NBA lottery reform = Ainge's MASTER rebuild strategy

[FrDrake]

I haven't posted on celttics blog forum for a long time, but I haven't seen this idea discussed, at least recently, so here goes.  We all know DA has blown up the KG-PP-Rondo-Doc core and accumulated more draft picks than anyone in the entire Leage.  Depending on protections the C's should have around 11 first round picks over the next five years plus the option to swap drafting position with the nets at various points (not to mention the two they had last year.)   They own picks from the Clips, the Nets, the Mavs, the Cavs, and soon the Grizz.  This article breaks all the picks down clearly with specific info on protections:
http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/boston-celtics-trades-draft-picks-detailed-jeff-green-brandan-wright-rajon-rondo-010915

But why?  Why is this DA's strategy?  Everyone's grandmother knows draft picks are valuable in the NBA but what makes these picks more valuable than other other assets? 

NBA draft lottery reform, that's why.   

No one know exactly what lottery reform will look like, or exactly when it will be implemented, but it appears to be a question of how and when, not if.  This means the value of all these picks will very likely skyrocket in the near future. 

Here is a nice short article from Zach Lowe on proposed lottery reform this summer which eventually went down by just a couple of owner votes, primarily due to lobbying by the uber-tanking 76ers:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-lottery-reform-is-coming/

DA is buying low and planning on selling high.  Overnight, draft picks in the 10-14 range could soon be extremely valuable.  This is great news for the Cs. 

My question for the board - what type of lottery reform (i.e. lottery systems) would best serve the Celtics interests?

[Celtics4ever]

You are aware it got shut down and the small market teams were also against not just Philly.

[banty19]

Really good point and something nobody's been talking about. I also remember hearing the Celtics have been one of the lead advocates for lottery reform. And tanking by the Sixers may be egregious enough to get something done after this season.

I think the ideal reform for the Celtics' interest would be the one created by the Celtics' Mike Zarren. The wheel would ensure that every team would get a #1 pick every ~29 years (pending expansion) and a top 5 pick once every 5 years or so. The value of this is it means some of their picks from contenders could be top 5 picks instead of #25-#30 picks.

I don't think the wheel is in the best interests of the league for a few reasons but any lottery reform will likely help the Celtics position.

[FrDrake]

You are aware it got shut down and the small market teams were also against not just Philly.

Groan. This is why I haven't posted here for years - people love to dismiss thoughtful posts with one line responses.  To answer your question, try reading this article...like I said, lottery reform is a very likely question of when/how, not if.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-rejects-lottery-reform/

[jpotter33]

Their whole plan was dumb. Slightly decreasing the odds of the worst teams and stabilizing the odds throughout would only make teams tank slightly less hard, but it would make other teams tank harder to get into the group of the worst four or five teams that have the same odds.

They need to put certain limits and conditions on draft position in order to decrease tanking. Conditions like only being able to be in the top 3 once every three years encourages teams to not tank by taking away the incentives of tanking.

[banty19]

You are aware it got shut down and the small market teams were also against not just Philly.

Groan. This is why I haven't posted here for years - people love to dismiss thoughtful posts with one line responses.  To answer your question, try reading this article...like I said, lottery reform is a very likely question of when/how, not if.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-rejects-lottery-reform/

I hear ya. I'd be frustrated beyond belief if I put a ton of effort into a post only to get a short, snarky, ill-informed reply.

[PickNRoll]

You are aware it got shut down and the small market teams were also against not just Philly.

Groan. This is why I haven't posted here for years - people love to dismiss thoughtful posts with one line responses.  To answer your question, try reading this article...like I said, lottery reform is a very likely question of when/how, not if.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-rejects-lottery-reform/

It seems like maybe you didn't read it either.

the Celtics’ assistant general manager, called for instituting the Wheel only after all draft picks that have already been traded actually move between the trading partners.

So, how could picks in the 10-14 range soon be extremely valuable?  Everyone acknowledges that it would be unfair to institute a new system that would alter the value of present assets.

[jonaslopes]

My lottery reform dream: 30 teams, 30 balls. And then we'll never hear about tanking again. Ever.

Impossible, I know. Unfortunately.

[Celtics4ever]

I hear ya. I'd be frustrated beyond belief if I put a ton of effort into a post only to get a short, snarky, ill-informed reply

Would you rather read posts based in fiction, this guy has no idea on Ainge's strategy.  Ainge has no idea when it will come, also, the Grantland Article said that it was a ways off.   If that is the case, then it will not affect all those picks we have how well thought is that or your comments.

Among the “no” votes were big-market teams Chicago and Washington, a source said, with small-market Sacramento, in a strange twist, voting for lottery reform.

The remaining teams that voted no were Phoenix, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Detroit, Miami, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Utah, Washington and Atlanta, sources said.

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--nba-owners-nix-lottery-reform-plan-154009158.html


 It is well known that small market teams were against it.   It is common knowledge.

Groan. This is why I haven't posted here for years - people love to dismiss thoughtful posts with one line responses.  To answer your question, try reading this article...like I said, lottery reform is a very likely question of when/how, not i

Your calling this thread well informed when, the whole premise, is based on a a hypothetical guess that this is Ainge's plan.  Thanks for coming back to post that you like an article.   Now read a real one like this one.   Read the above comments for showing how the this whole idea of this being a plan is pretty much a joke.   

Presti declined comment to Yahoo Sports, but his case, laid out to others, is this: The big-market teams badly want this change because it’ll give them one more advantage over small markets in securing top talent. Big-market teams have an advantage signing superstar free agents, an advantage trading for them because those players are far more apt to agree to sign a contract extension. And, now, the big market teams will get better access to top players higher in the draft.

As one GM sympathetic to Presti’s concerns – and employed by an owner who has decided to vote for the new system – told Yahoo: “Everyone is too focused on Philly, on one team in one situation. The only chance for a lot of teams to ever get a transformational player is through the draft, and eventually we are all going to be in the lottery, in that spot. The teams that’ll drop from two to eight, or three to nine – that’s just going to take the air out of those fan bases and franchises. They’ll get little, if any chance, to improve.

“We are going to see more big-market teams who just missed the playoffs jump up and get a great young player at the top of the draft. And people are going to go “What the [expletive] just happened?”

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/21/could-lottery-reform-be-bad-for-small-market-teams-sam-presti-arguing-yes/


The Grantland article states, 

The discussion is still in its early stages, and there are more proposals floating around from team officials. Those ideas could get more air time, and the league could always tweak its own proposal or put forth another. But it’s clear that Adam Silver is serious about tweaking the lottery system, possibly as early as next season

Won't help us this season, probably not the next either.   Small markets seem to think this only helps the big markets there is a lot of ground to cover.  Silver does not control the votes, and even though it was put forth this time, he will still face the same concerns and probably have new teams wanting to tank.  The media will keep this alive, they are in the big cities but small town owners don't work for the media, they work for themselves.

Please tell us who will Ainge trade next since you know his plans?   Who is he going to draft?

[Abandoned Diary]

You are aware it got shut down and the small market teams were also against not just Philly.

Groan. This is why I haven't posted here for years - people love to dismiss thoughtful posts with one line responses.  To answer your question, try reading this article...like I said, lottery reform is a very likely question of when/how, not if.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-rejects-lottery-reform/

It seems like maybe you didn't read it either.

the Celtics’ assistant general manager, called for instituting the Wheel only after all draft picks that have already been traded actually move between the trading partners.

So, how could picks in the 10-14 range soon be extremely valuable?  Everyone acknowledges that it would be unfair to institute a new system that would alter the value of present assets.

I agree.

I think the OP has a point, but the change that would make the mid-tier picks would is the increase in the salary cap, if anything. Even in the case of a major reform of the salary cap, I think that the increased popularity of players and the number of player "brands", the salaries of not only the elite players, but also the rotation players will just jump exponentially with the additional TV money. People who thought that Gerald Wallace and Rudy Gay were "bad" contracts will start to barf at the numbers Giannis or Sully will be able to command in a couple of years.

With a simplified hard cap (which I also believe is coming soon), the teams with a strong stream of cost-controlled players will be able to gain an advantage over their competitors, since most of their cap space will be allocated to veterans/"stars". We've seen this happen in Major League Baseball; yes, baseball does not have a salary cap, but the difference in spending is negated a great deal with luxury tax money and revenue sharing, and spending patterns between teams are not that different. The baseball teams that draft smartly and have a good farm are shown to have a better chance of being consistently good, and the I think the basketball equivalent to having a good farm is having draft currency.

[LooseCannon]

This means the value of all these picks will very likely skyrocket in the near future. 

Not necessarily.  It's possible that any significant lottery reform will be implemented so that it doesn't come into effect until after all currently traded picks have been used.

[LooseCannon]

My lottery reform dream: 30 teams, 30 balls. And then we'll never hear about tanking again. Ever.

We'll hear about how the NBA is rigged when a team like the Lakers or the Knicks get top-five picks three years in a row.

[Granath]

My lottery reform dream: 30 teams, 30 balls. And then we'll never hear about tanking again. Ever.

Impossible, I know. Unfortunately.

Impossible because it is a horrible idea. The NBA is a top-heavy league and the easiest way to rebuild is to get lucky in the draft. Grab a Durant, a Lebron, a CP3 and you're competitive. If not, you're probably not going to be.

That plan would leave the improvement of teams purely to luck. Bad teams that get consistently unlucky in such a lottery would have no assets to improve. Premier free agents who could help those teams would avoid them like the plague. Those teams would have to massively overpay for even mid-tier FAs, giving them even fewer assets to work with. Other bad luck teams would just cut to the bone to maximize franchise profits (see Donald Sterling in the 80s and 90s). You would see wholesale fan disgust and franchise values would end up plummeting for those teams. 

That plan would considerably hurt the league balance (it's already bad enough) plus leave the current team owners open to a considerable risk as the futures of their teams would depend greatly on luck. At least with the system today bad teams get preferential treatment in the lottery, allowing them a better shot at acquiring talent that can improve their teams.

---

Anytime you have a lottery, you're going to get tanking. If every non-playoff team has an equal chance of winning the lottery, then you'd see teams tank to get out of the #8 playoff spot.

If you don't weight the lottery, it's a crapshoot that will create massive balance issues and outright destroy franchises.

The wheel is another bad idea because not every draft is created equal. Get the top pick in a a draft like 2012 or 2000 and you're hosed for quite a few years. Plus, you'll end up with the scenario of the NBA champ picking #1 or #2 and again creating further imbalance. The surety makes it easier to deal with, but it's still a bad system because it's going to have the effect of keeping bad teams bad. As I said, get a soft draft and it may be literally a generation before you can rectify that problem.

In short there is NO PERFECT SYSTEM. It's either luck or tanking (and what situations would cause a tanking scenario). Personally, I prefer tanking of non-playoff teams to anything else. Luck destroys the league and tanking of playoff teams is a far worse sin in my mind. 

But adjustments can be made to prevent as much tanking or consistent tanking while ensuring the bottom teams get a relatively even distribution of the top picks. First of all, I'd re-weight the draft so that bad teams get a better chance of getting a top pick. But to prevent continual tanking, a rule should be instituted that if you get the #1 pick, you cannot have a top 3 pick in the next 3 years. If you get the #2 pick, you cannot have a top 3 pick in the next two years. If you get the #3 pick, you cannot have a top 3 pick the following year. So even if they had the worst record and drew the top pick the best they could do is the #4 pick. If you end up getting a soft draft, you figure that out and get a chance again in 3 years.

So teams would tank - they would tank under any weighted system - but they would really only have incentive to tank for a top 3 pick once every 3 years. In this years' draft, Philly and MIL would have little incentive to tank. Assuming Philly gets a top 3 pick, they'd be bumped to #4 while another bad team would get that prime pick. Over the years, the picks to bad teams would become more evenly distributed. Again, it doesn't eliminate tanking but it eliminates tanking in multiple seasons.

[FrDrake]

You are aware it got shut down and the small market teams were also against not just Philly.

Silver again said at All Star Weekend that he wants to see lottery reform:

"“We're going to come back to the Board of Governors at our April meeting for an additional discussion. We've already begun with the competition committee talking about how we can readdress the issue. I personally believe we do need to make some changes in the lottery, which I believe is largely a perception issue.  … I don't think the system isn't as broken as some may suggest, but it's going to require a tweak.”

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2015-02-14/nba-all-star-press-conference-adam-silver-age-limit-draft-lottery-playoffs

We don't know exactly what the lottery reform will look like, but any change would reduce the incentive to tank, increasing the value of picks for teams that may not be in the bottom 3, 5 or even 10 worst records in the league.  Unless they implement the 'wheel' proposal (see Grantland), teams that don't make the playoffs but have average to even good records could see the value of their picks rise, while teams with the worst records, would see the value of their picks decline. 

DA's strategy of hoarding picks is likely related to this reform. 

[hwangjini_1]

I hear ya. I'd be frustrated beyond belief if I put a ton of effort into a post only to get a short, snarky, ill-informed reply

Would you rather read posts based in fiction, this guy has no idea on Ainge's strategy.  Ainge has no idea when it will come, also, the Grantland Article said that it was a ways off.   If that is the case, then it will not affect all those picks we have how well thought is that or your comments.

Among the “no” votes were big-market teams Chicago and Washington, a source said, with small-market Sacramento, in a strange twist, voting for lottery reform.

The remaining teams that voted no were Phoenix, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Detroit, Miami, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Utah, Washington and Atlanta, sources said.

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--nba-owners-nix-lottery-reform-plan-154009158.html


 It is well known that small market teams were against it.   It is common knowledge.

Groan. This is why I haven't posted here for years - people love to dismiss thoughtful posts with one line responses.  To answer your question, try reading this article...like I said, lottery reform is a very likely question of when/how, not i

Your calling this thread well informed when, the whole premise, is based on a a hypothetical guess that this is Ainge's plan.  Thanks for coming back to post that you like an article.   Now read a real one like this one.   Read the above comments for showing how the this whole idea of this being a plan is pretty much a joke.  

Presti declined comment to Yahoo Sports, but his case, laid out to others, is this: The big-market teams badly want this change because it’ll give them one more advantage over small markets in securing top talent. Big-market teams have an advantage signing superstar free agents, an advantage trading for them because those players are far more apt to agree to sign a contract extension. And, now, the big market teams will get better access to top players higher in the draft.

As one GM sympathetic to Presti’s concerns – and employed by an owner who has decided to vote for the new system – told Yahoo: “Everyone is too focused on Philly, on one team in one situation. The only chance for a lot of teams to ever get a transformational player is through the draft, and eventually we are all going to be in the lottery, in that spot. The teams that’ll drop from two to eight, or three to nine – that’s just going to take the air out of those fan bases and franchises. They’ll get little, if any chance, to improve.

“We are going to see more big-market teams who just missed the playoffs jump up and get a great young player at the top of the draft. And people are going to go “What the [expletive] just happened?”

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/21/could-lottery-reform-be-bad-for-small-market-teams-sam-presti-arguing-yes/


The Grantland article states, 

The discussion is still in its early stages, and there are more proposals floating around from team officials. Those ideas could get more air time, and the league could always tweak its own proposal or put forth another. But it’s clear that Adam Silver is serious about tweaking the lottery system, possibly as early as next season

Won't help us this season, probably not the next either.   Small markets seem to think this only helps the big markets there is a lot of ground to cover.  Silver does not control the votes, and even though it was put forth this time, he will still face the same concerns and probably have new teams wanting to tank.  The media will keep this alive, they are in the big cities but small town owners don't work for the media, they work for themselves.

Please tell us who will Ainge trade next since you know his plans?   Who is he going to draft?

celtics4ever, nice job of addressing the OPs concerns about glib one liners in response to threads. good research and well argued.

however, what was missed was the OPs wish to avoid a "snark attack". i dont see where any of the bolded comments added any insights into the debate or weight to your position. at least for me, they run the risk of distracting readers from you real points. i think your response reads better if those points were not part of it.

disagreeing is great, but the comments above risks taking the discussion from a honest debate to a serious of personal attacks. and that risks driving people away from cb.