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

[green]

Right now, our lineup could have Andre Miller, Steve Nash, Brandon Rush, Okafor, Brewer, Wilson Chandler, Batum, Steph Curry, Greg Monroe. Our lineup would be:

PG - Nash, Andre Miller
SG - Curry
SF - Barum, Chandler, Rush, Brewer
PF -
C - Monroe

vs

PG - Burke
SG - Hayward
SF - Jefferson
PF - Williams
C - Favors

Uhhhh. Tell me the fixed draft isn't better. Please do.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Please go re read my posts. This would give small market teams more leverage and certainty in trades and roster moves. This wouldn't hurt small market teams at all.

Do you realize that out of the big three (NFL, MLB, and NBA) the NBA has the least amount of parity?

Maybe I don't understand how this works, but bigger markets would be able to really stack their teams with very good players for cheap, then still have the money to go get the high priced allstars. Small markets can't compete with that. The lakers and Knicks could really stack there teams with stars from the draft and Freeagency, where as before the small markets had the draft to compete with the Miami's and Lakers of the world, and now they have the draft as well. It wouldn't be an even playing field anymore.

 

[green]

Just because those players were drafted at those spots doesn't mean the Jazz would have picked them. Drafting sucks and there really isn't anyway a team can be certain in what they are getting with a player.

And just because Jordan and Durrant aren't available doesn't mean Portland will draft them either. Both ways depend on drafting the right person. That is a weak argument because it applies whenever a draft is there. If you don't take the right guy with/without a lottery you will suck. The point is, this gives teams stability and a better chance to plan.

For example, take the GS pick we have this year. There is a chance we don't get that pick at all, but instead get two second round picks. Wouldn't knowing you are getting a 9 pick be better than this lottery protected for 20 years crap?

 

[green]

Maybe I don't understand how this works, but bigger markets would be able to really stack their teams with very good players for cheap, then still have the money to go get the high priced allstars. Small markets can't compete with that. The lakers and Knicks could really stack there teams with stars from the draft and Freeagency, where as before the small markets had the draft to compete with the Miami's and Lakers of the world, and now they have the draft as well. It wouldn't be an even playing field anymore.

Again, I disagree. You are right that the Lakers could stack their team with high priced All-Stars, but small market teams have wised up as well. Look at Deron, Howard, Carmello. They were all traded before they became All-Stars. Utah would be better off had they traded Deron for Favors, NJ's #3 pick and GS's #9 pick instead of all this lottery protected crap. Then Utah would already know what they had and would be better off for it. And NJ wouldn't have their pick.

It gives small market teams some control over their stars. Sure their stars can force their way out, but the teams could demand more. And the small market teams would know what they are getting instead of hoping GS sucks, but not too badly (if GS gets the #6 pick this year, Utah gets two second rounders, but if GS gets the #7 pick, Utah gets that pick. HUGE difference).

 

[green]

Maybe I don't understand how this works, but bigger markets would be able to really stack their teams with very good players for cheap, then still have the money to go get the high priced allstars. Small markets can't compete with that. The lakers and Knicks could really stack there teams with stars from the draft and Freeagency, where as before the small markets had the draft to compete with the Miami's and Lakers of the world, and now they have the draft as well. It wouldn't be an even playing field anymore.

Also, stacking your team doesn't work out as much as we think it does. MLB has the most parity and the smallest markets winning titles out of the big three professional sports.

Look at the top 5 teams in the NBA: LA, Brooklyn, NY, Miami, and Chicago. Four of those five teams SUCK.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Again, I disagree. You are right that the Lakers could stack their team with high priced All-Stars, but small market teams have wised up as well. Look at Deron, Howard, Carmello. They were all traded before they became All-Stars. Utah would be better off had they traded Deron for Favors, NJ's #3 pick and GS's #9 pick instead of all this lottery protected crap. Then Utah would already know what they had and would be better off for it. And NJ wouldn't have their pick.

It gives small market teams some control over their stars. Sure their stars can force their way out, but the teams could demand more. And the small market teams would know what they are getting instead of hoping GS sucks, but not too badly (if GS gets the #6 pick this year, Utah gets two second rounders, but if GS gets the #7 pick, Utah gets that pick. HUGE difference).

But that's just my point big markets can turn around and do just the same thing

 

[green]

Look at what I wrote again:

"Here are the players that you could have paired up with Hakeem and Malone:

Rice, Jon Barry, Grant Hill, Kurt Thomas, Steve Nash, Andre Miller, Jamal Crawford, Brandon Rush.

Compared to the players Utah drafted during that same time period:

Stockton, Malone, Dell Curry, Ortiz, Leckner, Edwards, nobody, Murdock, nobody, Wright, nobody, Ostertag, Muurrsep, Vaughn, Mohammed, Lewis, Stevenson, Lopez, Humphrey"

Tell me that that Utah wouldn't have better access to better players under a fixed draft vs a lottery. Utah would have had a MUCH BETTER shot at better players under a fixed draft.

A fixed draft gets rid of tanking and gives small markets a better chance at better players. I really don't see an argument that proves otherwise.

 

[green]

But that's just my point big markets can turn around and do just the same thing

Read post #43. Big markets will ALWAYS have an advantage. The whole point is to try to give smaller markets a shot at better players. Which draft system would have exposed Utah to better players? The fixed draft by a LARGE margin. Not even close.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Also, stacking your team doesn't work out as much as we think it does. MLB has the most parity and the smallest markets winning titles out of the big three professional sports.

Look at the top 5 teams in the NBA: LA, Brooklyn, NY, Miami, and Chicago. Four of those five teams SUCK.

The draft has and always will be the best way to build your team and now the Lakers and Miami Heat can do the same. And the Knicks won't suck forever.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Read post #43. Big markets will ALWAYS have an advantage. The whole point is to try to give smaller markets a shot at better players. Which draft system would have exposed Utah to better players? The fixed draft by a LARGE margin. Not even close.

It definitely helps small markets but I just think it helps big markets even more. It's obvious you know more about this and I do, I just can't help but see the lakers and nets eyes popping out in this gift they are being given.

 

[green]

So, if this were how the draft were set up, Utah would have started off taking Hakeem #1. The next year, Malone would have gone #12. The following year, Scott Skiles or Mark Price were available. A few (4), Glenn Rice is available. That makes this your starting lineup:

C - Hakeem
PF - Malone
SF - Rice
SG - ???
PG - Price

So, a small market team couldn't handle that? How would LA take away Hakeem, Malone, Rice and Price? Over a 7 year period? Then, a couple years later, the Jazz would have ended up with GRANT HILL.

Here are the players that you could have paired up with Hakeem and Malone:

Rice, Jon Barry, Grant Hill, Kurt Thomas, Steve Nash, Andre Miller, Jamal Crawford, Brandon Rush.

Compared to the players Utah drafted during that same time period:

Stockton, Malone, Dell Curry, Ortiz, Leckner, Edwards, nobody, Murdock, nobody, Wright, nobody, Ostertag, Muurrsep, Vaughn, Mohammed, Lewis, Stevenson, Lopez, Humphrey

Tell me which system would have worked better for the Jazz over the last 30 years? The lottery?

This post shows how much better a fixed draft is. There is no argument. NONE. A fixed draft exposes small markets to better players more often. That is the goal.

Big markets will ALWAYS have an advantage. ALWAYS. Get over this hurdle. Forget about big markets. Realize they will ALWAYS have an advantage. What can the NBA do to give smaller markets a chance? This. This is proof this is better.

Show me a better way to expose high quality players to small markets. Please, do.

 

[green]

As soon as Utah/OKC/SA get 2-3 good players they are out of the adding players game. LA, NY, Boston are always in the adding good players game. A fixed draft gives smaller markets a chance to not only get 2 great players, but three. Or 4. Or 5.

Compare the draft that Utah has had since the Stockton draft to the one they had under the lottery system. Utah would have had a shot at Steph Curry, Grant Hill, Steve Nash, Andre Miller, Glenn Rice instead of...Ostertag? Was he the best player they drafted in that time frame?

This way helps small market teams build stronger teams.