woj: The NBA's pursuing a vote on NBA Draft Lottery reform before the start of season

[Duke4life831]

I dont see how this will help prevent tanking. If anything it kind of promotes it. Now instead of having 2 or 3 teams trying to get the worst record, your probably going to have 6-8 teams trying to get one of the 3 worst records. I can see this adding to the amount of teams trying to tank. Just look at last year, Im sure teams like the Knicks/Wolves/Mavs/Kings wouldve started tanking a lot sooner and I doubt KAT wouldve played all 82 games because they only ended up a few games out of the 3rd worst record.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Surprised by the negative backlash on this board. Any team that is upset that they can't 'go for the tank' was probably a team with a roster with a few good players that they would have traded or rested to assure them a worse record than their competitors while making the on-court product abysmal, and they would have been one of five or six teams employing the same strategy, who all feel they need the same top player in the draft. The league is telling them all that the worst 5 records will have basically the same odds, so forget about it and compete.

The arguments here make it seem like if you give the worst teams more weighted odds you are giving the team a much better avenue to get great quick, but its not like a rule change is injecting more or less franchise players into the draft and its not like the 5th worst team or the worst team are all that different when all the lotto teams are throwing games and none of them recieving a franchise guy exactly pushes them over the contenders

Backlash is because it increases the chance of good teams getting franchise players while decreasing the chances for bad teams. This plan doesn't stop tanking, teams are still going to tank b/c its the best odds of getting a franchise player.

[Kurosawa0]

I like it. I've always wanted the draft to be more random in terms of which teams can get the best picks. The idea that tanking to the extreme will be a less rewarding path will be good. There should be no upside to being the worst team in the league. There has to be a middle ground in trying to rebuild through the draft and putting out an utterly crap product.

The only thing that was positive about tanking for the fans was that it provides hope. If your team sucks then you'll pay attention to the draft and rookies. That's a positive for league too. This will allow fans to still have that hope unlike the draft wheel that was an idea floated awhile back.

[Mr.Raptorsingh]

They are also talking about a scenario where if a team wins the #1 overall pick one year, they can't do so the following year or something like that.

[Curmudgeon]

Eliminate the draft altogether. Every 19 year old is a free agent. Then cap the dollars that teams can pay to these "rookie free agents". Teams with poor records can pay more, but if a player wants to take less to go to a good team, that's his choice.

[Kurosawa0]

Eliminate the draft altogether. Every 19 year old is a free agent. Then cap the dollars that teams can pay to these "rookie free agents". Teams with poor records can pay more, but if a player wants to take less to go to a good team, that's his choice.

The problem with that is you're going to end up with more bad contracts when players don't work out. I would like the idea if the draft wasn't already so much of a gamble anyway.

I don't think it would be beneficial to the league to see Jahill Okafor or Mario Hezonja on big deals because they looked like stars.

[Gant]

Prediction: No matter what they do it will have unintended effects, and it still won't stop tanking and might even increase it.

Teams will always tank. If the worst 3 have the best odds, teams will tank for the top 3. If 4,5,6 have better odds than 7,8,9, teams will tank for 6, and so on. Tanking might be shifted, but it won't be eliminated.

Plus there's a good business reason for the worst teams getting the best pick. You have to either sell the hope of winning or the hope of drafting a great player. There's also a good reason competition-wise.

There's nothing wrong with changing the system, but it won't do what they expect it to.

[DowJones]

This is all about trying to get big market teams more talent. Nobody cares about tanking.

If this goes through there should be a franchise tag so teams can actually keep the good players they draft.

[Mike1989]

In regards to teams not being able to have consecutive top three picks. What if the player you get in the draft is not a franchise changing player?

e.g. in the 2013 draft Anthony Bennett went first overall, Victor Oladipo second, and Otto Porter third.

Now Porter and Oladipo have developed into solid players, but they are merely pieces of the puzzle and not 'the' piece. And Bennett was terrible and is now out of the league. In Cleveland's case they would never have got Andrew Wiggins, and in turn they wouldn't have got Kevin Love. But let's say Lebron never returned, they would have been stuck with a bad player (Bennett) and then had to miss out on a franchise changing player because they had a top three pick the year before. That would have only furthered the problems in Cleveland with them not progressing. Now I appreciate it's the not the league's problem if a team selects a bad player, but if a team is unlucky that their top three pick lands in a weak class, it is not a good thing to punish them the following year.

Now I would say that the league needs to address things to try and stop teams from tanking as much as they do, but at the same time you can't blame them if the talent they select don't develop as well as they hoped (e.g. MCW was a flawed player, Bennett sucked, Oladipo is nothing more than an above average player at best), or they don't play immediately to contribute and change a team (e.g. Noel, Embiid, Simmons). I think stopping teams have consecutive top three picks is a bad idea and won't help those teams get better because they need those picks to get better.

[Sixersftw]

It's reform just so that ugly Nosferatu looking mfer can say he did something. As long as there is a a difference in odds and selections are done in reverse standing order after the lottery people are going to tank. The race to the bottom is done to not only maximize the shot at #1 but to minimize any potential lottery night slide. It's nearly impossible to fairly lessen that second benefit. So, even if this reform is implemented, it doesn't change the calculus for a talent starved team. If I can still guarantee myself no worse than the 4th pick then best move is still to tank.

Also, if the odds are flat enough this could cause a secondary back of the playoffs/late lottery tank. You aren't stopping tanking, you're just changing the aim. I'll enjoy watching Silver fail though.

[DowJones]

All 30 teams in the lottery with equal odds, you just can't get the # 1 pick two years in a row

If that means the Cavs or Warriors end up with the #1 pick then so be it.

If teams feel they can't compete or improve then find new management, ownership or whatever.

I don't believe in being rewarded or compensated for not being good.

No one will tank ever.

The end

Who are you a fan of?

[Ice Trae]

wow the one time we decide to finally suck the NBA pulls this ****. **** you silver

[Dominator83]

There are a lot bigger problems in the NBA that need to be addressed before tanking.

Either realign the conferences or remake the playoffs. Or make the Eastern Conference the D League.

Discontinue back-to-backs and 4 games in 5 days altogether. Possibly shorten the season by a few games.

One franchise player per team might move the league away from these super teams. This gives every team at least a shot at a star player.

I know this will obviously never happen, but i would like to see them INCREASE the season to 87 games. Why? So we can have a perfectly balanced schedule where everybody plays each other 3 times. Even with keeping the season at 82, i still feel that it can easily be done where a team still plays everyone 3 times just minus 1 divsion where they play only twice making it 82. and just rotate the 2-game divisions each year.

This way we have (very close to) balanced schedules, making it fair to seed the playoff teams 1-16

But to contribute to the topic at hand, i wouldn't have too big a problem if all 14 lotto teams got equal odds for the top 3 picks. Possibly even extend the list to 1st round exits. i do sorta feel that the treadmill teams we all look down on, need a chance to improve too. Or else we will just keep seeing the endless cycle of treadmillers having to sell their lone all-stars for pennies on the dollar and join the tank. As a Bulls fan, it would suck if its effective immediately because this is our first year in a good while that were in the hunt for a top 3 pick (Rose we were in the 9-hole and got lucky). So hopefully it doesn't actually take effect for another year or 2. But, the imbalance we currently have is why we just traded our top 15 player for well under his value

[LakerLegend]

Watch on YouTube

[LakerLegend]

No team should get more than one 1st overall pick, two top 3 picks, or three top 5 picks in any 5 year period.

[Pinkyring]

I dont see the complaint the elite teams draft well teams shouldnt be able to suck every year and keep screwing up the draft until they get it right how about teams stop drafting the tyrus thomas oj mayo haseem thabeet johny flynn of the world, guys like klay steph draymond dj pg hayward it weren't top 5 picks.

[TOMSPY77]

Surprised by the negative backlash on this board. Any team that is upset that they can't 'go for the tank' was probably a team with a roster with a few good players that they would have traded or rested to assure them a worse record than their competitors while making the on-court product abysmal, and they would have been one of five or six teams employing the same strategy, who all feel they need the same top player in the draft. The league is telling them all that the worst 5 records will have basically the same odds, so forget about it and compete.

The arguments here make it seem like if you give the worst teams more weighted odds you are giving the team a much better avenue to get great quick, but its not like a rule change is injecting more or less franchise players into the draft and its not like the 5th worst team or the worst team are all that different when all the lotto teams are throwing games and none of them recieving a franchise guy exactly pushes them over the contenders

I'm not going to say that some 'homerism' doesn't come into it, but it does suck as a Bulls fan this being implemented now, esp with our management and their choices, in and out of the draft.

[RakimAbdulJabar]

All 30 teams in the lottery with equal odds, you just can't get the # 1 pick two years in a row

If that means the Cavs or Warriors end up with the #1 pick then so be it.

If teams feel they can't compete or improve then find new management, ownership or whatever.

I don't believe in being rewarded or compensated for not being good.

No one will tank ever.

The end

Who are you a fan of?

The Bulls, so this doesn't benefit me in any way

[vxmike]

Anyway, this is a terrible idea that will only keep bad teams bad for longer, make life harder for small market teams, and ruin what's left of competitive balance right now. But don't worry - Silver will continue to assure us that there's nothing wrong with a product where one team has the next 5+ championships on lock with no competition.

Your team not being able to compete is the fault of no one else but your own team.

Sure, but 29 teams not being able to compete is a problem with the league.

That has absolutely nothing to do with tanking. GSW was a consequence of great drafting and the salary cap exploding in one year due to the Players Union rejecting cap smoothing. The topics are completely unrelated.

[BloodNinja]

Realign the playoffs first.