Lottery idea to help give more fans more hope

[MrPerfect1]

A fascinating option that would NEVER get approved is to let teams draft ANYONE they want.

Right now the #20 pick is almost useless since the best you can generally hope for is 1 day a 9th man in your rotation. Imagine if instead teams could use that to draft the #1 High School Sophomore in the country. Instead of hoping for a 3rd string PG with your 50th Overall pick, you could swing for the fences with the 8th Grade Phenom who some call the next Lebron.

[Scalabrine]

Bye bye parity.

In case it needs to be said... getting even close to parity is already a problem.

I think the top 3 or 4 teams and the bottom 3 or 4 teams...yeah theres a big gap, but I think the gap between a team like the Hawks (5th seed in the East and the Knicks 5th worst seed in the East) is actually pretty close.

[DoItALL9]

or introduce game rules to help less talented, less physical players to have a bigger impact on the game, that way, superstars aren't as impactful

e.g. like removing the defensive 3 seconds and allow defensive bigs to camp the lane like in FIBA

Would you support getting rid of offensive 3 seconds? The Jordan rule? The Barkley rule? Those changes could allow for more styles of play (but likely less flow) to help teams with less of the 3 and D talent

[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.

As is now about half the league is made up of mediocre teams that have no hope of getting better

Mediocre teams can get better through internal growth of existing prospects, F.A., trades, and hitting on late draft picks. Many do.

Portland's problem is it capped itself out last summer signing Leonard, Turner, & Crabbe to bad contracts. Now you want the league to change the rules and gift the Blazers a top 3 pick to save your team from the consequences of stupid signings. If the Blazers aren't high on the pick they're going to receive, perhaps they should attach it to one or two of those contracts and dump them on a team like the Nets.

[mattao313]

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.

As is now about half the league is made up of mediocre teams that have no hope of getting better

Mediocre teams can get better through internal growth of existing prospects, F.A., trades, and hitting on late draft picks. Many do.

Portland's problem is it capped itself out last summer signing Leonard, Turner, & Crabbe to bad contracts. Now you want the league to change the rules and gift the Blazers a top 3 pick to save your team from the consequences of stupid signings. If the Blazers aren't high on the pick they're going to receive, perhaps they should attach it to one or two of those contracts and dump them on a team like the Nets.

Internal growth? they signed their own players Crabbe, Leonard, and Harkless how have they grown? They tried to sign good players that was the only real time they had cap space to do so-- so it was either sign guys or not use the cap space at all. Also lucking into a star later in the draft is just wishful thinking.

[Chinook]

Again, you are suggesting that the Cavs getting Anthony Bennett should preclude them from getting Wiggins/Jabari/Embiid when players like Bennett inevitably crash and burn.

Yep.

And you are ensuring that the worst teams are all but guaranteed to stay the worst teams.

If by worst you mean poorest-run, then yes, and I don't think I'd care at all. Your attempt to make bad drafting a cause for sympathy is strange. I mean, boo-hoo that the worst team has to the settle for the crappy fourth pick after they screwed up the first pick the previous year.

At least bring up a Len Bias hypothetical instead.

The only response to this to me would be to punish teams financially. Take away some revenue sharing $$$, or the luxury tax income, or something like that. You can even increase the penalty if a team doesn't hit certain attendance/win thresholds in successive years as you do with the repeater tax on the other end of the spectrum.

Because the actual problem with tanking is that it was hard to sell tix to a home game against the 76ers over the last several years. There is a valid point to removing income streams for teams that hurt other owners financially.

That makes less sense. You can totally argue for revenue sharing, because it's the league of teams that allow the individual clubs to play in the first place. The Lakers are never selling tickets to JUST Lakers games there's always another team there. Plus, I don't think there's a strong enough correlation between winning and attendance to make such a rule.

[jbk1234]

As is now about half the league is made up of mediocre teams that have no hope of getting better

Mediocre teams can get better through internal growth of existing prospects, F.A., trades, and hitting on late draft picks. Many do.

Portland's problem is it capped itself out last summer signing Leonard, Turner, & Crabbe to bad contracts. Now you want the league to change the rules and gift the Blazers a top 3 pick to save your team from the consequences of stupid signings. If the Blazers aren't high on the pick they're going to receive, perhaps they should attach it to one or two of those contracts and dump them on a team like the Nets.

Internal growth? they signed their own players Crabbe, Leonard, and Harkless how have they grown? They tried to sign good players that was the only real time they had cap space to do so-- so it was either sign guys or not use the cap space at all. Also lucking into a star later in the draft is just wishful thinking.

Internal growth doesn't mean just handing out near max deals any player you drafted. Part of good management is not bringing back meh prospects on expensive deals. What had Leonard or Crabbe done to warrant those contracts? McCollum, on the other hand, earned that contract.

Butler, Kawaii, Giannis, Gobert, Jokic, and Draymond Green are as good or better than most players taken 1-5 in the last five years.

[DoItALL9]

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?

Your thoughts In regards to helping the treadmill area... What if the teams that finished 9th in each conference were automatically awarded the 6th and 7th picks of the draft? (they still have a shot at the lottery first.) The Order would be determined by the league's overall inter-conference records. Worst first(sixth). It rewards trying but not too much to deter winning a 8th playoff seed. Plus, the owner would have to be willing to turn down two home games vs the best team in your conference which make a good amount.

[mattao313]

Mediocre teams can get better through internal growth of existing prospects, F.A., trades, and hitting on late draft picks. Many do.

Portland's problem is it capped itself out last summer signing Leonard, Turner, & Crabbe to bad contracts. Now you want the league to change the rules and gift the Blazers a top 3 pick to save your team from the consequences of stupid signings. If the Blazers aren't high on the pick they're going to receive, perhaps they should attach it to one or two of those contracts and dump them on a team like the Nets.

Internal growth? they signed their own players Crabbe, Leonard, and Harkless how have they grown? They tried to sign good players that was the only real time they had cap space to do so-- so it was either sign guys or not use the cap space at all. Also lucking into a star later in the draft is just wishful thinking.

Internal growth doesn't mean just handing out near max deals any player you drafted. Part of good management is not bringing back meh prospects on expensive deals. What had Leonard or Crabbe done to warrant those contracts? McCollum, on the other hand, earned that contract.

Butler, Kawaii, Giannis, Gobert, Jokic, and Draymond Green are as good or better than most players taken 1-5 in the last five years.

Yup and for everyone of those guys it a 1000 Perry Jones and Marshon Brooks. Its the same as working your every day job and depending on the lottery to pay off you credit card debt

[YogurtProducer]

I think non playoff teams should all have 1/16 chance for any of the top 16 picks. This encourages teams to not suck because you always have the same chance.

That's how the lottery started and they drew envelopes for every non-playoff team's draft position. They then switched it to drawing for the Top 3 spots only and then default to inverse order of record. I loved that system. You actually got to see the envelopes get pulled and not have a gazillion ping pong balls in some room being randomized. I don't like the weighted system.

The only negative impact of going back to a system like that is that trading picks before the lottery would be next to impossible. How could you possible include picks in a deadline trade with no clue of where it will fall?

Makes it better imo. More risky

[Duke4life831]

If we want more parity why dont we make the draft 3 rounds. First two rounds are only 14 picks but the only teams that pick are the teams that miss out on the playoffs. So if you get the 1st pick you get the 15th pick as well, 2nd pick gets the 16th as well 3rd gets 17th as well and so on.

I assume the 8th place team in each conference would have a terrible record because teams would try to tank to avoid the last playoff spot and get those 2 draft picks. But it would give the crappier teams a lot more young talent quicker and gives them a better chance to rebuild much quicker. I dont really care for parity in sports but if you want parity I think this is one way to get it quicker.

[Dominator83]

Mediocre teams can get better through internal growth of existing prospects, F.A., trades, and hitting on late draft picks. Many do.

Portland's problem is it capped itself out last summer signing Leonard, Turner, & Crabbe to bad contracts. Now you want the league to change the rules and gift the Blazers a top 3 pick to save your team from the consequences of stupid signings. If the Blazers aren't high on the pick they're going to receive, perhaps they should attach it to one or two of those contracts and dump them on a team like the Nets.

Internal growth? they signed their own players Crabbe, Leonard, and Harkless how have they grown? They tried to sign good players that was the only real time they had cap space to do so-- so it was either sign guys or not use the cap space at all. Also lucking into a star later in the draft is just wishful thinking.

Internal growth doesn't mean just handing out near max deals any player you drafted. Part of good management is not bringing back meh prospects on expensive deals. What had Leonard or Crabbe done to warrant those contracts? McCollum, on the other hand, earned that contract.

Butler, Kawaii, Giannis, Gobert, Jokic, and Draymond Green are as good or better than most players taken 1-5 in the last five years.

If your arguing that mediocre teams should be able to get better by hitting home runs with mid-late picks, then the bad teams should have no problem hitting on their top 4-10 picks

And free agency is very rarely a tool in the NBA. Even moreso now with the even more restrictive CBA. Baseball and football there are no rules allowing a team to give their own players 50 million more than any other team. In those sports ANY team can be the highest bidder on a free agent. Hell, Brooklyn didn't even get the privilege of giving a meh player like Crabbe that awful contract because the Blazers used their RFA rights to c**kblock them

[jbk1234]

Internal growth? they signed their own players Crabbe, Leonard, and Harkless how have they grown? They tried to sign good players that was the only real time they had cap space to do so-- so it was either sign guys or not use the cap space at all. Also lucking into a star later in the draft is just wishful thinking.

Internal growth doesn't mean just handing out near max deals any player you drafted. Part of good management is not bringing back meh prospects on expensive deals. What had Leonard or Crabbe done to warrant those contracts? McCollum, on the other hand, earned that contract.

Butler, Kawaii, Giannis, Gobert, Jokic, and Draymond Green are as good or better than most players taken 1-5 in the last five years.

If your arguing that mediocre teams should be able to get better by hitting home runs with mid-late picks, then the bad teams should have no problem hitting on their top 4-10 picks

And free agency is very rarely a tool in the NBA. Even moreso now with the even more restrictive CBA. Baseball and football there are no rules allowing a team to give their own players 50 million more than any other team. In those sports ANY team can be the highest bidder on a free agent. Hell, Brooklyn didn't even get the privilege of giving a meh player like Crabbe that awful contract because the Blazers used their RFA rights to c**kblock them

I cannot remember the last time a FA signing in the NFL made a substantial improvement to the team signing the players. The NFL is far more restrictive w/ regards to FA. There are player designations and compensatory picks.

In terms of Crabbe, Portland could have extended him and avoided the risk of a team like Brooklyn offering that type of contract. They chose to take their chances. Then we he got the offer, they chose to match. They did that despite the fact that they just signed Turner to a monster contract. Again, if Portland isn't enamored with the pick it is likely to get, and it wants a Mulligan on last summer's signings, they have options.

[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?

Your thoughts In regards to helping the treadmill area... What if the teams that finished 9th in each conference were automatically awarded the 6th and 7th picks of the draft? (they still have a shot at the lottery first.) The Order would be determined by the league's overall inter-conference records. Worst first(sixth). It rewards trying but not too much to deter winning a 8th playoff seed. Plus, the owner would have to be willing to turn down two home games vs the best team in your conference which make a good amount.

i dunno, i think you underestimate the value of a 6/7th pick as opposed to say getting crushed by the warriors or cavs

i had a previous proposal that directly separated the playoff teams (NBA1) and non-playoff teams into two distinct leagues (NBA2) and have a promotion/relegation system determined through playoffs

this way, all teams experience playoffs, which would help the NBA2 teams when they hit the big-league, and NBA2 teams are the only teams with access to the draft, so that there is a greater accumulation of good young talent, still with the ability to grow to be better teams and have sustained success. in essence, NBA2 teams would have 4 draft picks per year to build that exciting young core

whereas NBA1 teams would only have to draw upon UFAs and over 25s that never nominated for the draft in the first place, as well as through trading, which would work as it does now (no draft pick/rights trading between leagues, but OK between NBA2 teams).

you can even have a semi-mixing of the leagues where NBA1 teams play each NBA2 team twice a season to maintain a semblance of a coherent 'NBA' and maintain local interest and crowds

[garrick]

It used to be that all the lottery teams had equal chances. Then Orlando got Shaq, improved to near .500 but just missed the playoffs and got the #1 pick again the next year.

For all the talk of teams massively tanking, the team with the worst record in the league (by a decent margin) doesn't have their own 1st (or even 2nd) round pick.

This is mostly the downside of having a lot of teams. When the league expands there aren't any more titles or any more #1 overall picks, just more teams that aren't close to either one.

Well just make it so any one team cannot get the number one pick in consecutive years.

[Leslie Forman]

Every single draft based idea is incredibly convoluted and silly.

Just get rid of the damn draft. If some team is dumb enough to give, say, Brandon Ingram a 4/$80mil deal (or whatever the max would be for a rookie) well let them deal with that.

Just let the salary cap do its job.

[laika]

There doesn't need to be a parity of talent. There needs to be a parity of opportunity to get talent. Since the CBA is making keeping talent easier than before, the real issue will be getting teams access to draft picks. It can't just be the worst teams hanging out there for years. You have to force-cycle the bottom-feeders out, which would decentivize long-term tanking and give non-tankers a chance to get the picks they need to put them over the top.

It really comes down to framing: Is parity the reduction of horrible teams or the increase of great teams? If you think it's the latter, than the bottom tier isn't what should get the most help.

Yep. My proposal is specifically designed to do this and I think is the fairest one out there.

My lottery fixes-
-If you win the lottery you are ineligible to win again for the next 3 years.
-If you get a top 3 pick you aren't eligible for a top 3 pick the next year.
-The team with the worst record picks 4th. The rest of the lottery is played like now.

The worst teams would have a chance to turn things around in my system, but deliberate tanking would be heavily punished.

Again, you are suggesting that the Cavs getting Anthony Bennett should preclude them from getting Wiggins/Jabari/Embiid when players like Bennett inevitably crash and burn.

There is no possible way to make a simple draft system that would keep everyone happy. My system does tend to discriminate a little against teams that make terrible picks. However, it solves two problems that many people think are important ones- My system is great for eliminating deliberate tanking. Also, it distributes top picks much better than the current system which has way too much variance.

[RaptorsJedi]

So I really don't understand what people have against tanking. I get not wanting your team to tank, because you don't think it works... but if any number of the other 29 teams do, who cares? Its not like there aren't going to be other good teams to play against. Its one more opportunity for your team to make the playoffs and its not like the NBA isn't zero sum anyways... there are always going to be better or worse teams.

A 25 win team is hardly much better than a 15 win team or a 10 win team. Let the tankers tank, enjoy the free wins for your team or the breaks for your teams best players. The NBA isn't in any financial difficulty, tanking isn't going to break the NBA, there will always be **** team regardless of tanking.

As for the draft...I think the NBA and fans are heading in the wrong direction. Let the worst team pick first. No lottery, no nuanced draft rules... straight worst is first. Teams will spend less time losing, and rotate through losing faster.

The draft isn't the reason teams tank anyways... the reason they tank is because the best opportunity to win is by having the "best" players, and too many teams only have access to them through the draft. If the league really cared about tanking they'd do something simple. Hard cap and no max salaries. There you go... not GSW super team without players taking MASSIVE pay cuts. No Cavs teams without either LeBron, Kyrie, Love taking massive pay cuts. Talent gets spread around, more competition.

[DoItALL9]

If there is a hard cap then there is also a max salary since there are min salaries and you need ~14 other teammates. The Players Association isn't getting rid of min salaries. Many of these "simple solutions" have repercussions involving myriads of money.