What's new

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

green

Well-Known Member
For all the Stoked's out there (I actually really, really like his idea). Key points:

"Grantland obtained a copy of the proposal, which would eliminate the draft lottery and replace it with a system in which each of the 30 teams would pick in a specific first-round draft slot once — and exactly once — every 30 years. Each team would simply cycle through the 30 draft slots, year by year, in a predetermined order designed so that teams pick in different areas of the draft each year. Teams would know with 100 percent certainty in which draft slots they would pick every year, up to 30 years out from the start of every 30-year cycle. The practice of protecting picks would disappear; there would never be a Harrison Barnes–Golden State situation again, and it wouldn’t require a law degree to track ownership of every traded pick leaguewide."

Go check out his pic to see is easily understood.

For example: "the graphic highlights the top six slots in red to show that every team would be guaranteed one top-six pick every five seasons, and at least one top-12 pick in every four-year span."

"The wheel, which has all sorts of complex algorithms behind it, is designed in such a way that each half-decade mini-cycle has at least two top-12 picks clustered next to each other — a means of encouraging long-term building around young players, and of allowing bad teams to get better quickly if they draft well."

"Each six-year set of picks is roughly equivalent to all other six-year cycles, so no team is ever stuck in an unfavorable cycle of bad picks."

https://www.grantland.com/blog/the-...ng-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel

I really, really like this system. You take the uncertainty out it. You take out the need/desire to tank. You give no incentive for losing and every incentive for winning. Build a winner and you could potentially NEVER have to rebuild. Large or small market.
 
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.
 
This needs to happen. The NBA would be so much better if being a decent team wasn't such a bad thing.

Owners and GMs might not like it because it would take away the mechanism that allows them to make losing out to be something desirable.
 
It sounds like it would be great parity but I think small market teams could still go through 10 year dark ages.

Imagine this is Utah's order and the year they get the #1 was 2013 when there was no superstar or even all star.....dark age.

27
24
13
12
1
30
 
Yeah Drafting is a lot about luck, if you drafted bad you would pretty much be stuck in terribleness. Kind of like the Cavs this year.
 
Yeah Drafting is a lot about luck, if you drafted bad you would pretty much be stuck in terribleness. Kind of like the Cavs this year.

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.
 
It sounds like it would be great parity but I think small market teams could still go through 10 year dark ages.

Imagine this is Utah's order and the year they get the #1 was 2013 when there was no superstar or even all star.....dark age.

27
24
13
12
1
30

I think you are wrong here. According to Lowe, if Utah had the #1 last year, their next picks would be:

1st, 30th, 19th, 18th, 7th, 6th.

So, you would have Hayward, Favors, Kanter, Burks, Last year, they have the number 1 pick, and their biggest need is a PG. I still think they take Burke #1.

So, your lineup looks like this:

Burke, ???, Neto
Hayward, Burks
Williams
Favors
Kanter, Gobert.

If you can't take, Utah probably brings Mo, and at the very least Millsap back. Now, we look like this:

Burke, Mo, ???
Hayward, Burks
Williams, Hayward
Millsap, Williams
Favors, Kanter, Gobert

That is a playoff team.

That does suck for Utah, because we have three years with no great pick, but then in years 4 and 5, we get two really good picks. And, you can trade the picks.

The big kicker for all of this is that this couldn't start until all the currently traded picks are used up. So, I think Lowe said this would start in 10 years. So, teams like Utah would have plenty of time to prepare for this.
 
Terrible idea. Would work with absolutely hard cap or non-guaranteed contracts only. Under current CBA it will be big market teams owning it all more than ever.
 
Terrible idea. Would work with absolutely hard cap or non-guaranteed contracts only. Under current CBA it will be big market teams owning it all more than ever.

I actually like the idea in the OP but i agree that it would be best with a hard cap
 
Maybe combine this with a salary cap bonus for the lowest ranked teams, so they have the money flexibility to improve but not a massive incentive to tank.
 
It would just make me sick if in year 1 of this new proposed system Miami ends up with the number 1 pick(assuming they own their own pick). I guess it is a step in the right direction to curtail tanking, but it is not without it's own issues. Like GF said, there need to be further incentives.
 
Back
Top