11 Teams hold 75% of tradable draft picks

[vincecarter4pres]

Thinking about this, it isn’t great for young players. Look at OKC, they have so much young talent they literally cannot develop all of it. NYK isn’t rushing to start any mid or late selected rookies next year. Utah will be in a similar boat to OKC and there are more examples who have either the being too good to play them, too full of young talent to develop them, or both problem.

How many players are going to tell OKC not to draft them? I would if it were me.

Great minds, great minds…

[vincecarter4pres]

Thinking about this, it isn’t great for young players. Look at OKC, they have so much young talent they literally cannot develop all of it. NYK isn’t rushing to start any mid or late selected rookies next year. Utah will be in a similar boat to OKC and there are more examples who have either the being too good to play them, too full of young talent to develop them, or both problem.

This also demonstrates how talented the league has become top to bottom as a whole and how hard it is to crack a real rotation on a competitive team.

It also demonstrates how undeveloped a lot of players are coming out of the draft, and how maybe there should be more onus put on the D League and developing players for years in the minors until they’re really ready to contribute to functional winning basketball?

[Johnny Bball]

Thinking about this, it isn’t great for young players. Look at OKC, they have so much young talent they literally cannot develop all of it. NYK isn’t rushing to start any mid or late selected rookies next year. Utah will be in a similar boat to OKC and there are more examples who have either the being too good to play them, too full of young talent to develop them, or both problem.

This also demonstrates how talented the league has become top to bottom as a whole and how hard it is to crack a real rotation on a competitive team.

It also demonstrates how undeveloped a lot of players are coming out of the draft, and how maybe there should be more onus put on the D League and developing players for years in the minors until they’re really ready to contribute to functional winning basketball?

Instead they want to draft players out of high school and end the one and done rule. Go figure.

[winforlose]

Thinking about this, it isn’t great for young players. Look at OKC, they have so much young talent they literally cannot develop all of it. NYK isn’t rushing to start any mid or late selected rookies next year. Utah will be in a similar boat to OKC and there are more examples who have either the being too good to play them, too full of young talent to develop them, or both problem.

This also demonstrates how talented the league has become top to bottom as a whole and how hard it is to crack a real rotation on a competitive team.

It also demonstrates how undeveloped a lot of players are coming out of the draft, and how maybe there should be more onus put on the D League and developing players for years in the minors until they’re really ready to contribute to functional winning basketball?

This is a perfectly valid argument. Look at the NFL, guys don’t just stay for four years, some red shirt an extra year to develop before making the jump. Or maybe the G cuts off colleges completely and the NBA disqualifies anyone from the draft who doesn’t play at least 2 or 3 or more years in the G. The NBA can then do a G league draft for balance and become something much more developmental. There are all kinds of interesting options.

All the above being true, you cannot blame guys for wanting to get over ASAP. One knee injury or Achilles tear can change everything. Guys could lose millions and that assumes something goes wrong. Even if everything goes right having three or four fewer years as a pro in a career that usually ends around age 36-39, (depending on the position and the player) is a big deal. Maybe if Colleges or the G paid guys to stay out of the league and develop they would be more willing.

[vincecarter4pres]

I fail to see the problem.

Most of the picks will end up worthless once cashed, and many of them will be moved before they are cashed.

And picks aren't even the most important part of the process-- you still need to develop the players, build a winning culture, have a competent front office and coaching staff, and the right environment for a legitimate #1 to carry a team. Detroit made most of the "right" picks and still are ten years from even a glimmer of contention.

I don't see any fairness issue, either, of some guy getting picked for a young, packed roster. You need to be in the right place at the right time, or else make your luck, and getting drafted in the first round means you will likely earn more than 99 percent of us lowly boardsurfers in your life.

If you think life should be fair, I don't know what reality you've been living in.

I never said it should be fair, or that it isn’t functional. I said it is bad for the young guys coming in. While it is true that they will make more in a year than some make in 10 or 20 doing real jobs, it is also true that the league has less than 550 guys at any given time. This is not something that just anyone can do. Some guys who might have had a real career will be hurt by the crunch.

@Vincecarter4prez said below this helps the G, but the G is an unbalanced league as well. Teams prioritize NBA systems and NBA development of specific guys and end up with rosters that are short on PGs and Cs and play guys out of position. The imbalance causes wild splits, and guys like Luka Garza can drop 30+ in the G while being unplayable in the NBA. Or guys can shoot 40%+ from deep and yet they get to the NBA and their shot drops to 25%. The G could use work if its true purpose is to develop NBA players in lieu of their team doing it.

But that is also kind of the point, this will help force the hand of the NBA to improve the G league.

It will also inevitably infuse the G(keep forgetting it’s not the D League anymore) League with real NBA eventual rotational player level talent, and for the most part the cream will rise to the top.

There’s never going to be a perfect system, but the article title using %’s is a tad misleading, with the limited amount of draft slots and the majority of the teams who control other team’s drafts, still have their own picks as well.

Like in a zero zero world with no traded picks, 11 teams would already control 37% of the draft.

[winforlose]

I fail to see the problem.

Most of the picks will end up worthless once cashed, and many of them will be moved before they are cashed.

And picks aren't even the most important part of the process-- you still need to develop the players, build a winning culture, have a competent front office and coaching staff, and the right environment for a legitimate #1 to carry a team. Detroit made most of the "right" picks and still are ten years from even a glimmer of contention.

I don't see any fairness issue, either, of some guy getting picked for a young, packed roster. You need to be in the right place at the right time, or else make your luck, and getting drafted in the first round means you will likely earn more than 99 percent of us lowly boardsurfers in your life.

If you think life should be fair, I don't know what reality you've been living in.

I never said it should be fair, or that it isn’t functional. I said it is bad for the young guys coming in. While it is true that they will make more in a year than some make in 10 or 20 doing real jobs, it is also true that the league has less than 550 guys at any given time. This is not something that just anyone can do. Some guys who might have had a real career will be hurt by the crunch.

@Vincecarter4prez said below this helps the G, but the G is an unbalanced league as well. Teams prioritize NBA systems and NBA development of specific guys and end up with rosters that are short on PGs and Cs and play guys out of position. The imbalance causes wild splits, and guys like Luka Garza can drop 30+ in the G while being unplayable in the NBA. Or guys can shoot 40%+ from deep and yet they get to the NBA and their shot drops to 25%. The G could use work if its true purpose is to develop NBA players in lieu of their team doing it.

But that is also kind of the point, this will help force the hand of the NBA to improve the G league.

It will also inevitably infuse the G(keep forgetting it’s not the D League anymore) League with real NBA eventual rotational player level talent, and for the most part the cream will rise to the top.

There’s never going to be a perfect system, but the article title using %’s is a tad misleading, with the limited amount of draft slots and the majority of the teams who control other team’s drafts, still have their own picks as well.

Like in a zero zero world with no traded picks, 11 teams would already control 37% of the draft.

I think we both agree the G could use a redesign. I think the whole system has some imperfections that could definitely be improved upon. I will always love the debate about guys coming straight from high school (KG, Lebron,) vs guys who come to soon (a lot of 19 year olds,) and are not ready.

I like your point that 11 teams control 33%, but it is even more interesting on a deeper level. The top 6 teams for example control 20% but none of them are likely to start a rookie or even have a rookie in a rotation in a normal year. Of course their are exceptions, but if you stop to consider the differences between going to a team that will develop you to a team that won’t, it is quite significant for these players who declare for the draft with no control of where they end up.

[maxpower8888]

Nothing needs to be changed, nobody put a gun to any GM's head to force them to give up some of their future for winning now. Just because the teams that planned for rebuilding in the future are starting to see the fruits of their labors doesn't mean the system is broken.

[hauntedcomputer]

There's still the same number of jobs, a very stable salary pool, and a well-established industry. A few individuals will get affected ("luck") but the aggregate is the same as ever. The system is no better (i.e., gives more youngsters an opportunity or distributes them more money) if you try to force more teams to roster their picks. Frankly, the guaranteed salaries for first-rounders is a pretty sweet deal for them and any reasonable person would be set for life financially, with a minimum of more than $4 million career for the last pick. It's not like capital is stealing from labor here, because sometimes the labor is not even producing.

Second-rounders who sign are also instant millionaires. I think we have bigger problems.

[tbhawksfan1]

Look at OKC this draft; they currently have 12, 13 and 25. They don't want to draft three rookies, but big problem is that noone wants to draft three rookies in one draft unless it's an exceptional situation.

Look at the teams ahead of OKC and tell me which one(s) will let them trade up... Quality is almost always better than quantity in the NBA

[Rainwater]

Thinking about this, it isn’t great for young players. Look at OKC, they have so much young talent they literally cannot develop all of it. NYK isn’t rushing to start any mid or late selected rookies next year. Utah will be in a similar boat to OKC and there are more examples who have either the being too good to play them, too full of young talent to develop them, or both problem.

At some point teams like OKC and Utah will have to pick the young guys they will keep and package the rest or let them walk. They can't resign them all (this is why we have a salary cap). At that point the young guys will have the chance to showcase themselves on another team. The problem will resolve it self one way or the other. I remember OKC had a choice between Harden and Serge, and they chose Serge because Harden would be seeking a Max contract the next season. The problem will fix itself.

You are not wrong, but you also need to look a little deeper. For example say player X is drafted in the late first at 19 YO by the Jazz. The Jazz then send him to the G where he has 2 okay years but nothing stand out. They decide because the rotation is packed above and the kid hasn’t made a true G league name they don’t pick up his rights. Now at 21 player X is a free agent with no meaningful NBA minutes, no meaningful NBA development, and trying to convince an NBA team to sign and develop him. So let’s say the Griz or a team in a situation like the Griz does. Now player X is showing some signs of life. But then the missing guys come back and player X has some tape to look at, but is buried on the bench or let go again. Maybe player X gets picked up by a third team or developed by the Griz, but in any event, their career is never truly the same as it would have been if they were selected by a team that had a spot for them, developed them, and then let them try luck in RFA. Not saying it doesn’t work out, it is just bad for the young guys.

These are a great examples and you are correct to a certain extent. But I really do believe if player X for the Jazz really did play well in the G league and player X for the Grizz did really play well in limited time that the play of each player would catch the eye of other teams.

[winforlose]

At some point teams like OKC and Utah will have to pick the young guys they will keep and package the rest or let them walk. They can't resign them all (this is why we have a salary cap). At that point the young guys will have the chance to showcase themselves on another team. The problem will resolve it self one way or the other. I remember OKC had a choice between Harden and Serge, and they chose Serge because Harden would be seeking a Max contract the next season. The problem will fix itself.

You are not wrong, but you also need to look a little deeper. For example say player X is drafted in the late first at 19 YO by the Jazz. The Jazz then send him to the G where he has 2 okay years but nothing stand out. They decide because the rotation is packed above and the kid hasn’t made a true G league name they don’t pick up his rights. Now at 21 player X is a free agent with no meaningful NBA minutes, no meaningful NBA development, and trying to convince an NBA team to sign and develop him. So let’s say the Griz or a team in a situation like the Griz does. Now player X is showing some signs of life. But then the missing guys come back and player X has some tape to look at, but is buried on the bench or let go again. Maybe player X gets picked up by a third team or developed by the Griz, but in any event, their career is never truly the same as it would have been if they were selected by a team that had a spot for them, developed them, and then let them try luck in RFA. Not saying it doesn’t work out, it is just bad for the young guys.

These are a great examples and you are correct to a certain extent. But I really do believe if player X for the Jazz really did play well in the G league and player X for the Grizz did really play well in limited time that the play of each player would catch the eye of other teams.

That is the hope. But with so few roster spots and so much competition if a team has already invested in developing their pick, how likely are they to make time to develop someone else’s? I mean even on rebuilding teams, vets still get minutes. I am not demanding a change or anything like that. I am just pointing out the downside.

[MoneyTalks41890]

Look at OKC this draft; they currently have 12, 13 and 25. They don't want to draft three rookies, but big problem is that noone wants to draft three rookies in one draft unless it's an exceptional situation.

Look at the teams ahead of OKC and tell me which one(s) will let them trade up... Quality is almost always better than quantity in the NBA

I mean, they haven't had a problem yet and got one of the best rookies over the last few years with the 12th pick last year. I don't think Sam Presti is particularly dumb, so I would bet on him having a plan here.

[Slimjimzv]

Is this good or bad for the league?

Can a league survive with 2/3 of the teams unable to rebuild through the draft properly?

Is it time for a revised Stepien Rule to protect Front Offices from themselves?

Read on Twitter

OKC, San Antonio, Utah, New York, Brooklyn, New Orleans, Orlando, Toronto, Houston, Memphis and Portland

The vast majority of these teams are in rebuild mode. If the top teams were on this list, it would be a problem, but the NBA is cyclical, and it makes sense that the worst teams have the most picks. Except the Pistons and the Hornets because they've been stupid.

[Mrakar]

I would trade all of Pels picks for Ime Udoka or Will Hardy, ALL OF THEM.

[jkvonny]

Nothing needs to be changed, nobody put a gun to any GM's head to force them to give up some of their future for winning now. Just because the teams that planned for rebuilding in the future are starting to see the fruits of their labors doesn't mean the system is broken.

This is the way that I had tried to explain it earlier. Thanks!

[Slimjimzv]

I would trade all of Pels picks for Ime Udoka or Will Hardy, ALL OF THEM.

I like Mark Daigneault more than either Udoka or Hardy.

[tbhawksfan1]

I think that it would be more interesting if more teams kept their picks and drafted young players. Young guys going only to rebuild teams and winning teams only looking for vets is boring. Need some churn

[Patsfan1081]

Look at OKC this draft; they currently have 12, 13 and 25. They don't want to draft three rookies, but big problem is that noone wants to draft three rookies in one draft unless it's an exceptional situation.

Look at the teams ahead of OKC and tell me which one(s) will let them trade up... Quality is almost always better than quantity in the NBA

Boston was in this position numerous times with Ainge. It led to purposefully taking guys he could stash overseas, using picks to shed salary, basically giving away picks at one point.

[The Master]

We've seen this story already.

In the 70s, teams were throwing away picks left and right without a common sense.

It ended with Lakers and Celtics creating dynasties due to having top picks from bad teams while being already contenders.

Boston received 3rd pick and Robert Parish, eventually, for washed up Bob McAdoo (they got 1st pick at first then traded for this package).

Lakers received couple of first round picks for washed up 33yo or something Goodrich that ended up ... getting Magic Johnson. They also received 1st round picks for Don freaking Ford that ended up with getting James Worthy (another 1st draft pick).

If someone wonders why Lakers and Celtics dominated 80s and created dynasties - that's why. It destroyed league parity eventually.

I wouldn't be surprised if Thunder or Spurs or some other team gets an opportunity to create dynasty based on how liberal teams have gotten in trading these first rounders.

Clippers have no full control over their picks until 2030, Suns until 2031, Bucks until 2031, Cavaliers until 2030. Yikes.

[Edrees]

Is this good or bad for the league?

Can a league survive with 2/3 of the teams unable to rebuild through the draft properly?

Is it time for a revised Stepien Rule to protect Front Offices from themselves?

Read on Twitter

I dont think this means teams can't rebuild. The key word here is tradable draft picks. More than 11 teams have untradable draft picks. So they can still rebuild through the draft with those, they just can't trade the picks. Sounds like the system is working.