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

[trigg3r]

Let's not forget a team like Brooklyn would be crying about it being unfair because they don't have one of their own picks until 2019(I believe) and the value of those picks possibly just changed substantially with the wheel. They will claim that the value of the picks they traded at the time of those trades were a lot less substantial. Do they have a point? Maybe... Not that I am going to cry for the Nets. Just something that is interesting to think about.

 

[green]

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 disagree. It wouldn't be any different than right now. Brooklyn traded away Lillard and Kanter. Those were Brooklyn's picks and both those picks were made by playoff/borderline playoff teams. Look at the top spenders in the NBA now. Brooklyn, NY, Miami, Chicago, LA. Only Miami is any good. Dumb teams will still be dumb.

Look at baseball and the no salary cap's winners:

Boston
SF
St Louis
SF
NYY
Philly
Boston
St Louis
W Sox
Boston
Anaheim

There are more small market teams there than anywhere else.

Look at Eric Bledsoe. If what you are saying is true, then Bledose would have never have left LAC. LAC would have kept him, he would have been happy, and the rich would have gotten richer.

I don't think this does any of the things you say it will. IN FACT, I bet it would do the same thing that is going on right now, EXCEPT small market teams wouldn't be left with so much uncertainty. Instead of trading Deron to the Nets for a protected pick, they could have traded him for a future #3 and a future #6 pick. No more hoping/tanking/watching/etc. Instead of GS throwing the end of the season for their pick, Utah would have always known they were getting a #9 pick.

IF you pick right, this works really, really well, because it gives you a bunch of high picks together (to build the team) then gives you lower picks together (to put cheap pieces around your contender) then you start all over again. Then there is no excuse for GM's as to why their teams suck. They didn't pick well enough.

 

[green]

Let's not forget a team like Brooklyn would be crying about it being unfair because they don't have one of their own picks until 2019(I believe) and the value of those picks possibly just changed substantially with the wheel. They will claim that the value of the picks they traded at the time of those trades were a lot less substantial. Do they have a point? Maybe... Not that I am going to cry for the Nets. Just something that is interesting to think about.

This was already covered. This would not start until all traded away picks have been picked. So, this wouldn't start for another 10 years, which would give teams plenty of time to know their slots and prepare for it.

 

[trigg3r]

This was already covered. This would not start until all traded away picks have been picked. So, this wouldn't start for another 10 years, which would give teams plenty of time to know their slots and prepare for it.

Sorry, must have missed that. Go for it I guess. They do need to do something. I do think this proposal needs to be tweaked in certain ways though.

 

[Doublea]

The only other way I could see replacing the lottery would to take all teams and average out their win percentages for the last 3 seasons. Then the bottom 14 teams would all have the same odds to win the #1 draft pick and so on.

 

[green]

The only other way I could see replacing the lottery would to take all teams and average out their win percentages for the last 3 seasons. Then the bottom 14 teams would all have the same odds to win the #1 draft pick and so on.

I don't like this at all. I like the current system better. The current system allows a team like Utah to suck for one or two years than get back into the playoffs. Your system would take a rebuild from 2-5 years and make it 5 years minimum. You would have to suck for too long to have a shot at a franchise player. This system is much better. Suck for a year, get your guy, get back to the playoffs.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I'm one of the few that actually likes the current system. With all the worrying about tanking, how many times has it actually WORKED? The Cavs got Anthony Bennett last year, is he leading them to the playoffs anytime soon?

The wheel system will never happen. It will be terrible for competitive balance. A player could decide NOT to declare for the draft simply because a team he doesn't want to play for has the 1st pick, and he would know the team that would hold the pick the following year. Not only that, but does anyone else notice that big-market teams rarely get the #1 pick? Why? Because they already attract the top Free Agents, thus on average are going to have better teams. In business this is called a "Core Competency." It's a competitive advantage that other teams can't copy. If you give all teams even draft positions it will further strengthen the big-market advantage.

Can you imagine this single elimination tournament at the end of this season for the West's #8 seed?

8- Denver
9- Golden State
10- Lakers
11-Minnesota
12- New Orleans
13-Memphis
14- Sacramento
15- Utah

Does anyone else think we could take Denver?

 

[franklin]

Parity is easy.

1. Shrink by 4 teams.

2. Share revenue.

3. Fine flopping with playoff games. LeBron would lose 4-5 more games every season.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I like these two ideas:

1- Make the 3 worst teams in the league ineligible for a top 3 pick. Keep the lottery the same but just remove those 3 teams ping pong balls. This will eliminate season-long "GM Planned" Tanking.

2- I know Bill Simmons wants this one. We need to have a season ending tournament for the #8 seed. The teams that can't get in the top 7 of their conference have a single elimination tournament (similar to March Madness) for the #8 seed. It would be a difficult decision to tank if you are worsening your positioning for the season ending tournament. There are financial implications here too, as owners want the $ that comes from additional games played.

 

[green]

I like these two ideas:

1- Make the 3 worst teams in the league ineligible for a top 3 pick. Keep the lottery the same but just remove those 3 teams ping pong balls. This will eliminate season-long "GM Planned" Tanking.

2- I know Bill Simmons wants this one. We need to have a season ending tournament for the #8 seed. The teams that can't get in the top 7 of their conference have a single elimination tournament (similar to March Madness) for the #8 seed. It would be a difficult decision to tank if you are worsening your positioning for the season ending tournament. There are financial implications here too, as owners want the $ that comes from additional games played.

I hate the eliminate the top 3. If you are going to have a lottery, you have to give the worst team the best chance at winning it. You have to. If you don't, the same three teams will be in the bottom three every year.

I don't like the entertaining as hell tourney. It would be fun, but be terrible for some teams. So, Utah would give up a shot at Jabari, to get killed in the first round? No way. Not worth it. The two weeks it was played would be fun, but after would be terrible buyer's regret.

 

[green]

Parity is easy.

1. Shrink by 4 teams.

2. Share revenue.

3. Fine flopping with playoff games. LeBron would lose 4-5 more games every season.

I'm not a socialist...except for sports. I like revenue sharing. I think teams can keep "their" money (tickets, jerseys, anything that ONLY has their name attached to it), but "shared" revenue (mainly tv revenue) needs to be shared. LA can't exist without Utah. They need someone to play. That way big markets still have some advantage with money (charge more for seats, put their players on billboards, ads, etc) but smaller markets still have a chance.

I think contraction needs to happen. There are too many teams out there right now.

Like I said, contract 2 teams (4 would be ideal). Don't barter, argue, pull out of a hat. Look at the bottom 4 profitable teams the last 10 years. Bang, gone. Then, revenue share any dollar that has more than one team attached to it. Equally. Third, I really like the fixed draft order. You can then plan for future knowing where you will be and what you need to get to.

Also, people are worried about NY having a #1 pick, but with their buying power, I would put money down that they would have traded that thing long before they pick with it. Teams with money are stupid with their other assets. They feel they can buy their way out of problems and they don't value picks.

Also, this would make picks a lot more valuable this way. You could demand more for your picks. Can you imagine if the Lakers came to Utah and said, we have the #3 pick in 2017, we want to trade that for Hayward. Boom. You could do it.

As far as people delaying entering the draft, yeah, sure it could happen. Just like how Barnes delayed coming into the draft when he was thought of as a top 3 player. It already happens now-a-days. And, in the NBA, only one player has been good enough to demand where he wanted to go (Kobe). And in the NFL, only two players have pulled that off (Elway and Manning). I just don't think it is as big of a deal as people make it out to be. AND, let's say Wiggins didn't want to be in Utah and Utah had the #1 pick. The fixed draft protects Utah, because now they can make a trade and KNOW what they are getting back for it.

You want Wiggins? Sure, I want two top 5 picks (a #1 and another one) and this player. Instead of protected picks and what happens if the team is great, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Say goodbye to all the small market teams. Just say no to this nba!