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

[Gameface]

You're assuming that would even affect teams that can't attract free agents. Just look at where our own free agents went to: Atlanta and Charlotte and Portland. All 3 teams are warmer weather. 2 are larger markets. Granted, that would give them more incentive to go to a team without a hard cap. I still think it makes it hard for those teams to rebuild completely because there's less chance for them to get a franchise player. While teams like Miami, who built almost their entire team through free agency, now also have top 6 picks to add to that awesome team. Once a big market like that gets there, it'd be a revolving door of free agents and awesomeness, year after year.

With a hard cap and extra cap room or an exemption for players signed by bottom dwellers I think money talks and BS walks. The hard cap plus room for bottom teams I think you DO see top FAs go to teams who can give them more money.

 

[zbone]

With a hard cap and extra cap room or an exemption for players signed by bottom dwellers I think money talks and BS walks. The hard cap plus room for bottom teams I think you DO see top FAs go to teams who can give them more money.

That would change focus of tanking from draft to loaded free agent classes.

 

[silesian]

In my opinion you need a fair draft combined with hard cap exceptions for the bottom dwellers and you have a better league.

Interesting thought, although it would give an advantage to large market teams who suck, versus the small market teams who can't afford to go over the cap

 

[NUMBERICA]

I'm not sure I like the idea. I don't really have a better one.

 

[NUMBERICA]

With a hard cap and extra cap room or an exemption for players signed by bottom dwellers I think money talks and BS walks. The hard cap plus room for bottom teams I think you DO see top FAs go to teams who can give them more money.

Which will gut teams of continuity and probably the reason for a soft cap in the first place.

 

[//r00t 4 Jazz]

Besides what I mentioned earlier of the slight adjustment on your predetermined pick based on record another idea I just thought of (stolen from baseball and football) that could help counteract the FA worry of the big market teams is and I think this would just apply to max contract (although could extend to AS players I guess) is draft pick compensation if you sign away another teams player.

This would stop or make it near impossible to do what MIA did as to sign away Bosh they would've had to give up their first round pick and then they wouldn't have had a draft pick to give in compensation for Lebron unless they did a trade for future first round picks. Again like my first post this is just a basic overview and would be more detailed to actually work.

 

[silesian]

risk

Look at what has happened with Deron. We traded Deron for Favors, Kanter's pick (#3) and the GS pick this year (???). The GS pick could be anywhere from 8-22. HUGE range. So, in that trade, who took on the biggest risk? NJ? Nope. They had a pretty good idea what they were getting.

Not quite this simple.

To be more precise, The Jazz gave up having DWill for <1 year in return for 3 first round draft picks. The giveup is what DWill could have produced in that year -- that is it.

Risk to NJ: DWill signs elsewhere and they give up three first round draft picks for <1 year of DWill.

You can't ignore this NJ risk just because in hindsight it did not happen. The odds of it happening (at the time) were not insignificant. NJ played its cards right and courted DWill, stroked his ego, etc, and he signed.

Much riskier move for NJ, not even close.

 

[green]

Lol. Count the titles among them.

EXACTLY. This is why the set draft would be better. Small market teams have no chance right now. At least with a set order you could plan for, small market teams could have a chance.

 

[green]

I think the lottery should be eliminated and they should average out the last 3 to 5 years for draft spots. If you want a top pick you gotta want to be bad for the long haul. It won't completely destroy tanking, but a lot of teams can't be bad for 3 straight years to get a top spot. Most teams (like 95% of teams) will at least try to be good. And if for some reason you are bad for a few years in a row, you'll have a good pick that you can hopefully build around and move forward. It's really the only way.

I'm also for taking the top 16 best teams in the NBA for the playoffs. have division titles/conference titles, but they don't mean you get a playoff spot.

Hate the averaging idea. It's not a good one. If you average it out, then teams like SA and Utah can't have ONE bad year, get a good player and win 56 games the next year. You HAVE to tank for 3-5 years to get your guy.

Terrible idea.

 

[green]

You're assuming way too much. It's been pointed out that just because they pick at these positions doesn't mean those players would be available at those positions. Trades, team needs, etc, would change every draft dramatically. Think about it. If a team is already good, and they get a top 6 pick, they don't need to pick the BPA. A good team can pick on need every time.

Basically, the middle teams greatly benefit from this, like the Jazz usually are. The bottom teams get hosed quite a bit. The top teams are the biggest winners. Big markets, for example, not only have a huge advantage in Free Agency, now you've given them top picks while they're great! That's less top picks for the bad teams.

In other words, let's say Cleveland still gets Lebron and then subsequently loses Lebron to Miami. How is Cleveland going to survive that if Lebron leaves outright with no sign-and-trade? Now Cleveland has to wait X amount of years before they can even get a chance at a top 3 pick. Let's face it, most years, there's usually a huge drop-off after the first 1-3 picks. It's rare when there's more than 5 All-Star caliber players. Therefore, without a trade or free agency, a team would be stuck in the middle of the pack for many years. They'd have to draft really well to make up for their loss.

Also, do you really think teams would trade away their picks as much as they do now? Teams trade away future picks with reckless abandon now because they don't think those picks will be any good because they think they'll be good. Do you really think the Nets would have given us so many picks if they knew exactly what they'd be? In other words, there'd be less of a chance of getting the better value out of a trade because the value, on both sides, would be much more quantifiable.


The Lakers, for example, wouldn't have had to trade so many picks to get Nash. The Nuggets and Magic recent trades, would've ended up less in favor of them, I would think. In other words, small-market teams would have less of a chance to recuperate their losses in free agency with a balanced draft. You're basically taking away an entire strategy, for building a team, away from the small markets that the big market teams don't use nearly as much. Why do you think the Lakers gave up so many draft picks? They don't need the draft like smaller market teams do.

Duh. You are missing the point. The point is this: Once Utah had Stockton and Malone, they had ZERO shot at another All-Star. ZERO.

This gives them a shot at having multiple All-Stars. Look at OKC and SA. They will NEVER bring in an All-Star through FA. Their only shot is the draft. This gives them access to more potential All-Stars, access that small market teams do not currently have.

 

[green]

I would bet that when the owners vote on this "draft wheel" that the lakers, knicks, nets, bulls ect all vote to bring in the new system.

Meanwhile the jazz, suns, timberwolves, bucks ect ect will vote against.

Probably a good reason for that

I agree. And if they do, they are dumb.

Look at this: When Shaq was a FA, who was the ONLY team that had a shot to sign Shaq? When Deron, Paul, Howard, Carmello wanted out of their current locations, who had shots at those players?

Not a single player considered a small market team.

What does that tell you? That they will all end up in big markets, no matter what small market teams do.

What is the only way for a small market team to have a shot at a superstar? To draft him, and hold onto him for 7 years.

So, if the only way the Jazz/Spurs/OKC/Portland have a shot at superstars is through the draft, why not adopt a system that gives you more chances at top picks?

Yeah, what if Miami had the #1 pick next year? They would get stacked big time. BUT, what if SA/OKC had the #1 pick next year? What if, in 1997, the Jazz had the #1 pick? Coming off a tough WCF loss, the Jazz then had a shot at Tim Duncan. When will Utah EVER get that chance? NEVER.

Once Utah had Stockton and Malone, they were done. There was no way for them to add a major piece to the team. They had to ride that pair out, or start over.

Having slotted picks allows you to ALWAYS BE GOOD. Even small market teams.

 

[green]

Yep, you're giving the big market teams another huge advantage here. Free agency, resources, premier coaches (would Jackson ever consider coaching a smaller market team?), and now you've given them a balanced draft. Big market teams didn't need that advantage and now you're handing it to them on a silver platter. Bad teams need it and now you've pushed out their recovery process over a long period of time. 1-2 bad drafts and you fall behind pretty fast since every team gets the same amount AND since your next quality selection list could be years down the road. You just have to pray that your top 6 pick lands in a good draft. Otherwise, welcome to mediocrity and loserland for years to come.

Oh GAWD. Get over this giving large markets an advantage here. You are missing the forest for the trees. The draft IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE FOR SMALL MARKET TEAMS RIGHT NOW.

Come on. This is the DUMBEST argument out there. I showed you how the Jazz could have had this lineup with a slotted draft (granted, they would have to draft these players, but they would have ACCESS to them):

PG - Mark Price, Andre Miller, Steve Nash
SG - Jon Barry, Jamal Crawford, Rush
SF - Grant Hill, Glenn Rice
PF - Karl Malone, Kurt Thomas
C - Hakeem Olajuwon

Show me a system that allows Utah to build that team and I'll listen. Until you can do that, don't bring up giving large markets an advantage. They already have ALL THE ADVANTAGES. Small market teams have none.

NOT EVEN THE DRAFT. Once you make the playoffs as a small market team, your ability to build is GONE. GONE. This gives it back to you.