[GRANTLAND] The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Whee

An interesting comment by 1 of the readers.

I really like this. As you get rewarded for being bad but still trying to win.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about it. The lottery is really all that small market teams have to get good players, and this proposal would basically mean that they can only rely on that every 5 years. We would probably not see another OKC type rebuilding ever again (not that I wouldn't mind). Sure teams would stop tanking, but that wouldn't mean there wouldn't ever be incompetent GMs or bad teams, especially for teams with bad ownership. I'm intrigued by the idea, but in the longterm i dont think it will work.

 

What a stupid proposal.

Star players wouldn't opt for the draft if they knew they'd get drafted by the Bobcats in the current draft, if they had an option to wait a year to get drafted by let's say the Lakers.

 

This argument is mitigated by the new CBA and the luxury tax penalties. There may need to be one more modification to the luxury tax penalty...something like perhaps the repeater's tax going into effect after 2 years...or simply a steeper penalty creep of $.50 instead of $.25 and $1.00 instead of $.50...or simply a hard cap beyond the luxury tax at some point or some combination of the above.

But the luxury tax curve and the repeater's tax have taken a huge bite out of most teams in the NBA. There is one team standing in defiance of it right now (Nets) who seem hell-bent on spending like crazy to buy a winner. And there is another team that has consistently overspent (Knicks) with nothing to show for it. Hopefully both teams continue to bomb.

But I think one more adjustment to the luxury tax would work to bring all teams into the same competitive situation in regards to acquiring top talent.

 

Shouldn't there be accountability for bad GM/ownership? Currently, even the Kings can say, "We're utter crap, had been utter crap, but hey, we can have a top 5 pick next year!" Is that really what you want all the crappy teams to tell their fans?

Take away the lottery crutch, and fans will demand accountability. And the idea that smaller markets will never get good players is utter BS. The Pacers starting lineup features the 10th, 17th, 15th(traded for George Hill), 2nd rounder, and a non-marqee FA. Memphis' consistently 50+ win teams featured one top-5 pick. The Spurs features a lone top pick. The Rockets rebuilt without a single pick in the top 10.

Notice how most of the competitive "small market" teams didn't rely on endless supply of high lottery picks. Only OKC built around that. Everyone else made smart moves that didn't involve multiple tanking seasons to achieve success.

 

By the way, I like the solution and support it. And I'd like to know who the team official was that came up with it.

 

Morey would positively shred that system. It would be NBA p*rn for every math geek who loves sports.

 

removing the lottery crutch would expose poor GMs and scouts in short order

as far as let's say Miami landing the number #1 pick after a championship year, that sort of randomness would make the league more fun

 

Not a fan of this idea. The 14 teams that miss the playoffs should each have a 1/14 chance of winning #1. Nobody is tanking based on those odds and teams that are close to the playoffs have a decent shot at an impact player to push them over the hump.

I don't see why it needs to be so complicated.

 

If this is the main argument I think its a dumb one. Even if this is the case, there is no guarantee still of who might take them before or after.

-Lets say, for example, the Wheel gets installed this next year, and the Lakers have the #1 pick the year after, and the Bobcats have the #1 pick this year. So Jabari Parker says to himself, man.. I'm just going to stay in school another year so I can get drafted by LA. However, the next year, he gets a knee injury, and Aaron Gordon also stays in College, the Lakers take Gordon that year instead of Parker, and Parker drops to #6 in the draft to the Kings when his value take a dip after injury concerns.

The fact is ..... If you are at your peak in draft value, you enter the draft ASAP.... PERIOD.

The NBA is a business, and not maximizing your draft value will always be a mistake financially in your first 5 years in the league. This argument will not hold weight.

If anything this argument, if true in any way, would help the NCAA thrive because of this lottery wheel because players might very well opt to stay in school longer. Also Houston would be one of those destinations players like Parker or Wiggins might stay in the draft a year longer to see if they could get drafted by.

I dont really get this argument one bit. Sounds like something a GM of a team in a small market that wants to tank would say.

 

That was the original theory behind the current lottery, but certain changes had to be made which turned it into the animal that it is today.

Teams agreed that it should be a true lottery for the first couple picks, and then after that be weighted due to losses to ensure the worst team didn't get the 14th pick which led to the percentages being the way they are today.

Bad teams will never go for this idea of basically putting 14 names in a hat because the bad teams could still go multiple years without being in the top 5 if they didn't get lucky.

At least the Wheel guarantees bad teams that they know what they are getting. Also helps them prepare their cap figures for certain years to go for free agents as well. Larger one to two year deals would gain more popularity as well which players could really like.

 

Anything would be better than the current system.

 

I hope this doesnt go thru

The lottery is how Presti continues to embarrass other GMs yr after yr

 

Why would you wait a year for a big market team? Because you get bigger money from endorsements, and live in a (potentially) better place.

But holding out for a year really only makes sense if you are projected #1 in the draft and deciding between a micro market team and LA or NY. There you could be talking 10s of millions over a career, possibly more.

 

It would shift strategy a lot harder toward free agency and cap management. I think you'd still see tanking teams, but they'd tank to clear max space for free agents in certain years to correlate with a high pick. I rather feel like there is too much certainty in this system.

And one place you still don't have certainty isn't an attractive prospect -- how much will it suck if the 1 year in 30 when you have the 1st pick, and you happen to pick in one of those down years where no one really looks like star material? Sure, in 500 years, it'll probably all even out. But, teams don't really want to wait that long.

 

That was the first thing that occured to me too. But, really only a consensus #1 guy can really wield that kind of power. Say it was a Durant & Oden draft with the Bucks and Lakers picking #1 and #2 and the Knicks are #1 next year followed by the Wizards, but you know Derrick Rose is an incoming freshman who looks like a budding superstar. So, if you're Durant, do you come out now and hope the Bucks take Oden so you've got the Lakers, or do you delay hoping you can beat out Rose for #1 to go to NY and avoid the Wizards? Plus the added risk of being injured while you wait for the next draft?

 

So, once every 30 years?

 

I like the proposal-- and the idea behind it that teams not be able keep on stacking high picks by intentionally weakening their talent. If the "wheel" seems a bit extreme (and I don't think it is), I would still favor some mechanism where if a team lands a top 5 pick one year, it is not eligible for another top 10 pick for 2 more seasons (I.e., highest it can draft is 11th). Again, the idea is to weaken the incentive for intentionally weakening your team. A weak team can get help one year, but they need to make good smart moves on top of the help rather than trying to sell fans and owner on perpetual rebuilding.

 

I really like the idea overall. In particular, I've always thought the lottery was kind of a joke, prone to suggestions of rigging, etc.

And these protected draft picks are pretty ridiculous as well. I'm surprised teams haven't ended up litigating over interpretations of the contract and what they are owed in what trade. (But Bimathug could definitely make some money as an expert witness if that came to pass.)