Draft Idea

now you're a real writer!

i think the lottery works very well.

the fact that the team with the worst record hardly wins the first overall pick is proof that tanking for the #1 doesn't work. now, teams will tank a little to get under a team close to them in order to get more ping pong balls.

IMO fans aren't upset about tanking. if you're team wasn't going to make the playoffs then you would want them to play the young guys more and would hope for the best overall pick. the nba needs to trust that fans of teams who are eliminated from making the playoffs aren't upset when their teams decide to tank. the current season doesn't matter anymore, fans route for tanking! let it go... just don't throw a whole season to draft tim duncan or LBJ... thus the weighted lotto.

 

I've had this idea before too, but with some extra stipulations.

As things are now, if a team hear's that some "can't miss" stud player is declaring for the draft in a year or two, then they can go into full tank mode, suck terribly in the meantime, and hope they are lucky enough to land the #1 pick when he's available.

In the scenario above, it would be much more difficult to orchesrate something like that. For one, teams wouldn't be able to tank on short notice. They would have to tank 3 full seasons before they think a kid is going to declare for the draft, and then hope they land the #1 pick. But, if they don't time it right and they're bad enough to end up with a top 4 pick before that, then they won't even be in the running for a top 4 pick when he enters the draft.

All in all, I think it would make things a good deal more random because a lot can happen in a 2 or 3 year span. One month into the season, less GM's would confidently be able to say "well, we're not going anywhere this year...might as well go down the crapper and chase that #1 pick" because they won't even know exactly who will be available when that pick finally becomes useful. Plus, if they do get the #1 pick and some stud happens to be coming out a year AFTER that, then they've completely screwed themselves out of a chance to get him.

It creates a situation where you could really sabotage yourself by trying to artificially maneuver yourself into a high pick, so in the end you're probably better off just trying to win games. I mean, if you know that you're getting the #1 pick in 2 years, it would make sense to try and get as good as possible through trades or free agency so that by the time you have the pick, you're a playoff team already. It makes a lot more sense than drafting #1 and then trying to build a whole team around that one guy. In my opinion it's a longer road to success.

 

if they were the case that teams were pre-determined CCR i can fully imagine a kid who would be a projected for sure 1-2 pick (like rose/beasley this year) maybe staying back in college to avoid going to a total crap place to play like memphis or something if the following year has like a team like miami or chicago who were playoff teams that either were injured or imploded.

i mean its one thing to go to a team like minnesota where they have some pieces, another to go to a place like the grizzlies.

i dont mind the way the current draft system is, its probably one of the few things the nba has gotten right i mean the playoff seeding is much more of a mess than the draft is right now.

ironically the only thing that could fix the playoff seeding is the draft. imagine if portland and golden state had gotten a 1-3 pick this year? or next year whatever +.500 team that doesnt make the playoffs win the draft

 

Really? I don't see that as a problem at all. The players generally either want to get paid ASAP or they are the kind of kid that would have stayed in school for a while anyway. I really doubt a player who was projected to go 1 or 2 would go back to school and risk injury just because a bad team has the pick. Besides, bad teams can get good real quick (ie. Boston).

 

If a team blows a top 4 pick, which can always be an impact player/starter if they do their homework, then I think they deserve to be ineligible for a high pick the next year. It encourages teams to both scout harder and to work out trades to improve their team rather than relying on high draft picks, which requires tanking.

 

That's incredibly inaccurate.

A top 4 draft pick isn't the equivalent of a welfare check that you have to turn into millions. It's more like giving someone millions and telling them not to blow it on useless crap. If they do, then I have no pitty for them.

 

I argued an analogy because you presented one. How's this?

It's like giving a team a top 4 draft pick, and simply asking them not to blow it on a scrub.

Teams are in the lottery for a variety of reasons, including injuries, star players leaving their prime or retiring, chemistry issues, coaching issues, etc. I say give them their shot at adding a stud, and if they can't...then they just can't. Let the other bad teams step in, get a top pick, and have a chance to get it right.

 

It's extremely rare for a first year player to not play his first season, but the Blazers still would have gotten a lottery pick, possibly as high as #11, and then been back in the hunt for #1 the year after if they still sucked. I don't see it as a huge blow to the future of their franchise or anything.

And I don't quite understand what you're trying to argue when you ask what would have happened if his career ended. That's the most minute of possibilities and should in no way be a reason not to implement changes. It's just incredibly unfortunate.

 

How about basing the draft position on a teams 5 year record. That way a team could not tank for just one season to get a pick. They would have to be bad for several years. Being bad for several years would hurt the bottom line. So only consistently bad teams would get the top picks.

 

You'd have to do use rolling 5 year periods rather than 5 year intervals, and in that case it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You could have a team that sucks pretty bad for 5 years, gets the a top pick and he turns out to be an absolute stud that gets them back to the playoffs. Then the next year, despite the success of making the playoffs, they end up with another really high pick based on the 4 sucky years before that.

 

The opposite can happen now where a good team tanks one year to get the first pick - Spurs. That would not happen under this system. I just did a spread sheet. 5 years does not work too well, its too long. However 3 years looks pretty good.

If a team really turns it around in one year, like the Celtics did this year, they end up with a middle pick which is always a crap shoot anyway.

 

Here are the three year records. This looks a little more fair than the current draft order.

Code:

Team		Won	Lost    Percent
New York 	79	167	32.11%
Seattle 	86	160	34.96%
Minnesota 	87	159	35.37%
Charlotte 	91	155	36.99%
Memphis 	93	153	37.80%
Atlanta  	93	153	37.80%
Milwaukee 	94	152	38.21%
Portland 	94	152	38.21%
Clippers 	110	136	44.72%
Miami 		111	135	45.12%
Indiana 	112	134	45.53%
Philli  	113	133	45.93%
Sacramento	115	131	46.75%
Toronto  	115	131	46.75%
Chicago 	123	123	50.00%
Boston  	123	123	50.00%
Golden St	124	122	50.41%
New Jersey 	124	122	50.41%
Washington	126	120	51.22%
Orlando  	128	118	52.03%
New Orleans	133	113	54.07%
Denver  	139	107	56.50%
Houston  	141	105	57.32%
LA Lakers  	144	102	58.54%
Cleveland  	145	101	58.94%
Utah  		146	100	59.35%
Phoenix  	170	76	69.11%
Detroit  	176	70	71.54%
San Antonio	177	69	71.95%
Dallas  	178	68	72.36%

 

Why not have the lottery teams have their own playoffs for the lottery picks?

I would seed the lottery playoff 1-14 irregardless of conferences.

The winner gets the top pick, the finals loser gets the 2nd pick.

Each preceding round the 2 losing teams gets the next lower picks and which 2 picks given to what 2 teams are determined by tiebreakers like point differential and winning percentages.

It can be a best of five and play during the real playoffs.

This will really end the tanking as bad teams with bad or underachieving players and poorly run management that have no intentions of getting better will always get the lowest picks, and will suffer ever lasting mediocrity then go bankrupt.

Health risk to the players who really want no part of this as the draft pick will likely push out another player from a job? Well let the media and the fans rip them apart for not giving a damn. Plus this is a good time for the fringe roster players to make a case of not getting cut and keeping a job, cause the draft pick means someone will be bumped off.

I wouldn't play my budding superstars and important rotation players too much, or not at all. But it's a catch 22, cause each team controls their own destiny in getting the higher draft pick, therefore if there is a Tim Duncan in the draft, I would give my damnedest to get that top pick if I were the GM or coach.

 

I've heard this idea tossed around too, but there are some glaring flaws.

First and foremost, it doesn't really help the worst teams. If a team truly is terrible without any tanking, they're going to lose the lottery playoffs and end up with the 14th pick, while a team that barely misses the playoffs (Golden State?) could fairly easily take the #1 pick.

In addition to that, free agents who plan to get big bucks on the market in the off season would probably find it a lot less important to help their current crappy team get a good pick than to stay healthy for their big payday. You can bet there would be backlash from players, and possibly even to the point that they punish their soon to be ex-franchise by basically not trying to win.