NBA proposal to replace lottery with "draft wheel" (Lowe article)

[Eja117]

I still think they should tie revenue sharing to W-L records. Give a large financial disincentive to teams who try to lose games + a large financial incentive to teams to try and put winning teams out on the floor.

eja approves this message

[bdm860]

Another issue I see is how this would effect free agency and trades.

Think about the big free agent summer of 2010.  Maybe LeBron chooses LAC, or Chicago, or Brooklyn, or New York if they're slated to have one of the top picks in the next few years.

Think about Bosh in Toronto.  Toronto had the #1 pick in 2006 which they used on Bargnani.  According to the wheel, they'd have picked 30, 19, 18, 7 bringing us up to 2010 free agency.  Bosh split town anyways, but I don't think having pick 25, 23, 14, 11 over the next 4 years is going to help him stay.  He has to wait 5 years for his team to draft #2?

Do Carmelo, Howard, and Chris Paul force trades to teams with a good pick coming up?  Plus how often would good picks even get traded?  Look how often picks get protected now, how many teams would be willing to trade a known good pick, especially when you only have 1 good pick  followed by 5 crappy ones?  A trade like the C's just had with Brooklyn would never have happened.

I think this would make free agency even more significant than it is now.  (Which is bad for a lot of teams that struggle to attract or retain free agents as it is).

I think you could see free agents go to teams about to get a top pick (not that this would be the only factor but when you have a few teams trying to sign a player, those upcoming known picks could tip the scales).  Not something that would happen all the time, but I think there'd be quite a few perfect storms where a top team has a top pick and can attract a top free agent all at the same time (or within a couple of years).  So teams we hate (like the Lakers) could be good already, be scheduled to get the top pick, and use that to attract a top free agent.   I could just picture the 2003 Lakers with Shaq and Kobe, drafting LeBron, before signing Karl Malone and Gary Payton.

Plus if you're scheduled to get a top pick in a weak draft, you're screwed.  If you're legitimately bad, maybe you just have terrible luck (drafted can't miss Len Bias or Greg Oden, built around Brandon Roy or Derrick Rose,  had a superstar leave town), it could take well over a decade to recover.  Think about teams that drafted first in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006.  You're picking 30, 19, 18, 7, 6, 25, 23, 14, 11.  If you're not a city that can attract free agents, and you're pick falls on a bad draft or has a career ending injury, you have no hope.

I like it in theory, but I think it would end up being much worse for the league.

[OhioGreen]

I've had this idea for a couple of years, but didn't think the NBA would listen to me!

Same as set up for lottery today---w/l records for non playoff teams 1-14, no moving up or down. Then, simply instead of drawing pingpong balls, you flip a coin----heads, the draft goes 1-14. Tails, the draft goes 14-1. Tanking doesn't get you anywhere,necessarily, as the worst record might get you the 14 pick. On the opposite end, if you play your butt off to make the playoffs,but don't, with a flip of the coin you could still end up with a great pick for your efforts. So teams might as well play to win! As Red used to say you can't win anything until you make the playoffs, then anything,(theoretically)can happen!
What say ye-should I get the NBA on speed dial?

[wdleehi]

Just terrible.



Want to fix it, adjust the rules to favor the team game vs. the superstar game.


Right now, a team has to have a superstar.  To get one, you have to almost win the lotto.  (or be in NY, LA, or one of the other popular warm cities to get FAs)


If a team could build all around teams and have a good chance to win it all more often, teams no longer need to tank.  Teams no longer need to trade the good players away to be bad enough to get a superstar.





 

[guava_wrench]

Just terrible.



Want to fix it, adjust the rules to favor the team game vs. the superstar game.

Make it 10 on 10. That would make superstars less significant. That would reduce the impact of Bird, Magic, Jordan, or Russell, if, for some reason, that is what you want.

What is curious about this comment is that Lebron is the best player in the NBA and his plays a true team game. Heck, that has been the #1 criticism of him in his career.

[guava_wrench]

I've had this idea for a couple of years, but didn't think the NBA would listen to me!

Same as set up for lottery today---w/l records for non playoff teams 1-14, no moving up or down. Then, simply instead of drawing pingpong balls, you flip a coin----heads, the draft goes 1-14. Tails, the draft goes 14-1. Tanking doesn't get you anywhere,necessarily, as the worst record might get you the 14 pick. On the opposite end, if you play your butt off to make the playoffs,but don't, with a flip of the coin you could still end up with a great pick for your efforts. So teams might as well play to win! As Red used to say you can't win anything until you make the playoffs, then anything,(theoretically)can happen!
What say ye-should I get the NBA on speed dial?

Tanking still helps. Instead of the 8th seed in playoffs, go for the 14th seed in draft. Now you have a 50% chance.

The main problem with your idea is that you haven't thought through the math. In you system, if Lebron is in the draft, you are even better off tanking since the worst record gets you a 50% chance of the top pick if you have the worst record. Right now, you only have a 25% chance if you have the worst record. Tanking is a better bet in your system.

What makes your system really not make sense is that there is no reason to give the 14th worst team the first pick. Why should missing barely missing out on the playoffs give them a 50% chance at the #1 pick? Why not include playoff teams at that point?

[guava_wrench]

I still think they should tie revenue sharing to W-L records. Give a large financial disincentive to teams who try to lose games + a large financial incentive to teams to try and put winning teams out on the floor.

eja approves this message

The idea fails because it says 'TRY to lose games'. Most teams that lose are not trying to lose. They just don't have talent, despite trying to accumulate talent.

Then you have teams like have Lebron or Duncan fall to them and are guaranteed winning seasons every year. Look at Chicago with Jordan. I remember the Chicago ownership having a bad reputation while he was there.

What that idea does is just keep the same teams at the top every year. I suppose that is the American Way. Let those on top remain there by giving them benefits to stop others from competing.

Edit: In fact, no one tried harder this year to field a winning team than the Nets. Look where they are. They tried the hardest, committed the most to winning, but are losing.

[guava_wrench]

I love the draft wheel idea but it will run into a serious problem when the #1 picks leave to large markets as free agents. I have no problem with this as I feel it makes sense that it is harder for a small market team to keep talent because they have less fans and less support (financially at least).

Look at the Knicks. Even when they are bad, they can afford to shell out a lot of money. I have no problem with this. But when the Lakers sign Shaq as a FA, they still have a chance for a #1 the next year. Milwaukee or Toronto will never lure a top FA, so even the best GMs are starting the race 20 meters behind LA or NY (which also emphasizes how winning is not necessarily a result of good moves or effort).

[SHAQATTACK]

Big market teams have the ability to rebuild under FA anytime....they aren't worried .

This ability outweights the draft by a mile......they simply wait for elite talent to leave the sucky teams.

That is huge advantage ..not needing draft picks ......FA come along every year ........as Lakers wait out Kevin  Love to lose patience with T Wolves..      Kobe is already messing with Love. .

I think the BEST thing is leave the draft alone....

But make the CAP limit .......the Limit period........no going over .......period .....no tax........you lose the amount you went over off the next years limit...

The big market teams keep breaking the limit......make them stop .....

[wdleehi]

Just terrible.



Want to fix it, adjust the rules to favor the team game vs. the superstar game.

Make it 10 on 10. That would make superstars less significant. That would reduce the impact of Bird, Magic, Jordan, or Russell, if, for some reason, that is what you want.

What is curious about this comment is that Lebron is the best player in the NBA and his plays a true team game. Heck, that has been the #1 criticism of him in his career.

Great players are still going to be great players.


You don't have to make it 10 on 10 for it to be more of a team game.  Just stop tilting the rules in favor of the best players. 

[indeedproceed]

Big market teams have the ability to rebuild under FA anytime....they aren't worried .

This ability outweights the draft by a mile......they simply wait for elite talent to leave the sucky teams.

That is huge advantage ..not needing draft picks ......FA come along every year ........as Lakers wait out Kevin  Love to lose patience with T Wolves..      Kobe is already messing with Love. .

I think the BEST thing is leave the draft alone....

But make the CAP limit .......the Limit period........no going over .......period .....no tax........you lose the amount you went over off the next years limit...

The big market teams keep breaking the limit......make them stop .....

The NFL tried something similar , and it's created a lot of parity. Could work. Takes more money out of the players pockets and lines that of the owners, which seems wrong, but it would certainly gravitate the league towards parity.

Non-guaranteed contracts would also probably become a thing more used. But they likely would anyways. Already teams are relying very strongly on cheap talent to win. Your Chandler Parsons , Lance Stephensons, and others producing well above and beyond on rookie contracts are a near requirement for teams now

[indeedproceed]

Regarding the actual 'wheel', I hate it. I don't mind the tanking. I've watched a crapload of magic games this season, and it's got its own little bit of joy. Magic fans are cool with it too. They don't have much reason for optimism in terms of wins this season, but that just means the nights when Tobias Harris or Victor Oladipo go off are all that much more special.

And I remember 2007. It is probably my second favorite season overall. This was when I was still in college , and I didn't have league pass (I live in NY), so I listened ...yes, LISTENED to every game, imagining the wonderful post moves from Big Al, praying that THIS would be the game Bassy really got it, and chasing box scores that proved Gerald Green would be the next Tracy McGrady.

In fact, up iluntil the time we lost out on Durant/Oden, it was pretty much ideal.

[obnoxiousmime]

The league can't have it both ways. They artificially reduce the salaries of the superstars, then they get upset when they're willing to take slightly less money to form superteams.

The NBA doesn't want parity, it wants its best stars winning titles. If they wanted parity they would reduce the playoffs (besides monetary reasons) to best of 5 or even 3. They hate March Madness because the one-game elimination increases the chance the best team doesn't win.

Without fundamentally changing the game the sport will always be about stars. Playoff rotations are what, 7-8 players primarily? And the stars play 36-40 minutes out of a possible 48 in each game.

It would be like Tom Brady also being an excellent middle linebacker and playing 85% of total plays. Or if Justin Verlander pitched every game of the season AND batted .291 with 30 homers. But that's not even a fair comparison because there are other pitchers as good as Verlander out there. There's nobody close to being as good as LeBron right now, just like there was nobody close to Jordan.

[indeedproceed]

The league can't have it both ways. They artificially reduce the salaries of the superstars, then they get upset when they're willing to take slightly less money to form superteams.

The NBA doesn't want parity, it wants its best stars winning titles. If they wanted parity they would reduce the playoffs (besides monetary reasons) to best of 5 or even 3. They hate March Madness because the one-game elimination increases the chance the best team doesn't win.

Without fundamentally changing the game the sport will always be about stars. Playoff rotations are what, 7-8 players primarily? And the stars play 36-40 minutes out of a possible 48 in each game.

It would be like Tom Brady also being an excellent middle linebacker and playing 85% of total plays. Or if Justin Verlander pitched every game of the season AND batted .291 with 30 homers. But that's not even a fair comparison because there are other pitchers as good as Verlander out there. There's nobody close to being as good as LeBron right now, just like there was nobody close to Jordan.

I've never thoughtof it this way, but this is spot on. TP. Id also add the league wants the big markets and nationally appealing teams in playoff series/finals. Ideally the Lebron led Knicks play the Durant led lakers in a best of 7 series after beating the Melo led Bulls and Love led clippers in another 7 game series.

[fitzhickey]

The league can't have it both ways. They artificially reduce the salaries of the superstars, then they get upset when they're willing to take slightly less money to form superteams.

The NBA doesn't want parity, it wants its best stars winning titles. If they wanted parity they would reduce the playoffs (besides monetary reasons) to best of 5 or even 3. They hate March Madness because the one-game elimination increases the chance the best team doesn't win.

Without fundamentally changing the game the sport will always be about stars. Playoff rotations are what, 7-8 players primarily? And the stars play 36-40 minutes out of a possible 48 in each game.

It would be like Tom Brady also being an excellent middle linebacker and playing 85% of total plays. Or if Justin Verlander pitched every game of the season AND batted .291 with 30 homers. But that's not even a fair comparison because there are other pitchers as good as Verlander out there. There's nobody close to being as good as LeBron right now, just like there was nobody close to Jordan.

[dang]... Hadn't really thought like that, but that's spot on. TP