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

[MartyConlonJr]

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.

Which "good team" in the lotto are you referring to?

The Nets are the worst imo, but then of the bottom 10 - LA Lakers, Phoenix, Philly, Minnesota, Orlando, Minnesota, New York, Dallas, Charlotte - I mostly couldn't tell you who deserves a shot-in-the-arm of a potential franchise rookie over the other.

I'd maybe say LA Lakers, Philly or Minnesota have the better futures, but they are exactly the teams that have had the consecutive high picks that this system may be eliminating. The teams at the end of the lotto like Miami, Denver, New Orleans and Detroit, I doubt they'd have much of a chance at a top pick under the new regime. I assume they'd go from 0.8 to 1.1 percent of something negligible

Half of the bottom teams 'got bad' by trading away their good players for extra draft picks and the like, the current draft rules are making these teams bad.

[celtics543]

Good players are found throughout the draft.

Warriors tanked for Harrison Barnes Spurs tanked for Duncan but both are gone.
Warriors got green later Spurs Parker Manu and Leonard.

Hold on, am I reading this correctly? You are saying that the Warriors tanking for Harrison Barnes and him leaving is equivalent to the Spurs tanking for Duncan and then having him for 20 years and 5 championships?

[ProfessorJM]

I think the NBA should address other issues first -- they should consider instituting a true hard cap with no exceptions and no max salaries which in the long run would solve parity very well in my opinion. Shorter contracts as well (3/4 year max system versus 4/5) especially to continually avoid situations where NBA teams choose to just dump good veterans because five years is too long or worse they sign a horrible deal that kills the franchise for many years. I think the rookie scale is somewhat flawed as well, and sometimes creates situations where players would rather be drafted lower versus always hoping for the best slot because the money matters. The NBA has a lot of leverage right now and I think they should push hard for a true cap.

For the lottery, I would favor every single pick in the lottery having odds to generate tremendous interest with fans versus a set order after a certain number of picks. Just make sure the math works properly so say a # 13 team could get reasonable odds at say the # 9 pick, but much harder for the # 1 pick.

[Mulhollanddrive]

My solution would be at the All-Star break teams select whose draft pick they want in order from worst to best.

Then there's no tanking for rest of season.

[Kempistry2]

I've said it before, if you don't make the playoffs you are one of 14 teams that are randomly assigned picks 1 - 14. Put some controls in to prevent the same teams from randomly getting the best or worst picks in consecutive seasons. So if you get #1 the next year you aren't eligible for a top 5 pick etc.

No more tanking and the bottom feeders can simultaneously try to improve without being punished for it in the form of picks in the 6-14 range. Stop rewarding horrible teams and stop putting your stars on the worst run franchises.

It does the NBA no good to have multiple teams that deliberately suck.

[Kempistry2]

My solution would be at the All-Star break teams select whose draft pick they want in order from worst to best.

Then there's no tanking for rest of season.

That would be ridiculous, team's only having to tank for half a year would have even more incentive. Ending tanking altogether is the best solution.

[lars_rosenberg]

I've said it before, if you don't make the playoffs you are one of 14 teams that are randomly assigned picks 1 - 14. Put some controls in to prevent the same teams from randomly getting the best or worst picks in consecutive seasons. So if you get #1 the next year you aren't eligible for a top 5 pick etc.

No more tanking and the bottom feeders can simultaneously try to improve without being punished for it in the form of picks in the 6-14 range. Stop rewarding horrible teams and stop putting your stars on the worst run franchises.

It does the NBA no good to have multiple teams that deliberately suck.

We don't want teams to tank out of the playoffs.

[afarmenian]

Laughable to think what they are proposing will change anything. Oh so you might pick 5th instead of 4th? You can't win the number one overall pick years in a row? What are the chances of that anyways? What a joke and a waste of time. You can't keep teams from "tanking" unless you do something drastic. If you do something drastic its going to have repercussions in other ways. Keep it like it is.

Its very simple what the problem with the nba is. There are too many playoff teams. 7th and 8th seed teams are not contenders. They just aren't. A 7th- 8th seed has made the finals only once! And it was the friggin post Jordan strike shortened half season. A 6th seed won it once....again post Jordan other mitigating circumstances. Its not an accomplishment, its the worst place to be in the nba.

[afarmenian]

We don't want teams to tank out of the playoffs.

Exactly.....so now you will have teams that have no chance in the playoffs knowing if they miss the playoffs they have as good of a chance at the 1 overall pick as any other team. Actually BETTER odds to get it then with the current system since there will be a couple teams that can't get the number one overall.

[ITYSL]

As I said in the wiretap thread, I like the idea of flattening out the lottery some and not allowing consecutive #1s, but they need to give it a few years of runway. Teams that have already traded for future picks (ie. Cavs for Brooklyn pick) calculated the value of those picks based on the current system, so changing it right away would be unfair to them.

[afarmenian]

Teams that have already traded for future picks (ie. Cavs for Brooklyn pick) calculated the value of those picks based on the current system, so changing it right away would be unfair to them.

Thats another thing......does that mean if i picked number one this year if i trade for another teams unprotected pick i still can't pick number 1 with my pick or the other teams pick? That just seems unnecessarily complicated.

[Flash4thewin]

This has to pass a vote by the teams, no way this happens. To many teams taking this season.

[celtics543]

My solution would be at the All-Star break teams select whose draft pick they want in order from worst to best.

Then there's no tanking for rest of season.

That would be ridiculous, team's only having to tank for half a year would have even more incentive. Ending tanking altogether is the best solution.

I think what he means is that every team, starting with the worst, has to pick another teams draft slot to have and you can't pick your own. Say for instance that Brooklyn is the worst team in the league, they could pick any other teams draft slot to have and wherever that team ends up in the lottery is where they pick. So let's say they pick Atlanta. Now Brooklyn has incentive to win because they need to stay above Atlanta and they want to screw over whoever decided to take their pick. Every team would try to win as much as possible in this scenario because no one would have their own pick. It would also make trading picks tougher as you would really be trading your spot in the pick selection order.

I actually really like this idea even if it is impractical. It's the only one where no team has an incentive to lose and every incentive to win.

[HurricaneKid]

This tells me that;
a) Silver is not bright enough to realize that parity is the real issue and that the simple way to fix it is to increase max salaries and enforce a hard cap. Or;
b)Silver is savvy enough to realize that he does not possess the negotiating skills to achieve said parity and is happy for an optics win.

Unfortunately all this does is make a minor optics improvement to a minor problem, all the while exacerbating the real issue.....how to get stars in a league where stars are the most important?

Max salaries are in place where they are because the NBA player's union is a democracy. The players rightfully recognized that the greats of the game were getting massive amounts of money through off court revenues and that 25-35% of the player spending was enough to keep them happy. So the rest of the money goes to the other players throughout the league. If max salaries disappeared LeBron et al would make 2-3X what they make and the non-superstars would lose massive amounts of income. It is in their self interest to maintain this structure and why the players union has kept this in place and why the union would never vote to remove it.

Saying that Silver should illegally override the NBA Player's Union by fiat is obscene and would be brazenly illegal.

It is worth pointing out that he tried to do something similar to this last year and it was soundly defeated. The Cavs just traded a great player for a pick and if LeBron leaves will be rebuilding. They are a top 5 team and they have no interest in accepting these changes. Teams like the Bulls, Hawks, etc that are clearly in rebuilding periods are going to vote against it and most of the small market teams are going to vote against it.

Deciding what is fairest is almost irrelevant. It has to work within the confines of who holds the power to make these changes.

[Kempistry2]

I've said it before, if you don't make the playoffs you are one of 14 teams that are randomly assigned picks 1 - 14. Put some controls in to prevent the same teams from randomly getting the best or worst picks in consecutive seasons. So if you get #1 the next year you aren't eligible for a top 5 pick etc.

No more tanking and the bottom feeders can simultaneously try to improve without being punished for it in the form of picks in the 6-14 range. Stop rewarding horrible teams and stop putting your stars on the worst run franchises.

It does the NBA no good to have multiple teams that deliberately suck.

We don't want teams to tank out of the playoffs.

Nobody's going to tank out of the playoffs for a pick somewhere between 1 and 14. You could tank the playoffs and pick 13th instead of 15th. Can easily happen. That is not at all worth it. Playoffs are fun, bring in revenue, amp up the fanbase etc. And even if they do somehow "tank the playoffs" they still have every incentive to finish in 9th rather than 16th, so at minimum you wont have teams actively trying to be literally the worst team in the league

[madmaxmedia]

Make every owner and GM pinkie-promise to try their hardest for all 82 games.

Problem solved.

[JayMKE]

Allow franchise tags or no max contract + hard cap. players should not be able to hold the league/cities hostage and dictate where they want to play.

[Celts17Pride]

Lottery reform is long overdue. Embarrassing for the NBA teams tanking and literally throwing games. Support lottery reform 100%. Take away the incentive to lose.

Bad teams have no right to complain. Their abuse of the system has brought about these changes. Thank you Philly. It's the right thing to do.

[jbent87]

**** Hinkie and the Sixers. They could have just tanked silently but they had to make a big deal out of it. Now the NBA is going to implement some (Please Use More Appropriate Word) lottery reform because they got all upset in 2014. Even if this vote fails the fact that this is even being considered shows how badly the NBA is going to handle this

don't take this so literally, but no, **** you. Sorry, I guess, that Hinkie played by the rules in place and when Embiid suffered his second setback he didn't run out and sign Timothe Mozgov and Luol Deng like an ass, just to have to cut off his nose to spite his face and attach an asset to one of them to move them later (Hey Lakers!).

Hinkie wasn't a mad scientist, or a genius. He just applied common sense to the rules in place. Sorry, again I guess, that he pulled back the curtain on the joke of a league the NBA is and what you need to do if you ever *really* want to compete.

That said, keep the lottery rules in place. Let the league see how good the Sixers are in a couple years, because of the plan set in motion years before. And see if anyone has the balls to take all of the crap that this team and SH got and apply it to their own situations. If not, sit down, shut up and take your medicine and enjoy never not finding yourself at the top unless you get lucky somewhere along the way.

[Patches Perry]

I wouldn't mind a "cycle" system that doesn't factor team record at all. Over a 30 year period, each team gets each pick 1-30 one time. The schedule is public. The numerical order of picks would be the subject of debate, obviously 1 the first year, then 2, then 3 would probably not be the best.

Maybe split up the picks guaranteeing a top 6 pick every 5 seasons:

Year 1- 1st
Year 2- 7th
Year 3- 13th
Year 4- 19th
Year 5- 25th
Year 6- 2nd
Year 7- 8th
Year 8- 14th
Year 9- 20th
Year 10- 26th
Year 11- 3rd
Year 12- 9th
Year 13- 15th
Year 14- 21st
Year 15- 27th
Year 16- 4th
Year 17- 10th
Year 18- 16th
Year 19- 22nd
Year 20- 28th
Year 21- 5th
Year 22- 11th
Year 23- 17th
Year 24- 23rd
Year 25- 29th
Year 26- 6th
Year 27- 12th
Year 28- 18th
Year 29- 24th
Year 30- 30th

It could obviously be split up better than that, to balance high and low picks. This would eliminate tanking, but obviously it would also create the possibility of a dynasty getting a great pick. I would go for it though, because I think if teams took more of a win now approach, things would be much more competitive.