Guru wrote:MrSparkle wrote:Red8911 wrote:Disagree with Stacey’s idea about lottery teams playing each other for the top pick. There needs to be a change but not that. Players don’t give a sht to play hard for a pick.
Yeah, that's a bad idea.
I've said it a million times... Just ditch weighted odds... Make it a fair lottery for all 30 teams...
If the Celtics win Cooper Flagg, then good for them. One thing is that (a) great prospects need playing time, but great teams still need to manage their minutes against vets. (b) great prospects get the max. Great teams might not have that money available, so they'd have to shed vets.
Seems like the new hard cap rules, more frequent trade movement makes for a more liquid league anyway. Personally I think it'd be wonderful if a treadmill team trying really hard to win games was able to be in the mix for a #1 pick. That's the best case for a really good pick: they get to join a solid team and put them in a better position to advance in playoffs, instead of being part of a 3-year dumpster fire that may or may not develop (cough, LaMelo, Zion, etc.).
It would also throw a real wild-card into trades, as all of a sudden teams have zero guarantees on both ends of where that pick may land (anywhere from 1-30). So unprotected picks become either a massive gamble or a massive trade asset, or you could carve really particular pick protections.
This would ruin the sport and is probably the worst idea I've ever heard. The weighted odds and salary cap are what make sports fun.
You like watching almost 10 tank jobs for ~40 games every season? With 3-5 blatantly throwing the season from the opening game?
You wouldn't prefer where teams all try to be the best they can be?
It's not like equal odds would mean all the best players end up on the best team. Each team would get a 3.3% chance at the 1st pick, and it's a completely random draw from there. The only thing it would guarantee is no team tries to throw a season away, cause there'd be no point.