RealGM

Sorry if this has been suggested before and I realize it will never happen but what if the NBA ended the draft, the rookie pay scale and then went to a hard cap?

Last year fans were up in arms at the tanking that went on. While it makes the NBA look bad it's a smart thing for a team to improve their draft odds once they can't make the playoffs. Teams do this because getting that top pick is the difference between drafting a dynasty type player (Shaq, Bron, Duncan...) or ending up stuck in no mans land.

By getting rid of the draft all teams have equal access to the same rookies. This would eliminate the need for tanking. More importantly it eliminates the luck of winning the lottery when there is a dynasty type play available at #1. Why should Cleveland be set for the next 15 years just because they tanked and then got lucky at the right time? Give Cleveland and the Spurs the #2 pick instead of their last #1 picks and my guess is neither is in the finals last year.

So what's the downside to all this. People in the small market might object and say it's not fair because all the good players will want to play in NY and LA for marketing opportunities or Phoenix, Miami or Orlando because of the nice weather. Well first off this is already going on under the current system. Secondly, this is where the hard cap comes in. NY, Phoenix, Miami and Orlando are at the cap and wouldn't have the money to sign a Durant or Oden. Unless of course you think these guys would take a tenth of the money that a Portland or Seattle would be able to offer them. Also, I feel that a great player wouldn't want to go to a team that already has a max player or several all-stars. I'd think a Durant would rather make 10 times as much and be the man than defer to Kobe for the next 5+ years. So I feel the lack of money due to a hard cap and limited playing time and shots would drive the best rookies to sign with the teams that need them the most. It would also allow hometown guys to sign with the home team. Maybe a Wade signs with Chicago or Milwaukee because he wants to be close to family or feels he'd have better marketing opportunities. Maybe James ends up in Cleveland anyway because he wants to stay local. Or better yet, maybe an Oden and Conley stick together after college and sign local. I think having the local kid play for the home team would only help the NBA.

A second objection would be we'd lose the excitement of the lottery. I feel this new wide open system would be a lot more exciting than the current lottery. First off, most of the teams aren't even in the lottery so their fans could care less. Then once the order is selected we all have an idea of what players are going where. Now compare that to a wide open system where all the teams are free to sign anyone. All fans would have an interest as their team is free to sign anyone available.

I know this is a pipe dream but I feel this system would bring more excitement to the NBA off season, bring hope to bad teams (at least more hope than winning a lottery) and would keep the ability to win in this league from continuing to be based mostly on how lucky you get in a lottery.

I agree that the lottery damages the league in certain ways. But I don't think you've got the solution up there^^ For starters, so long as there's a starting spot free, players (in general) prefer to play with other stars, for big-markets in nice climates - that's just the way it is - and those teams would benefit too much for your idea to be implemented.

edit: My old sig from back before the Celtics got screwed in last years lottery (roughly this time last year).

I want to get rid of the lottery by having some combination of players/coaches/executives/media vote and rank the teams at the end of the season.
Consider it the reverse BCS rankings of professional basketball.

I want the WORST teams to get the best entry players. Period. Parity is good for any sport, save for the occasions that *your* team in particular is dominating.
DID Boston tank? I don't know. But considering they had the pieces to acquire Kevin Garnett BEFORE receiving the #5 pick (which could have been #1,2,3), I'd say they weren't really the worst team in the league, despite their record. Or even 5th worst, at that. Bad team due to injuries and DEVELOPING youth turns into best team in the NBA DESPITE the draft process.
Memphis may have tanked, but they are 4th now and had the 4th pick last season. It would appear that a top 3 draft pick would have truly benefitted that team (adding Al Horford to Pau Gasol/Darko Milicic/Stromile Swift would have solidified a team that did not need to add a PG on top of Kyle Lowry/Damon Stoudamire/Juan Carlos Navarro.) Bad team still bad after adding pretty good player because it had no shot at the elite two or solid consolation prize.
Portland did not deserve Greg Oden because they are first in their division WITHOUT the #1 pick healthy. This was truly a good team that didn't need a good player.
Atlanta was the fourth worst team last season, record-wise, added Al Horford, and are now .500 overall! Bad team gets good player=vast improvement.

and so forth. I could do this analysis for every team. Pretty much, save for injuries to formerly present key players and the newly-acquired rookie, bottom-feeders SHOULD improve after every draft.

For example, I'd give Miami the #1 pick. That franchise has struggled with injuries, true, losing their all-star SG and HOF C for stretches, as well as Alonzo Mourning. But they are 8-22! They have NO other long-term pieces besides Udonis Haslem and perhaps Daequan Cook and Dorrell Wright. Trades won't right this ship, and neither will free agency at this point. They need a STUD PG (OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose, Eric Gordon) to make them forget Jason Williams/Smush Parker.

edee wrote:I agree that the lottery damages the league in certain ways. But I don't think you've got the solution up there^^ For starters, so long as there's a starting spot free, players (in general) prefer to play with other stars, for big-markets in nice climates - that's just the way it is - and those teams would benefit too much for your idea to be implemented.

edit: My old sig from back before the Celtics got screwed in last years lottery (roughly this time last year).
(picture)

I see what you

GJense4181 wrote:I want to get rid of the lottery by having some combination of players/coaches/executives/media vote and rank the teams at the end of the season.
Consider it the reverse BCS rankings of professional basketball.

I want the WORST teams to get the best entry players. Period. Parity is good for any sport, save for the occasions that *your* team in particular is dominating.

I also want to see the bad teams getting the top picks. I hate seeing the future of teams coming down to pure luck via a lottery.

the problem is there are always going to be enough favourable cities to facilitate the best players. no truly big player is ever going to sign with a small market team and the good teams will always make some cap room when they know a pick they really want is coming up. durant might not have been able to sign with the suns but i doubt he'd ever sign with seattle. plus these players get bonuses in their marketing contracts to sign in big cities. players might take a few million in pay cut if they'll get that much and more from their sponsors to play in a bigger market.

The same problems will exist no matter what, and this method would just make GMs' jobs a pain in the ass.