What green said...
Just look at a team like the Celtics. Their run is over, they clear the board and would be ineligible to compete for top talent for multiple years. That's even worse than tanking.
NBA's proposed lottery changes bad for Jazz
- Thread starter oldtimer
- Start date
What green said...
Just look at a team like the Celtics. Their run is over, they clear the board and would be ineligible to compete for top talent for multiple years. That's even worse than tanking.
green
Well-Known Member
You guys whine about a slotted system because "Miami or LA might get a top pick, boohoo" but then back a system that averages out your record? If you take Cleveland and average out thre years, and they win 58 this year, that averages out to 38 wins, which puts them in lottery pick range. So, you just gave Cleveland, with LeBron, another lottery-level pick. If you take Utah's last two years and say they win mid 30's, they fall into the same range as Cleveland. Next year, this system would have Utah picking 10-ish and Cleveland picking 12-ish. While OKC, after winning 50 games with a young Westbrook, Durrant and Harden would get another top 5 pick (which could have been Favors, Cousins, George, Hayward, Monroe). That's much worse than what we have now.
The averaged system is not a good one. The slotted is better, because at least you could plan for it. I get it if you don't like the slotted system, but you can't hate the slotted system and like the averaged out system.
The averaged system is not a good one. The slotted is better, because at least you could plan for it. I get it if you don't like the slotted system, but you can't hate the slotted system and like the averaged out system.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
2025 Prediction Contest Winner
I think Philly is prepared to do this... they are already on year two, and I'll bet they don't look to be players in free agency next year.
I just don't think there is any good way to do this that everyone would be happy with... the current system rewards teams too much for losing and extra game or two. I'd rather see the lottery weighted by wins/losses versus having a percentage applied to a standings slot. Losing or winning a couple extra games wouldn't be as big of a deal.
What Philly is doing is a good strategy to try and accrue talent, but the obvious way they have gone about it is a black eye for the league. They deserve to have the rules changed for being so obvious and genuinely trying to be bad. If you lose in the name of development that is fine, but I think they've crossed the line a bit.
I'd like to see the league say that any team can only get a top-3 pick with their own pick every other year. That way bad teams can still get very good players year after year, but teams like Cleveland won't have a chance to get the number one pick in back-to-back years with their own pick.
I'd also like to see draft pick protections modified so that picks can only be lottery protected.
green
Well-Known Member
One plus for the slotted system:
You know what you are getting. When Utah traded Deron away, they traded him for a lot of "protected" picks, and GS screwed them over with one of the picks. Instead of trading Deron for a "top 6 protected pick", another unprotected pick that ended up #3, etc, they could have traded Deron for GS's #8 pick in 2013, Brooklyn's #2 pick in 2012, etc.
If you want to get rid of tanking, you have to have a hard cap and non-guaranteed salaries (no player will tank if he knows he will get cut the next summer).
If you want to give every team the most equal chance of success, the slotted system is the best.
You know what you are getting. When Utah traded Deron away, they traded him for a lot of "protected" picks, and GS screwed them over with one of the picks. Instead of trading Deron for a "top 6 protected pick", another unprotected pick that ended up #3, etc, they could have traded Deron for GS's #8 pick in 2013, Brooklyn's #2 pick in 2012, etc.
If you want to get rid of tanking, you have to have a hard cap and non-guaranteed salaries (no player will tank if he knows he will get cut the next summer).
If you want to give every team the most equal chance of success, the slotted system is the best.
No, I'm dead serious.
You clear your roster because your whole roster is too old. Your last years that roster got 50+ wins still.
Now with an empty roster you select around 14 because the influence from prior years dictate you to do 2 things: Get an overpaid mediocre uni around OJ Mayo like players to get 30-35 wins and troll fans until the 50 wins have no more influence on the draft seeding and then go Philly tank mode.
b) Go into Philly tankmode and pick around 12 because you manage to win 0 games. Happy birthday.
THat's just an unsustainable business model. If you tank you sell hope to your supporters and that means you need to be in position to pick up one of the most sexiest prospects and people will come occasionally to your venue to witness the growth of new talent and this gives you the possibility to turn around your franchise if you do it right relatively fast.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
The current system is weighted. They are discussing adjusting the degree to which it is weighted.
The Jazz have never had a #1. Under the new odds we would have a greater chance. The current odds favor shameless owners and management. The new odds would give a pretty even chance to all bottom 5 teams. Does the worst team really need the first pick that much more than the 4th or 5th worst team?
You do realize that only 1 more than half makes the playoffs every year right? 19 years out of 20 you don't make the playoffs by drafting one guy. You just don't.
This post is regarding to another proposal of another jazzfanz user who proposed:
determine lottery odds via the average record from the last 4 years or something like this.