ONLY team that had a shot to sign Shaq? When Deron, Paul, Howard, Carmello wanted out of their current locations, who had shots at those players?

Not a single player considered a small market team.

What does that tell you? That they will all end up in big markets, no matter what small market teams do.

What is the only way for a small market team to have a shot at a superstar? To draft him, and hold onto him for 7 years.

So, if the only way the Jazz/Spurs/OKC/Portland have a shot at superstars is through the draft, why not adopt a system that gives you more chances at top picks?

Yeah, what if Miami had the #1 pick next year? They would get stacked big time. BUT, what if SA/OKC had the #1 pick next year? What if, in 1997, the Jazz had the #1 pick? Coming off a tough WCF loss, the Jazz then had a shot at Tim Duncan. When will Utah EVER get that chance? NEVER.

Once Utah had Stockton and Malone, they were done. There was no way for them to add a major piece to the team. They had to ride that pair out, or start over.

Having slotted picks allows you to ALWAYS BE GOOD. Even small market teams.

 

[green]

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.

Oh GAWD. Get over this giving large markets an advantage here. You are missing the forest for the trees. The draft IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE FOR SMALL MARKET TEAMS RIGHT NOW.

Come on. This is the DUMBEST argument out there. I showed you how the Jazz could have had this lineup with a slotted draft (granted, they would have to draft these players, but they would have ACCESS to them):

PG - Mark Price, Andre Miller, Steve Nash
SG - Jon Barry, Jamal Crawford, Rush
SF - Grant Hill, Glenn Rice
PF - Karl Malone, Kurt Thomas
C - Hakeem Olajuwon

Show me a system that allows Utah to build that team and I'll listen. Until you can do that, don't bring up giving large markets an advantage. They already have ALL THE ADVANTAGES. Small market teams have none.

NOT EVEN THE DRAFT. Once you make the playoffs as a small market team, your ability to build is GONE. GONE. This gives it back to you.

 

[green]

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.

This, but I don't think you get a hard cap in basketball. Not for a long time. Even then, getting an All-Star on a rookie deal is always better than an All-Star on a max deal for a ton of reasons.

 

[green]

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.

I don't like salary cap incentives because for most teams, the reason why they can't get better is because they overpaid for bad players.

I think the fixed draft slots is better. It gives building teams solid assets to build with and contending teams solid assets to stay contenders.

 

[akirac73]

Didn't read all 6 pages, but one big thing I don't like about this new proposed lottery system is that college & HS players can essentially pick which teams they want to play for. For instance, say this system is already in place and Utah is slotted for the #1 pick in the 2014 draft and the Lakers have the #1 pick in 2015. If Wiggins and Parker aren't interested in playing for the Jazz but would like to play for LA, they can simply forego the draft, play their sophomore season, and wait for the 2015 draft. Utah get's screwed as usual and the marquee franchises win again.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Didn't read all 6 pages, but one big thing I don't like about this new proposed lottery system is that college & HS players can essentially pick which teams they want to play for. For instance, say this system is already in place and Utah is slotted for the #1 pick in the 2014 draft and the Lakers have the #1 pick in 2015. If Wiggins and Parker aren't interested in playing for the Jazz but would like to play for LA, they can simply forego the draft, play their sophomore season, and wait for the 2015 draft. Utah get's screwed as usual and the marquee franchises win again.

Had a similar thought but thought it kind of silly and unlikely. But there's probably something to it, though I don't think there's much.