ESPN Draft Article - Abolish Draft

[Celtics18]

This is actually an idea that I've suggested before around here.

Not surprisingly, I got roundly criticized for it. 

[hwangjini_1]

it is an interesting idea.

for those who oppose it, please write more than "idiotic" "sucks" or whatever. i would like to see what exactly and precisely makes this so terrible.

at the same time, what benefits does this provide that would make it more desirable than the current system? all systems have inherent flaws, are this system's flaws less telling than the current system?

i would like to hear everyone's opinions on this. i think this could be an interesting discussion here at cb.

Response

Um, what the heck is this?  One of the worst ideas I've seen altogether:

http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2015/insider/story/_/id/12912177/nba-draft-abolish-draft

While I agree that the draft lottery should be altered, this is idea is beyond ridiculous, although it's not surprising coming from espn.  If such a system was ever implemented, here's what we'd be looking at, lol -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLySXTIBS3c

No thank you .

how so? you mean the nba could not regulate such proceedings as they currently do with free agents? set a period of time and standards for negotiations that are similar? prevent teams from taking advantage of players by setting up minimum salary levels?

teams could go all in for one player, or go for multiple players by spreading the amount out.

agents and players are approached, and approach, teams and negotiate ala free agents. then, the agents/players can contact other teams with those deals and see if a better offer comes up. with a time limit put in place it would keep things from going on too long.

honestly, i dont see how the cute video undermines the idea being discussed.

besides, who cares if mortimer dies? 

[fairweatherfan]

Why all the negativity?  It's clearly a deeply flawed idea but it's kinda fun to think about on a spring evening  waiting for the game to start.

Here's my probably equally or more flawed idea - why not start with that as the baseline but allow teams to add available cap space to the contract?  A team could even offer an incoming rookie a max contract (with typical "years in the league" downward adjustments) if they were that confident about it.  With a max of one of these rookies a year and contracts so short, the fallout from overpaying a dud would be more limited than in the past, so let teams pay the players what they think they're worth.

[Forza Juventus]

Anything that gives more power to the players is a good thing. It is unfair that players have very little control for up to the first 9 years of their professional career. Plus at least one year of college. It is all very unfair for the players currently.

[Tr1boy]

Anything that gives more power to the players is a good thing. It is unfair that players have very little control for up to the first 9 years of their professional career. Plus at least one year of college. It is all very unfair for the players currently.

Players do have control to say no after their rookie contract. But money talks

[PhoSita]

Why all the negativity?  It's clearly a deeply flawed idea but it's kinda fun to think about on a spring evening  waiting for the game to start.

Here's my probably equally or more flawed idea - why not start with that as the baseline but allow teams to add available cap space to the contract?  A team could even offer an incoming rookie a max contract (with typical "years in the league" downward adjustments) if they were that confident about it.  With a max of one of these rookies a year and contracts so short, the fallout from overpaying a dud would be more limited than in the past, so let teams pay the players what they think they're worth.

I'm not really a fan of the idea of making it even more a bidding war.  Teams hoarding cap space is already kind of an annoying feature of things, not dissimilar from tanking in a way -- string the fans along on the hope of signing a top free agent rather than the hope of a top draft pick.  Having teams hoard cap space to offer huge contracts to highly touted prospects who have done nothing in the league yet seems even more obnoxious.


I would be in favor of allowing more room for negotiation of the terms of rookie deals, though, aside from the money.  For example, maybe part of the intrigue of which guy signs where hinges on which team will give him four guaranteed years, as opposed to two guaranteed years plus two team option years. 

Perhaps you could make it possible for players to "re-negotiate" their deals after a year or two, if they hit certain performance milestones (e.g. "1st Team All-Rookie," "All-NBA," "All-Star," "Rookie of the Year," "Most Improved Player," and so on).  There could even be something similar to the arbitration system used in baseball, as an alternative to restricted free agency.


One possibility though, with regards to the money.  Make the exception last for multiple years, similar to the Bi-Annual exception.  A team could choose to use this year's exception, plus whatever else it had saved up from the year before, on a player it really likes.  Or it could choose to save a sizable chunk of the exception from this year for next year's draft class.

Another wrinkle -- make it possible for teams to use the rookie exception space as a trade exception.  If you're a contender, maybe you choose to pocket the Rookie Exception in order to acquire a necessary role player at some point during the season.

[PhoSita]

This is actually an idea that I've suggested before around here.

Not surprisingly, I got roundly criticized for it.

It's an alarming notion to those of us who enjoy being armchair GMs, because it makes it a lot more difficult to imagine different team building scenarios.  Free agency is already a hard enough thing to predict, no you turn the draft into a pseudo-free agency period?  Gah.

[Forza Juventus]

Anything that gives more power to the players is a good thing. It is unfair that players have very little control for up to the first 9 years of their professional career. Plus at least one year of college. It is all very unfair for the players currently.

Players do have control to say no after their rookie contract. But money talks

Teams can match any offer so no the players do not have control. They can also be traded at any moment. The only good thing for the players is guaranteed contracts.

[hwangjini_1]

Why all the negativity?  It's clearly a deeply flawed idea but it's kinda fun to think about on a spring evening  waiting for the game to start.

Here's my probably equally or more flawed idea - why not start with that as the baseline but allow teams to add available cap space to the contract?  A team could even offer an incoming rookie a max contract (with typical "years in the league" downward adjustments) if they were that confident about it.  With a max of one of these rookies a year and contracts so short, the fallout from overpaying a dud would be more limited than in the past, so let teams pay the players what they think they're worth.

I'm not really a fan of the idea of making it even more a bidding war.  Teams hoarding cap space is already kind of an annoying feature of things, not dissimilar from tanking in a way -- string the fans along on the hope of signing a top free agent rather than the hope of a top draft pick.  Having teams hoard cap space to offer huge contracts to highly touted prospects who have done nothing in the league yet seems even more obnoxious.


I would be in favor of allowing more room for negotiation of the terms of rookie deals, though, aside from the money.  For example, maybe part of the intrigue of which guy signs where hinges on which team will give him four guaranteed years, as opposed to two guaranteed years plus two team option years. 

Perhaps you could make it possible for players to "re-negotiate" their deals after a year or two, if they hit certain performance milestones (e.g. "1st Team All-Rookie," "All-NBA," "All-Star," "Rookie of the Year," "Most Improved Player," and so on).  There could even be something similar to the arbitration system used in baseball, as an alternative to restricted free agency.

good points pho. i agree particularly with the latter two. they would allow teams a range of strategies and make sure a few teams did not monopolize everything by having more money available.

on your initial point, i dont see how teams would "hoard" the money ala salary cap. the league assigns a cap and teams could simply lose anything not spent. that would incentivize teams to commit the money.

and the amount we are talking about is far, far less than what free agents make. i dont see this as a fatal flaw.

[Quetzalcoatl]

It will turn the NBA into La Liga.  There will be more incentive for glamor teams to tank, because then they can guarantee that if they have the most money they will be able to talk the best players into coming.  The 76ers plan would work amazing well, except instead of all teams being able to do it, just NYC, LA and Miami could get away with it.

[BornReady]

wouldnt players just want to go to major cities: chicago, LA, NY over smaller cities

Also it wouldnt matter about rookie contracts as rookies play for their 2nd contract
(they go to a team that has the best situation for them i.e. open roster spot on the team so that they can get playing time to impress teams that they are a good player to sign a bigger 2nd contract)

Also it wouldnt help teams that are losing as they have less of a chance of getting a good player while a team like LA would be able to attract prospects and continue winning at the same time

[PAOBoston]

You know how you avoid tanking? Some sort of relegation system. Won't  have much incentive to suck then.

[Celtics4ever]

This is actually an idea that I've suggested before around here.

Not surprisingly, I got roundly criticized for it.

People are still dumping on it, sorta.

[D.o.s.]

Why all the negativity?  It's clearly a deeply flawed idea but it's kinda fun to think about on a spring evening  waiting for the game to start.

Here's my probably equally or more flawed idea - why not start with that as the baseline but allow teams to add available cap space to the contract?  A team could even offer an incoming rookie a max contract (with typical "years in the league" downward adjustments) if they were that confident about it.  With a max of one of these rookies a year and contracts so short, the fallout from overpaying a dud would be more limited than in the past, so let teams pay the players what they think they're worth.

Offer a rookie a max contract?

[Granath]

This is actually an idea that I've suggested before around here.

Not surprisingly, I got roundly criticized for it.

People are still dumping on it, sorta.

That's because it's a bad idea.