The NBA Draft Auction

[Casperian]

The problem with this system is that most if not all teams wouldn't spend any until the LBJ/Oden/Duncan talent came around. So good teams would just horde all of their points for such a player. Especially since often times teams won't have any chance to bid because they're not in the lottery.

Maybe I´m naive, but I can´t see that happening.

Let´s take the 2006 Draft, for example.
Just hypothetically, let´s say the Celtics had the most SB´s in that Draft.
Would you`ve been happy if Danny had decided to skip on a talent like Roy, to have a better chance at Greg Oden in the following year? What if Danny makes an offer for the #1 Pick in the Oden-Draft, but the team who drafted Roy didn´t make the Playoffs, decides to trade him for a few thousands SB, and outbids the Celtics in the 2007 Draft?

Do you think Pierce would´ve been happy with that?

How do you know which #1 Pick is LBJ and which one is the Kandiman? MJ was drafted at #3. What I´m trying to say is, you don´t know which of these "Franchise player" talents will pan out, so it would be crazy not to go for the #1 Pick if you have the chance. You can still trade the Pick at the actual Draft, as in the current system.

Another issue I have with it is that you'd have to work very hard against collusion. GMs could do all sorts of unethical things by working together.

There´s no difference to the current system, tbh.
If anything, the fix value of a SB creates more transparency. People will know if their GM overpaid or not, since they can see how much he "paid" in the trade, while in the current system, you can only guess what kind of value the future Draft Picks have.

In my mind the purpose of the draft is to inversely reward bad teams with high picks to redistribute talent to keep the league competitively balanced. The secondary purpose is to give every team hope and/or hype every year.

I don't think this system would do either. One bad mistake by a GM based on bad game theory could literally cost his team 5+ draft positions. Worse then his "points" would be depleted killing his chances of rebuilding in future years.

Does the current system accomplish that goal? How many times did the worst team end up with the #1 Pick? The currency system, on the other hand, makes sure that, theoretically, the worst teams get the most tokens to play in the auction.

In my opinion, this system benefits teams with a smart management the most in the long run, who know how to get "the most bang on the buck".

If you want to create a marketplace and reduce tanking, why not just allow all rookies to be FAs?

Well, that would really open the doors for a lot of shady moves, in my opinion. Maybe I´m wrong, but I think teams who work together could create a circulation of "Superstar - Expiring Contract - Top Rookie", and noone could do anything about it.

[bfrombleacher]

It'd be interesting if the lottery system were kept except GMs would "buy" lotto balls with the credit system...

...And then add to that the ability to do other things with credits (off the top of my head, the ability to "buy" cap space, perhaps or maybe the ability to increase the size of contracts you can hand out).

GMs would have to choose between buying lotto balls and doing something more surefire like bidding for a more surefire pick. Would be very easy to pick out inept GMs and reward skilled GMs. Also adds another layer of strategy to GM'ing.

Simply decreasing the possible difference in the credits between the top team and the bottom team would make tanking meaningless all the while still allowing bad teams to have better opportunities. It'd be almost completely on the hands of the bottom dwellers and the eternally mediocre to better themselves.

The logistics would be hell to sort through though.

[Casperian]

Edited OP for readability

It'd be interesting if the lottery system were kept except GMs would "buy" lotto balls with the credit system..

But who gets to buy first? Also, I would rather not deal with lucky bounces anymore.

...And then add to that the ability to do other things with credits (off the top of my head, the ability to "buy" cap space, perhaps or maybe the ability to increase the size of contracts you can hand out).

GMs would have to choose between buying lotto balls and doing something more surefire like bidding for a more surefire pick. Would be very easy to pick out inept GMs and reward skilled GMs. Also adds another layer of strategy to GM'ing.

True, there´s a lot of things you could do with such a currency, but I fear it would open more loopholes than it closes if you extend it´s purpose to anything else than the draft (and consequently, as trade asset).

One of my concerns woud be that there are probably many more teams willing to suck for three years for a chance at LBJ than just "(potentially) Wiggins´ potential".

Personally, I´d prefer the simple transparency and stability the original proposition offers.

Simply decreasing the possible difference in the credits between the top team and the bottom team would make tanking meaningless all the while still allowing bad teams to have better opportunities. It'd be almost completely on the hands of the bottom dwellers and the eternally mediocre to better themselves.

The logistics would be hell to sort through though.

I think we have a different definition of "tanking".
The system was created specifically to stop teams which are already bad from losing even more games on purpose. It´s not intended to stop a good team from intentionally rebuilding.

However, my guess would be that these things go hand in hand, anyway. If you finish the season as the 12th worst team, and thus, just barely miss the playoffs, the total "value" of your team should be a lot higher than if you finish dead last. You could then trade relatively valuable players to get a lot more SB than you would get from tanking.

In the proposed system, the 12th worst team gets 3.800 SB, while the worst team gets 6.000 SB. The difference is only 2.200 SB, which you could get by simply trading a strong role player to a playoff team.

I think it´s enough incentive to never tank again, and simply focus on developing your players and winning games.

[Who]

I think they should distribute TV revenue proportionally to W-L records.

Punish the crap out of teams that lose. Give much greater financial incentive to win games.

[Fafnir]

System is too vulnerable to game theory and collusion, like I said so many years ago.

Bids spending their points even if they lose means that a single bad bid could deplete a teams entire rebuilding process, or collusion could artificially supress prices for the top pick. If you want an auction, don't make it blind, just have a straight up normal auction.

[Fafnir]

I think they should distribute TV revenue proportionally to W-L records.

Punish the crap out of teams that lose. Give much greater financial incentive to win games.

If owners cared about anything other than guaranteed profits (usually provided by the city paying their operating expenses) this would also work.

[slamtheking]

I think they should distribute TV revenue proportionally to W-L records.

Punish the crap out of teams that lose. Give much greater financial incentive to win games.

If owners cared about anything other than guaranteed profits (usually provided by the city paying their operating expenses) this would also work.

this would seem to hit the owners the hardest.  money does send the point home like nothing else.  I think a team might be willing to take a 1-year hit but certainly no more than a 2-year hit to get that high draft pick.

[Casperian]

System is too vulnerable to game theory and collusion, like I said so many years ago.

Bids spending their points even if they lose means that a single bad bid could deplete a teams entire rebuilding process, or collusion could artificially supress prices for the top pick. If you want an auction, don't make it blind, just have a straight up normal auction.

A bad bid simply means you´re not getting the pick you wanted, you´d still get one of the picks nobody else has bid on. In a best-case scenario, that´s still the #2 pick for the team with the worst record. It just goes to show how foolish it would be to put all your eggs in one basket if you aren´t certain it´s worth it. It favours smart management, which is the whole purpose of the system.

Do you have a scenario in mind where teams could collaborate to surpress prices for top picks? I have a hard time believing that, say, the Wizards would want to help the Bobcats to get the #1 pick, but maybe I´m missing something.

If I remember correctly, I´ve opted for a blind version because I thought a normal auction would just force teams to put the highest amount possible on the #1 pick. Losing the SB you´ve bid is essential as a valve to keep inflation down, but if another team could drive up the prices without any drawback you would just punish teams which are already bad.

I think they should distribute TV revenue proportionally to W-L records.

Punish the crap out of teams that lose. Give much greater financial incentive to win games.

If owners cared about anything other than guaranteed profits (usually provided by the city paying their operating expenses) this would also work.

I like the simplicity and practicality of your idea, Who, but I have to agree with Faf.
Moreover, where do you draw the line? Does the worst team get 1 million less than the 2nd worst team, or 10 million? If the difference isn´t big enough, then it doesn´t eliminate tanking, and if it´s too big, you´re only enforcing reckless spending on mediocre FAs and punish teams which were unlucky in the lottery. At worst, you might even enforce tanking, as getting that saviour at #1 is now an even higher priority than before for teams ranked 20-30.

To be honest, I see a whole slew of different problems this approach could create or amplify.

[bdm860]

Wow, so weird.  I'm reading this entirely new current topic that I've never read before, and see I'm already the 2nd comment on something I know I didn't read or comment on.  Ah from 2009, that explains it lol.  Very weird for a moment though.

What's the ratio of Starbucks to Stanley Nickels though?

And I think those need to be called Stern Bucks.