ImageImage

Eliminate the lottery

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25

User avatar
LUKE23
RealGM
Posts: 72,428
And1: 6,424
Joined: May 26, 2005
Location: Stunville
       

 

Post#41 » by LUKE23 » Tue May 20, 2008 9:20 pm

coolhandluke121 wrote:The lottery is stupid. Granted, it sometimes prevents teams from being rewarded for tanking, but those teams didn't know they wouldn't benefit from tanking so they tanked anyway. Happens every year, blatantly. Instead of tanking for a higher pick, teams are tanking for better odds at a higher pick. Same difference - either way, they're tanking. Period. They have nothing else to play for.

The NBA is more paranoid about tanking because it is the most superstar-driven sport. When there's a Lebron or Oden in the draft teams have more incentive to tank than to win. It would be nice if that could be avoided without hurting the truly bad teams, but under the current system it can't.


HEY, HERE'S A GREAT IDEA!

Get rid of the draft altogether and let rookies sign as free agents. The bad teams should have an advantage because they should have cap space. Get rid of the rookie salary scale because it's obscene that during their first four years guys like Lebron make a fraction of what Marbury and Finley made this year. If bad teams don't have more cap space, it's usually their own fault for having bad contracts. This would make teams think twice about giving out huge contracts to mediocre players. You have to admit that huge guaranteed contracts are really hurting the game, so this idea would make the process of bringing young players into the league more sensible. And the rare team that can win without overpaying has a chance to keep adding good young talent.


Can't tell if that was sarcasm or not, but that is one of the worst ideas I've ever seen on this board.
User avatar
ReasonablySober
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 102,012
And1: 37,276
Joined: Dec 02, 2001
Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
Contact:

 

Post#42 » by ReasonablySober » Tue May 20, 2008 9:21 pm

LUKE23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Can't tell if that was sarcasm or not, but that is one of the worst ideas I've ever seen on this board.


Exactly what I thought.
User avatar
jerrod
RealGM
Posts: 34,178
And1: 133
Joined: Aug 31, 2003
Location: The Berkeley of the midwest/ born with the intent/ to distress any government/ right of the left
     

 

Post#43 » by jerrod » Tue May 20, 2008 9:22 pm

LUKE23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Can't tell if that was sarcasm or not, but that is one of the worst ideas I've ever seen on this board.


he's obviously not a bucks fan
User avatar
LUKE23
RealGM
Posts: 72,428
And1: 6,424
Joined: May 26, 2005
Location: Stunville
       

 

Post#44 » by LUKE23 » Tue May 20, 2008 9:25 pm

Can you imagine the anarchy it would cause if there was no lottery, no draft, and no rookie scale? You'd have all the rookies wanting to go to big markets and the top teams, and on top of that you'd see holdouts galore because there is no assigned salary scale.

I think an assigned scale for rookies is a great idea. If you play well during your rookie contract you'll make more than enough to be set for life anyway.
coolhandluke121
RealGM
Posts: 13,774
And1: 7,151
Joined: Sep 23, 2007

 

Post#45 » by coolhandluke121 » Tue May 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Rookies couldn't all go to major markets because those markets won't necessarily have the most cap space. Rookies also wouldn't be able to hold out because they can't expect any team to pay them more money than they have under the cap. For the same reason, rookies wouldn't get overpaid. Bad teams still have a means of improving because they usually have lower payrolls, meaning they can pay top rookies the most. And if they don't have low payrolls, that's their own fault and they should be punished for it because the contracts some teams give out nowadays are a disgrace.
User avatar
LUKE23
RealGM
Posts: 72,428
And1: 6,424
Joined: May 26, 2005
Location: Stunville
       

 

Post#46 » by LUKE23 » Tue May 20, 2008 9:54 pm

coolhandluke121 wrote:Rookies couldn't all go to major markets because those markets won't necessarily have the most cap space. Rookies also wouldn't be able to hold out because they can't expect any team to pay them more money than they have under the cap. For the same reason, rookies wouldn't get overpaid. Bad teams still have a means of improving because they usually have lower payrolls, meaning they can pay top rookies the most. And if they don't have low payrolls, that's their own fault and they should be punished for it because the contracts some teams give out nowadays are a disgrace.


Yet you want there to be no limit on rookie contracts so a rookie with a big head could just come in and demand whatever contract he wants even though he has never played an NBA game. Then we can have holdouts like the NFL has where players fall behind learning their team concepts. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
User avatar
redred9
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,356
And1: 66
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
Location: Sydney & Toronto
     

 

Post#47 » by redred9 » Tue May 20, 2008 11:04 pm

:rofl: without the draft, Milwaukee would end up fielding a D-League team!
MajorDad
Banned User
Posts: 6,496
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 28, 2005

 

Post#48 » by MajorDad » Wed May 21, 2008 2:15 am

Like I said. eliminate the lottery! I don't care what teams tank or not.. Drafting 7th is better than the Bulls winning the lottery.

perhaps in the future, the bucks will start tanking from day 1 rather than starting in february.
User avatar
jerrod
RealGM
Posts: 34,178
And1: 133
Joined: Aug 31, 2003
Location: The Berkeley of the midwest/ born with the intent/ to distress any government/ right of the left
     

 

Post#49 » by jerrod » Wed May 21, 2008 3:01 am

MajorDad wrote:Like I said. eliminate the lottery! I don't care what teams tank or not.. Drafting 7th is better than the Bulls winning the lottery.

perhaps in the future, the bucks will start tanking from day 1 rather than starting in february.



you don't really think that, it's just not possible
MajorDad
Banned User
Posts: 6,496
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 28, 2005

 

Post#50 » by MajorDad » Wed May 21, 2008 3:11 am

yes i think that. No the Bucks never did. and there in lies the problem. if the Bucks had started tanking from day 1, we could have been in the top 5 this year and last year. but no, we always have to start the season as if we're play-off bound and win a few games. then we realize in january that we're not play-off bound and we have other tanking teams way ahead of us. we need to stop tanking in the middle of the year . we need to start tanking from day one in order to have an effective tanked season. the bucks can't even get tanking right.

give me 8 wins next year and the top pick in the 2009 draft and i'll be happy.
User avatar
jerrod
RealGM
Posts: 34,178
And1: 133
Joined: Aug 31, 2003
Location: The Berkeley of the midwest/ born with the intent/ to distress any government/ right of the left
     

 

Post#51 » by jerrod » Wed May 21, 2008 3:14 am

MajorDad wrote:yes i think that. No the Bucks never did. and there in lies the problem. if the Bucks had started tanking from day 1, we could have been in the top 5 this year and last year. but no, we always have to start the season as if we're play-off bound and win a few games. then we realize in january that we're not play-off bound and we have other tanking teams way ahead of us. we need to stop tanking in the middle of the year . we need to start tanking from day one in order to have an effective tanked season. the bucks can't even get tanking right.

give me 8 wins next year and the top pick in the 2009 draft and i'll be happy.



because the team with the worst record is picking first...right? right?
MajorDad
Banned User
Posts: 6,496
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 28, 2005

 

Post#52 » by MajorDad » Wed May 21, 2008 3:16 am

no, because i just saw another central division team get a great draft pick, and i know the future for the Bucks in the central is now bleak.

I think I'l l jus t go t o the toilet and tinkle.
User avatar
jerrod
RealGM
Posts: 34,178
And1: 133
Joined: Aug 31, 2003
Location: The Berkeley of the midwest/ born with the intent/ to distress any government/ right of the left
     

 

Post#53 » by jerrod » Wed May 21, 2008 3:17 am

i'm just making sure you realize that 8 wins wouldn't guarantee us any better than 4th
MajorDad
Banned User
Posts: 6,496
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 28, 2005

 

Post#54 » by MajorDad » Wed May 21, 2008 3:21 am

it would if we did what the title of my thread suggested.

eliminate the lottery! i hate it. even when we win , we lose. we always win in the wrong years.

if we had 8 wins next year, with no lottery, we'd get the first pick. PERIOD
User avatar
jerrod
RealGM
Posts: 34,178
And1: 133
Joined: Aug 31, 2003
Location: The Berkeley of the midwest/ born with the intent/ to distress any government/ right of the left
     

 

Post#55 » by jerrod » Wed May 21, 2008 3:29 am

MajorDad wrote:it would if we did what the title of my thread suggested.

eliminate the lottery! i hate it. even when we win , we lose. we always win in the wrong years.

if we had 8 wins next year, with no lottery, we'd get the first pick. PERIOD



AND


if a unicorn was discovered that happened to be a bucks fan, and it threatened to impale david stern and every other nba owner if the bucks didn't get the first pick.

we'd probably get the first pick that way too, either way
User avatar
InsideOut
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,757
And1: 535
Joined: Aug 22, 2006

 

Post#56 » by InsideOut » Wed May 21, 2008 4:42 pm

I hate the lottery. All it does is bring more luck into the rebuilding equation. I've been following the NBA for 35 years and there is as much talk of tanking now as there was before the lottery. The tanking last year was as bad as it has ever been so again what purpose does it serve? Now we end up with Chicago drafting ahead of a team like the T-Wolves. Tell me, how much sense does that make. The Bulls are already better than them and now they get to add a much better player. How stupid is that.

Some here mentioned the same idea I mentioned last year...scrap the lottery and the draft and sign rookies as free agents. I like this plan if it's coupled with a hard cap. This way all the great rookies can't sign with the big market teams. NY, LA, Dallas, Miami, Phoenix... are over the cap so they have no money to sign a top rookie. I also don't see top rookies wanting to sign with top teams. Even if LA wasn't at the cap do you see a Durant wanting to sign with them? I'd say no. If he signs with an LA he knows his playing time would be less and playing with a Kobe, Gasol...his stats would be much worse than if he played in Seattle. He's knows playing in LA he won't have the chance to put up the big numbers that get him a big contract extension. I feel it comes down to a choice. A rookie like a Durant could only sign a small deal with an LA and that comes with limited playing time. Or he could be THE MAN and sign for 10's of million with a bad team way under the cap like Seattle. Call me crazy but I think these guys take the money and chance to be THE MAN than just automatically signing with LA, NY, Phoenix... At least this plan makes more sense to me than having the Bulls pick first while teams like the T-Wolves, Griz, Bucks... pick later. Or how about GS 48 win GS picking ahead of 37 win Atlanta, 40 win Philly or 41 win Toronto. All the lottery does is punish genuinely horrible teams for fear of rewarding genuinely bad teams.

Return to Milwaukee Bucks




cron