What's new
By:

NBA Tweaking the Lottery - how will it impact the Jazz?

GVC said:
Playoff revenue v. a 1-2% chance at the #1 pick...

This scheme is so much better than the current ********; the marginal benefit of losing a few extra games is incredibly small. I suspect this would decrease tanking considerably.
Click to expand...

Yeah this.
 
green said:
I wonder if large markets are losing their pull to players. Durrant and LeBron have never been in a large market. LA can't get a FA. If Durrant stays in OKC and Love goes to a "small" market team (GE/Cle) then the NBA has changed. No more super teams, no more play in Milwaukee for 6 years, demand a trade to LA...

This is good. Also, if you are a #1 pick and you can go play on a Utah team with Stockton, Olajuwan and Grant Hill or a bad NY team, are you really going to stay in school one more year, give up millions on the front end of your deal and tens of millions on the back end?

Your arguments against the wheel system are not as applicable as you think. They sound nice, but don't really hold as much substance as you'd think.
Click to expand...

Lebron and Durant don't need a large market anymore to really carry their brand. Big markets still have pull with players who aren't that big, but hope to be.
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
I'm sorry, I hate this. It really hinders the chances of a God awful team who is trying to rebuild the right way, without taking on shorter term vet contracts just to win an extra few games for no reason, from being able to get the #1 or 2 pick. Teams should be able to construct their team for the long haul intelligently and how they see best fit. This twists their arm some from doing so.

The whole tanking thing is way overblown imo. Really what's happening is teams like the Sixers are trying to build their team wisely now, no longer overpaying for the Charlie Villaneauva's of the world. They know bad contracts weigh them down and instead are trying to gut, get strong lotto picks, develop those guys from within, take on salary dumps to get more picks, and add in solid vets on the cheap for shorter term deals to help fill some gaps and lead as the team develops the first few years. Could you call the Sixers process tanking? Sure. But not to the extent that this board and the league makes it sound and in no way does it even guarantee that they even get the #1 or 2 or in a very rare lottery, #3 pick, anyway.

As soon as some fringe playoff team (the Knicks) get the #1 pick in a top-heavy draft, they'll realize it imo. The strong get stronger and the really weak have that much tougher of a chance from truly helping themselves.
Click to expand...

You're either really high, or you're simply trolling. If you really think the 76ers losing 26 games straight last year is good for the game or the NBA as a whole then you're really losing it. They were so awful to watch I stopped watching any team playing them on League Pass. Why bother watching when you already know the outcome???


You've got a point about the Knicks getting the #1 pick - but then you've gotta look at tweaking the cap again to create parity. Granted, these issues are related but you've got to solve each issue one by one. This new system together with a harder cap will likely create a more competitive NBA with lesser blatant tanking PLUS smaller market teams like CHA being able to acquire talent through the FA process as well simply because they have the cap space to do it (through good cap management).
 
Last edited:
wheel system will NEVER work. imagine if we have a first pick and james type of player decide to stay at school one more year to join the lakers next season. i will go and murder him.


Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
GUYZ

I figured out how to solve EVERY issue with the lottery.

Have JimLes come up with a system, and do the exact opposite.

#HeroOfTehNBA
 
Hmmmmm.


I can see what QuinSnydersHair is saying.

How do you build a championship team if you are a small market team like Utah, with this new proposal? You can't purposely lose to gain stronger assets, you might have 10 straight years of not landing in a good spot of the lottery, or more, and you can't attract big time free agents. So what options do we have at that point? Then, it's based on a lot more luck for us. But still not really for big markets. They can just build teams through FA.

I think things need to change too, but I'm not sure how quickly we should want to get rid of the option to tank right now. After all, it's what we need as a team to have a good chance at winning a championship.

Sure, this is better for the NBA as a whole, but is it better for us?

I like tanking. Tanking can work (if you do it right)
 
I posted very similar odds to this a few months back. I also suggested that they expand the number of picks drawn from 3 to between 5-7.(they're doing 6) So yeah I like it.
 
Hack said:
Hmmmmm.


I can see what QuinSnydersHair is saying.

How do you build a championship team if you are a small market team like Utah, with this new proposal? You can't purposely lose to gain stronger assets, you might have 10 straight years of not landing in a good spot of the lottery, or more, and you can't attract big time free agents. So what options do we have at that point? Then, it's based on a lot more luck for us. But still not really for big markets. They can just build teams through FA.

I think things need to change too, but I'm not sure how quickly we should want to get rid of the option to tank right now. After all, it's what we need as a team to have a good chance at winning a championship.

Sure, this is better for the NBA as a whole, but is it better for us?

I like tanking. Tanking can work (if you do it right)
Click to expand...

With the new CBA and a harder cap (hard cap potentially coming?) it might not be as difficult to get good players through FA when money starts to dry up.

Take this year for example you have CHA being able to sign Stephenson when money starts to dry up around the league. Same goes with Trevor Booker - Knicks, Nets, Heat, Wiz, Wolves were reportedly interested in signing him, but Utah was able to offer more and got him. I was surprised Utah was able to grab him this year (albeit overpaying a little).

Moreover, with cap space becoming a more valued commodity now, teams that have preserved the cap (i.e., smaller market teams) can also use it to obtain players or additional draft picks from teams wanting to dump salaries to sign new FA's.

So with clever cap management and roster building, there are ways for smaller market teams to get good quality players which weren't available to them 4-5 years ago.
 
Hack said:
Hmmmmm.


I can see what QuinSnydersHair is saying.

How do you build a championship team if you are a small market team like Utah, with this new proposal? You can't purposely lose to gain stronger assets, you might have 10 straight years of not landing in a good spot of the lottery, or more, and you can't attract big time free agents. So what options do we have at that point? Then, it's based on a lot more luck for us. But still not really for big markets. They can just build teams through FA.

I think things need to change too, but I'm not sure how quickly we should want to get rid of the option to tank right now. After all, it's what we need as a team to have a good chance at winning a championship.

Sure, this is better for the NBA as a whole, but is it better for us?

I like tanking. Tanking can work (if you do it right)
Click to expand...
I don't like any system where the worst team can theoretically get the 7th pick - no matter how small the odds are of that happening. I'd prefer a system like what I suggested. Simplified lottery with better odds going to the middling teams over the worst three and the teams barely out of the playoffs. Everybody still has a shot, and the lowest that teams 1, 2 and 3 can fall is 4, 5 or 6.

This past year, I bet that Milwaukee, Philly and Orlando would have played harder and tanked less on an organizational level if it meant that they'd have worse odds to get the top 3 picks than all of the teams behind them. Would have been a cluster of teams fighting for between 25 and 30 wins.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
With the new CBA and a harder cap (hard cap potentially coming?) it might not be as difficult to get good players through FA when money starts to dry up.

Take this year for example you have CHA being able to sign Stephenson when money starts to dry up around the league. Same goes with Trevor Booker - Knicks, Nets, Heat, Wiz, Wolves were reportedly interested in signing him, but Utah was able to offer more and got him. I was surprised Utah was able to grab him this year (albeit overpaying a little).

Moreover, with cap space becoming a more valued commodity now, teams that have preserved the cap (i.e., smaller market teams) can also use it to obtain players or additional draft picks from teams wanting to dump salaries to sign new FA's.

So with clever cap management and roster building, there are ways for smaller market teams to get good quality players which weren't available to them 4-5 years ago.
Click to expand...

This is all true, but the one sure-fire way to land a potential superstar is to draft him and hold his rights during his developmental stage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top