Lottery idea to help give more fans more hope

[TSA_Denver3]

I'd rather give teams in the middle and back end of the lottery more hope than those at the top. If the worst team could end up with the 4th pick , then even the 11th should go in with the possibility of being somewhere between 8 and 14 if they do not make it to the top 3. This tweak creates more risk and reward after the top 3 is settled and being able to move up a couple spots in post top 3 lottery is the difference between getting players like Gordon Hayward, Paul George and Brook Lopez and ending up with someone like Trey Burke, Kendall Marshall and Jimmer Fredette. This shake up will also generate more lottery interest for teams outside of the top 5 worst records.

Playoff teams should be ordered in the draft by when they were eliminated as opposed to their regular season record. Regular season record should be used as a tiebreaker when teams were eliminated in the same amount of games in a series. It helps teams who overachieved in regular season but have an early exit. It hurts teams that pull off an unexpected upset or the low seed who loses in a 7 game series.

[Arsenal]

Why aren't all these holier than thou anti-tankers up in arms about the REAL reason for the lack of parity?

All you need is a hard cap and no max salaries (like the NFL) and you're guaranteed a lot more parity than now. You'll also severely limit tanking as there will be other avenues available to improve.

[jbk1234]

The lottery generally works at it should but I like the idea of the team finishing dead last automatically getting the No. 4 pick. Bad teams are going to be bad but you shouldn't have teams deliberately trying to be the worst team in the league.

As far as mediocrity, that's generally the result of dumb F.A. decisions. Portland isn't stuck because of it's pick. It's stuck b/c it overpaid Turner, Crabbe, & Leonard. Not in love with your pick? Use it to offload some bad contracts and get better players back in a trade.

[jbk1234]

Why aren't all these holier than thou anti-tankers up in arms about the REAL reason for the lack of parity?

All you need is a hard cap and no max salaries (like the NFL) and you're guaranteed a lot more parity than now. You'll also severely limit tanking as there will be other avenues available to improve.

The players union will never agree to a hard cap. They also wouldn't agree to do away with max limits unless the salary cap went with it. The owners would never agree to do away with the cap.

[mtron929]

So I will start off by saying that there isn't an universal solution here given that a change that gets rid of problem X creates another problem Y. That said, I am not sure if this has ever been mentioned so it is worth contemplating. One thing bad about the current lottery system is that while it can encourage tanking, you are still really bad for a long time since 18/19 year old rookies generally do not contribute much to wins. So I propose two sets of changes.

1. All the non-playoff teams have the same shot at getting picks 1-16 (so this would discourage tanking from this context).
2. The bottom 8 or so teams can (if they want) pay free agents (for that season) more money if they choose to. And they can do this progressively. So as an example..

worst team: can pay 20% more than any other team
2nd worst team: can pay 15% more than any other team
3rd worst team: can pay 10% more than any other team
...

So basically, the bad teams can potentially get out of their funk quickly and as they become much more attractive free agent destination. It still remains to be seen who would join these teams as you are not guaranteed of getting the top of the line free agents.

Under my scenario, teams still tank but often, not multi-years. A team like Magic would tank not to get some guy like Tatum or Jackson who will still struggle their 1st year and the Magic still being bad next year. Now Magic will tank but they will first clear as much as possible and offer Gordon Hayward and Blake Griffin +15% more than any other teams and try to immediately build a good team. It becomes more exciting for the fans as a lot of the bad teams can instantly build a completely different team.

[Chinook]

That's not an easy fix, that is an emergency brake designed to slow the rebuilding process. You are actively removing young, cost controlled talent from the worst teams in the league.

Actually, the previous proposal already did that. This was an addendum to a proposal that the teams just missing the playoffs get higher or at least equal lottery odds to bottom teams. At least, that's what I was assuming when I responded to it. This prevents the young talent from clumping up on the same treadmill teams so that almost all semi-competitive teams get a better chance at getting picks.

Furthermore, you are telling the Cavs that they took Bennett last year so they are ineligible to take Wiggins/Parker Embiid the next year.

I absolutely don't care. They should not get another high pick after they screwed up the first one. Why does that even make sense?

The goal is to improve the worst teams in the league for competitive balance. The worst team already has a 75% chance of NOT getting the #1 pick and their odds of getting the 4th pick are higher than any other slot. That's PLENTY of variance, and why the league voted NOT to push the odds down any further.

That is what slows rebuilding, not the proposal I was responding to. If the best way for a team like Philly to get a high draft pick were to become a fringe playoff team, they would have never tanked. They would have kept their vets in an effort to get the top pick. Then, they would have drafted Embiid and then tried to make the playoffs for a year and would have totally been eligible for Simmons. However, he would have had a roster almost capable of making the playoffs to put around those two instead of what they have now. Hinkie would still have his job, since Philly would never have tanked.

A team like Milwaukee could be looking at drafting an elite PG this season to add to their promising core. That's so much better for competitiveness than giving him to a tanking team that would likely keep tanking for another couple of years to try to add better players.

Imagine if NO's attempts to build a strong win-now team around Davis actually helped them improve their draft stock. It would be much better for the league and the players.

[kukenotas]

No, top teams shouldnt get a chance to the lottery. Also do not agree that good players should go to good teams(a davis) , that would create super not atrractive teams with no future and no stars- nba would never allow that
Altho being sixers fan i would say teams who are in the worst top 6 for certain time should be punished. For i.e: Lakers, sixers, nets, even wolves
It would stop for what Hinkie did. And would prevent what lakers are doing ATM.
Im looking forward for the league to be involved more and do not aproove trades like if lakers would try to trade Nick young for lesses player or draft picks



sixers, it was always sixers

[jbk1234]

For all those in favor of the wheel, try to imagine the Warriors getting the first overall pick this draft.

[Dr Aki]

For all those in favor of the wheel, try to imagine the Warriors getting the first overall pick this draft.

having a contending team at the same time as getting high draft picks = great roster management

no system is perfect, but I would not begrudge the warriors for timing their run to perfection

losing (intentional or otherwise) to get high draft picks = this is why we have discussions on the lottery

how many teams are pissed that boston are about to get the #1?
how many teams were pissed when the injured spurs got duncan?
how many teams were pissed when the magic got shaq and the #1 the following year?
how many teams were pissed when the 80s lakers got worthy?

[Celts17Pride]

Here is a solution, hire competent GMs

[KnightofHyrule]

Spoiler:

It works in other sports because one player doesn't do the same thing to a team as a player in the NBA does. I would argue that changing the system to a 1/14th chance for the 14 worst teams (I have wrongly been saying 16) would drastically improve the NBA. No longer will top prospects be drafted into dumpster fires and then get to good to fast (see Anthony Davis) and then have their team sit in some weird mediocrity stage. The reality of it all right now is that you pretty much need to absolutely suck to have a chance in the future. I would much rather see a league where everyone goes into every season fighting to make that 8th seed because even if you miss and don't make the playoffs, you get that chance at the #1 pick!

Just for fun like here is a possible scenario. Say you throw a rule in place. No team can pick any worse than his finishing position inversed, plus 5. So last place (30th) cannot pick any lower than 1+5 = 6th. and so on and so forth. 2nd last = 7th, 3rd last = 8th..

we have 14 teams eligible for the #1 pick, Team 30th through Team 17th for a total of 14 teams. There is one ping pong ball for each team in the machine. Using the Current standings right now we have the following teams.

30 BKN (Lowest 6th pick)
29 PHO (Lowest 7th pick)
28 LAL (Lowest 8th pick)
27 ORL (Lowest 9th pick)
26 PHI (Lowest 10th pick)
25 MIN (Lowest 11th pick)
24 DAL (Lowest 12th pick)
23 NYK (Lowest 13th pick)
22 NOP (Lowest 14th pick)
21 POR (Lowest 14th pick)
20 SAC (Lowest 14th pick)
19 CHA (Lowest 14th pick)
18 MIA (Lowest 14th pick)
17 MIL (Lowest 14th pick)

So I used a random number generator, skipping the numbers that duplicate and got this for the top 5

1st OVR 26 - PHI
2nd OVR 20 - SAC
3rd OVR 29 - PHO
4th OVR 24 - DAL
5th OVR 18 - MIA

Now this is where my rule comes into place. 30th cannot pick any lower than 6 - so they get 6.

6th OVR 30 - BKN

For the 7th pick, it has to be Phoenix at 29. They've won the 3rd pick so now we have another lottery for 7.

7th OVR 21 - POR

LAL has to be 8th, ORL has to be 9th, and PHI has to be 10th however they won 1st so we have another lottery for 10

8th OVR 28 - LAL
9th OVR 27 - ORL
10th OVR 23 - NYK

MIN has to be 11th, DAL won 4th so lottery time

11th OVR 25 - MIN
12th OVR 22 - NOP

NYK has to be at least 13, but they are taken so it is lottery time again between the 2 remaining teams, MIL & CHA

13th OVR 19 - CHA
14th OVR 17 - MIL

Honestly this system is by far my favorite.

Honestly... you might be on to something here. Im confused on how you got to the floor number though. We could probably play around with that number a bit. It does still open the tanking window of being the worst so you have the lowest floor number. But being as everyone has the same shot at number 1 maybe not. Plus it keeps bad teams in the mix for a good pick cause of the floor number. This is by far the best solution I've heard

I just kind of threw an arbitrary number in for the floor number. Pretty much the 30th team in the league can pick no lower than 6th, 29th no lower than 7th, and so on.

Just an update here: I ran simulations to see how long it would take each "spot" to win the lottery. It took 26 times for every spot to win. Here is the average drafting spot, the number of times they won the lottery, and number of top 5 selections (sorted by standings)

17) 8.92, 1 #1 Picks, 9 Top 5 Picks
18) 8.54, 1 #1 Picks, 10 Top 5 Picks
19) 9.92, 1 #1 Picks, 8 Top 5 Picks
20) 6.19, 3 #1 Picks, 16 Top 5 Picks
21) 8.46, 3 #1 Picks, 8 Top 5 Picks
22) 8.62, 3 #1 Picks, 9 Top 5 Picks
23) 7.85, 1 #1 Picks, 11 Top 5 Picks
24) 7.58, 3 #1 Picks, 9 Top 5 Picks
25) 7.00, 3 #1 Picks, 11 Top 5 Picks
26) 8.35, 1 #1 Picks, 5 Top 5 Picks
27) 7.12, 1 #1 Picks, 7 Top 5 Picks
28) 6.19, 1 #1 Picks, 10 Top 5 Picks
29) 5.15, 3 #1 Picks, 10 Top 5 Picks
30) 5.12, 1 #1 Picks, 7 Top 5 Picks

As you can, SSS comes into play here, especially with Standing #20 who was in the top 5 16/26 times which is just a SSS issue. Another SSS issue is 30th place somehow only going top 5 7/26 times. For reference, mathematically it should've worked out to 9.29 occurrences each. In a perfect world, each place would of won the lottery twice each.

This is a great solution. Raising the floor number by one (inverse + 6) makes it riskier, and cleans it up a little.
30 BKN (Lowest 7th pick)
29 PHO (Lowest 8th pick)
28 LAL (Lowest 9th pick)
27 ORL (Lowest 10th pick)
26 PHI (Lowest 11th pick)
25 MIN (Lowest 12th pick)
24 DAL (Lowest 13th pick)
23 NYK (Lowest 14th pick)
22 NOP (Lowest 14th pick)
21 POR (Lowest 14th pick)
20 SAC (Lowest 14th pick)
19 CHA (Lowest 14th pick)
18 MIA (Lowest 14th pick)
17 MIL (Lowest 14th pick)

Bad teams are guaranteed no worse than #7, but there is an HUGE risk of tanking for it because the #7 pick has been historical decent but unpredictable (Steph Curry vs Jamal Murray vs Chris Mihm). Teams will still tank for the first few years until they realize it's not worth it.

[jbk1234]

For all those in favor of the wheel, try to imagine the Warriors getting the first overall pick this draft.

having a contending team at the same time as getting high draft picks = great roster management

no system is perfect, but I would not begrudge the warriors for timing their run to perfection

losing (intentional or otherwise) to get high draft picks = this is why we have discussions on the lottery

how many teams are pissed that boston are about to get the #1?
how many teams were pissed when the injured spurs got duncan?
how many teams were pissed when the magic got shaq and the #1 the following year?
how many teams were pissed when the 80s lakers got worthy?

The Lakers and Celtics traded for those picks.

Giving really bad teams no credible way to get better would destroy the league in a decade. Rebuilding and the lottery offers hope. People aren't going to pay to watch ten to twelve teams as bad as the Nets year in and year out. For that reason alone, it will never happen.

There's a reason the league has Stepien rule and that's because Ted Stepien almost bankrupted the Cavs with his stupidity (he was responsible for the Worthy trade). As a condition to buying the Cavs, the Gund brothers insisted on getting 1st round picks. The league said yes because there were no other buyers. Fans aren't going to pay to watch really bad teams who have no hope of getting better.

[Dr Aki]

1. All the non-playoff teams have the same shot at getting picks 1-16 (so this would discourage tanking from this context).

this was the case between 1985-89, drawing sealed envelopes to determine the draft order, highly criticised and as a result replaced with a weight lottery

2. The bottom 8 or so teams can (if they want) pay free agents (for that season) more money if they choose to. And they can do this progressively. So as an example..

worst team: can pay 20% more than any other team
2nd worst team: can pay 15% more than any other team
3rd worst team: can pay 10% more than any other team
...

So basically, the bad teams can potentially get out of their funk quickly and as they become much more attractive free agent destination. It still remains to be seen who would join these teams as you are not guaranteed of getting the top of the line free agents.

Under my scenario, teams still tank but often, not multi-years. A team like Magic would tank not to get some guy like Tatum or Jackson who will still struggle their 1st year and the Magic still being bad next year. Now Magic will tank but they will first clear as much as possible and offer Gordon Hayward and Blake Griffin +15% more than any other teams and try to immediately build a good team. It becomes more exciting for the fans as a lot of the bad teams can instantly build a completely different team.

so what if as a result a non-PO team wanted to pay a max free agent more than a player's bird rights team more than they were allowed in the CBA? what will it count for against the cap? will it count as the max, but the team is allowed to pay more?, will it count as the higher amount?

because if it's the latter, then bad team management will hurt the team more than it would if it didn't, and if it's the former, then how is that fair to the team that drafted the player in the first place?

[mtron929]

1. All the non-playoff teams have the same shot at getting picks 1-16 (so this would discourage tanking from this context).

this was the case between 1985-89, drawing sealed envelopes to determine the draft order, highly criticised and as a result replaced with a weight lottery

2. The bottom 8 or so teams can (if they want) pay free agents (for that season) more money if they choose to. And they can do this progressively. So as an example..

worst team: can pay 20% more than any other team
2nd worst team: can pay 15% more than any other team
3rd worst team: can pay 10% more than any other team
...

So basically, the bad teams can potentially get out of their funk quickly and as they become much more attractive free agent destination. It still remains to be seen who would join these teams as you are not guaranteed of getting the top of the line free agents.

Under my scenario, teams still tank but often, not multi-years. A team like Magic would tank not to get some guy like Tatum or Jackson who will still struggle their 1st year and the Magic still being bad next year. Now Magic will tank but they will first clear as much as possible and offer Gordon Hayward and Blake Griffin +15% more than any other teams and try to immediately build a good team. It becomes more exciting for the fans as a lot of the bad teams can instantly build a completely different team.

so what if as a result a non-PO team wanted to pay a max free agent more than a player's bird rights team more than they were allowed in the CBA? what will it count for against the cap? will it count as the max, but the team is allowed to pay more?, will it count as the higher amount?

because if it's the latter, then bad team management will hurt the team more than it would if it didn't, and if it's the former, then how is that fair to the team that drafted the player in the first place?

It is the latter. Of course, bad team management will hurt the team. Bad team management hurts the team no matter what kind of system that you institute. Here, you are giving some bad teams opportunity to completely revamp their roster in a season.

The problem with NBA I see is that things can get stale for a lot of bad/mediocre teams. And if the reward for being bad is to just give them one 18 year old kid, who for the most part will not play well for 2-3 years, is that it adds to the staleness. So it is good to throw in a wild card like this where the bad teams have significant advantage in the free agent market and get some big time players. It can energize the fanbase who for the most part might just be looking for a big time change.

[Dr Aki]

For all those in favor of the wheel, try to imagine the Warriors getting the first overall pick this draft.

having a contending team at the same time as getting high draft picks = great roster management

no system is perfect, but I would not begrudge the warriors for timing their run to perfection

losing (intentional or otherwise) to get high draft picks = this is why we have discussions on the lottery

how many teams are pissed that boston are about to get the #1?
how many teams were pissed when the injured spurs got duncan?
how many teams were pissed when the magic got shaq and the #1 the following year?
how many teams were pissed when the 80s lakers got worthy?

The Lakers and Celtics traded for those picks.

Giving really bad teams no credible way to get better would destroy the league in a decade. Rebuilding and the lottery offers hope. People aren't going to pay to watch ten to twelve teams as bad as the Nets year in and year out. For that reason alone, it will never happen.

There's a reason the league has Stepien rule and that's because Ted Stepien almost bankrupted the Cavs with his stupidity (he was responsible for the Worthy trade). As a condition to buying the Cavs, the Gund brothers insisted on getting 1st round picks. The league said yes because there were no other buyers. Fans aren't going to pay to watch really bad teams who have no hope of getting better.

yeh, because of good and conversely bad management and gambling to get stars, not because of the system of talent distribution

the issue discussed here is about teams losing intentionally, or otherwise, to get a higher draft pick and it's flow-on effect, the inability of at least half the teams in the NBA year-in-year-old to not able to land a superstar on their team, because superstar talent is so sparse

time and time again, it's shown that while it's high lottery picks responsible for most win shares, it's good team and roster management that results in contenders

the current system rewards losing, if you want talent, losing is your only option sometimes

or maybe, get a competent front office that can team build without having the crutch to lean on that is the lottery

[Dr Aki]

1. All the non-playoff teams have the same shot at getting picks 1-16 (so this would discourage tanking from this context).

this was the case between 1985-89, drawing sealed envelopes to determine the draft order, highly criticised and as a result replaced with a weight lottery

2. The bottom 8 or so teams can (if they want) pay free agents (for that season) more money if they choose to. And they can do this progressively. So as an example..

worst team: can pay 20% more than any other team
2nd worst team: can pay 15% more than any other team
3rd worst team: can pay 10% more than any other team
...

So basically, the bad teams can potentially get out of their funk quickly and as they become much more attractive free agent destination. It still remains to be seen who would join these teams as you are not guaranteed of getting the top of the line free agents.

Under my scenario, teams still tank but often, not multi-years. A team like Magic would tank not to get some guy like Tatum or Jackson who will still struggle their 1st year and the Magic still being bad next year. Now Magic will tank but they will first clear as much as possible and offer Gordon Hayward and Blake Griffin +15% more than any other teams and try to immediately build a good team. It becomes more exciting for the fans as a lot of the bad teams can instantly build a completely different team.

so what if as a result a non-PO team wanted to pay a max free agent more than a player's bird rights team more than they were allowed in the CBA? what will it count for against the cap? will it count as the max, but the team is allowed to pay more?, will it count as the higher amount?

because if it's the latter, then bad team management will hurt the team more than it would if it didn't, and if it's the former, then how is that fair to the team that drafted the player in the first place?

It is the latter. Of course, bad team management will hurt the team. Bad team management hurts the team no matter what kind of system that you institute. Here, you are giving some bad teams opportunity to completely revamp their roster in a season.

The problem with NBA I see is that things can get stale for a lot of bad/mediocre teams. And if the reward for being bad is to just give them one 18 year old kid, who for the most part will not play well for 2-3 years, is that it adds to the staleness. So it is good to throw in a wild card like this where the bad teams have significant advantage in the free agent market and get some big time players. It can energize the fanbase who for the most part might just be looking for a big time change.

are you saying that (let's say) the lakers could offer (let's say) an Anthony Davis more money than NO, simply on the basis that the lakers were super trash the year prior to him hitting FA?

because if I was NO, I would chuck a dan gilbert tantrum and comic-sans the NBA

now with bad/mediocre teams, you're giving them the opportunity to overpay bad/mediocre FAs even more

everyone wants top-end talent, not everyone can get it, once the top-end talent goes, you're left with overpaying tier 2-3 star players that eat your cap and won't allow you to get to contender level

[mtron929]

this was the case between 1985-89, drawing sealed envelopes to determine the draft order, highly criticised and as a result replaced with a weight lottery



so what if as a result a non-PO team wanted to pay a max free agent more than a player's bird rights team more than they were allowed in the CBA? what will it count for against the cap? will it count as the max, but the team is allowed to pay more?, will it count as the higher amount?

because if it's the latter, then bad team management will hurt the team more than it would if it didn't, and if it's the former, then how is that fair to the team that drafted the player in the first place?

It is the latter. Of course, bad team management will hurt the team. Bad team management hurts the team no matter what kind of system that you institute. Here, you are giving some bad teams opportunity to completely revamp their roster in a season.

The problem with NBA I see is that things can get stale for a lot of bad/mediocre teams. And if the reward for being bad is to just give them one 18 year old kid, who for the most part will not play well for 2-3 years, is that it adds to the staleness. So it is good to throw in a wild card like this where the bad teams have significant advantage in the free agent market and get some big time players. It can energize the fanbase who for the most part might just be looking for a big time change.

are you saying that (let's say) the lakers could offer (let's say) an Anthony Davis more money than NO, simply on the basis that the lakers were super trash the year prior to him hitting FA?

because if I was NO, I would chuck a dan gilbert tantrum and comic-sans the NBA

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. But the downside is, does Anthony Davis want to go to one of the worst teams in the NBA? Moreover, because Anthony Davis himself is on a bad team, the increase in pay for Davis becomes smaller (compared to guys who are on great teams).

[jbk1234]

having a contending team at the same time as getting high draft picks = great roster management

no system is perfect, but I would not begrudge the warriors for timing their run to perfection

losing (intentional or otherwise) to get high draft picks = this is why we have discussions on the lottery

how many teams are pissed that boston are about to get the #1?
how many teams were pissed when the injured spurs got duncan?
how many teams were pissed when the magic got shaq and the #1 the following year?
how many teams were pissed when the 80s lakers got worthy?

The Lakers and Celtics traded for those picks.

Giving really bad teams no credible way to get better would destroy the league in a decade. Rebuilding and the lottery offers hope. People aren't going to pay to watch ten to twelve teams as bad as the Nets year in and year out. For that reason alone, it will never happen.

There's a reason the league has Stepien rule and that's because Ted Stepien almost bankrupted the Cavs with his stupidity (he was responsible for the Worthy trade). As a condition to buying the Cavs, the Gund brothers insisted on getting 1st round picks. The league said yes because there were no other buyers. Fans aren't going to pay to watch really bad teams who have no hope of getting better.

yeh, because of good and conversely bad management and gambling to get stars, not because of the system of talent distribution

the issue discussed here is about teams losing intentionally, or otherwise, to get a higher draft pick and it's flow-on effect, the inability of at least half the teams in the NBA year-in-year-old to not able to land a superstar on their team, because superstar talent is so sparse

time and time again, it's shown that while it's high lottery picks responsible for most win shares, it's good team and roster management that results in contenders

the current system rewards losing, if you want talent, losing is your only option sometimes

or maybe, get a competent front office that can team build without having the crutch to lean on that is the lottery

I'm on board with giving the team with the worst record the 4th pick automatically. That will at least stop teams from deliberately being the worst team in the league. But that's as far as I'd go.

If your team flat out sucks, sometimes you don't have an option. Good FAs don't sign with bad teams. If you're not getting better through the draft, your only avenue is a trade. If you don't have any players that other teams value, then you really don't have any options. Is Sean Marks a good GM or a bad GM? How would you know? He has no picks and no players other teams really want. So far all he's been able to do is offer RFAs 140% of their market value and those offers have been matched.

[Dr Aki]

It is the latter. Of course, bad team management will hurt the team. Bad team management hurts the team no matter what kind of system that you institute. Here, you are giving some bad teams opportunity to completely revamp their roster in a season.

The problem with NBA I see is that things can get stale for a lot of bad/mediocre teams. And if the reward for being bad is to just give them one 18 year old kid, who for the most part will not play well for 2-3 years, is that it adds to the staleness. So it is good to throw in a wild card like this where the bad teams have significant advantage in the free agent market and get some big time players. It can energize the fanbase who for the most part might just be looking for a big time change.

are you saying that (let's say) the lakers could offer (let's say) an Anthony Davis more money than NO, simply on the basis that the lakers were super trash the year prior to him hitting FA?

because if I was NO, I would chuck a dan gilbert tantrum and comic-sans the NBA

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. But the downside is, does Anthony Davis want to go to one of the worst teams in the NBA? Moreover, because Anthony Davis himself is on a bad team, the increase in pay for Davis becomes smaller (compared to guys who are on great teams).

so what does NO do in this situation? after they lose Davis because of an inability to outpay a major market team like the lakers?

[mtron929]

are you saying that (let's say) the lakers could offer (let's say) an Anthony Davis more money than NO, simply on the basis that the lakers were super trash the year prior to him hitting FA?

because if I was NO, I would chuck a dan gilbert tantrum and comic-sans the NBA

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. But the downside is, does Anthony Davis want to go to one of the worst teams in the NBA? Moreover, because Anthony Davis himself is on a bad team, the increase in pay for Davis becomes smaller (compared to guys who are on great teams).

so what does NO do in this situation? after they lose Davis because of an inability to outpay a major market team like the lakers?

Well, one simple solution is that all teams designate one guy as their keeper, which means that other teams cannot outbid the original team. So if the Clippers designate CP3 as their keeper, then Blake Griffin will be fair game. I would also argue that most superstars are on pretty good teams and would not want to go to a bottom team just for some percentage salary increase.