Some simple lottery changes would remedy what ails NBA

How about this:

have a draft auction with the following rules:
1. the bids must be within a hard cap
2. the amount of players you can bid on and win must be according to how many picks you have for that round.
3. do away with rookie contracts

In this system the draft encourages fiscal responsibility, it also doesn't reward the bigger markets, it also benefits the transitional players who can get bigger contracts from the beginning.

 

Winners are already penalized for winning - by getting worse draft picks. The whole point of the draft and the lottery is to help the bad teams.

The concern I was addressing was that certain cities have advantages in free agency - those teams thus will consistently win more through nothing that their front office did. If Utah and LA have perfectly identical teams and situations, a free agent choosing between the two is more likely to go to LA. That's not a level playing field. If you want to even that out, there are pretty simple ways to do that. As I said, they wouldn't be popular ways, but it's not impossible to do.

 

I'm glad to see this on NBA.com, hopefully the league takes a serious look at it eventually.

 

The nba has contenders in the biggest markets, some medium markets, some small markets.

Free agency and professional tanking isn't just creating bad teams, it's also creating top heavy teams, and the league is better for it.

The western conference only had one garbage playoff series last season (SA v LA), compared to the east only having one non garbage series (the ECF), I'm all for things like Boston which has shored up the Eastern Conference semis

The idea of "with luck we can stay mediocre" which would ultimately just encourage teams to stay mediocre and try their luck, and while watching teams near the bottom go out of their way to lose in one thing, having teams ranked 7th or 8th then start doing the same thing would be worse (because these teams can actually beat people).....thanks but no thanks.

 

I like it. The bids would definitely have to be within a very, very strict hard ccap. Forces teams to really dig deep for diamonds in the rough. As good as it is, its too nontraditional for the league, and I wwouldn't envy the poor SO;
B running the auction for his team.


But its a good idea. The only problem would be the agents- because you'd have to negiotate with them and out bid other teams (unless rookie contracts are non-negtioable. Are they?)

 

No way is the league better for teams losing on purpose.

You ask those fans in Sacramento or Charlotte for that.

Those teams empty arenas are a eyesore quite frankly. The reason the NFL does so well is because every game matters and each year fans get get up for their team knowing they are going to try their best. No one should have to watch teams basically put out a bunch of rookies and crappy vets play for nothing.

You can easily remedy the 7th and 8th seed problem by just putting them in the lottery too.

Right now the NBA has a problem that no other sports league I know of has. That it is completely fine and okay to lose and sometimes encouraged.

 

If you want to level the competition, the only way is to eliminate free agency, or heavily restrict it.

I know some people say that freedom to choose which teams to play for is the BIRTH RIGHT for all players. They even use the word "slavery" to depict a system restricting free agency. I think that's BS logic. If you can quit working any day you want, you are not a slave. And the draft is already a "slavery" system anyway. Why not go further?

Although the Rockets are reaping the situation now, I've never liked the idea that having a superstar gives you a much better chance of landing another. It's just a "the rich gets richer" system. Whenever you have such a system, you render a big majority of teams hopeless for a long time for contending.

 

None of the other leagues do this though and both have way more parity than the NBA. The MLB and NFL also you will NEVER find a team going into the season from game one looking to lose.

You may be expecting to lose but it's different than teams being mediocre and then saying "Nope, we don't want to be this. Lets suck." which is basically what NBA teams do.

In the NFL and MLB the sport allows it so that a low seed could end up winning the championship any ways...besides the MLB without it's cap means owners want extra revenue and are not going to do that being Astros bad.

NFL the money is not the problem but it's been proven that even if you sneak into the playoffs you could get hot and go to the superbowl.

Now we can say 'What about Suck for Luck' but the team that actually got Luck did so because they were actually just a bad team because they had lost Manning. They weren't hoping to lose Manning and they weren't kicking him out the door so that they could get Luck.

In the NBA the problem is one guy can literally mean having a dynasty, so teams will tank even for years if it means getting that one guy. The NBA has to start punishing teams for being bad. Philadelphia basically just threw away their season and everyone is saying "What a great move!" because it actually is if it means they get Wiggins...it's a great move.

Now if all of a sudden all 14 teams (plus 7th and 8th seeds) are in a much more equal lottery I wonder if that trade even happens.

I wonder if the Boston trade even happens. Because then all of a sudden being mediocre would be a GOOD thing. You'd get more fans, more revenue likely, more attention, and you still have a chance at getting into the top 5. It's a win win situation and I like DA's idea of letting the worst team get at least #6 but giving everyone a shot at the top 5.

 

Also I know the other leagues have a lottery where the worse team gets the best pick.

The difference here though is that in the NBA you have guys that can literally take a bad team and make it into a dynasty...ON TOP of having their own brand, selling millions of jersey's, shoes, etc worldwide...

MLB...the #1 picks and people drafted you won't hear about for 2 years or so. NFL...one player is not going to transform a team's fortune like that. You could draft Carr but you have no oline initially to protect for him, your team still sucks.

NBA...you draft Lebron and now you are a contender for years to come. Just like that, 3-4 seasons of sucking is worth it for a Lebron-Durant type talent.

 

No players in the MLB, NBA, or NFL will ever agree to suck throughout a season. Their future salary is on the line. One could argue that the Astros went into this season "looking to lose," which means that the coaches and players want to win but the organization expects them to lose and losing is not even against their priorities. Losing is not good for job security or income.

 

No other sport really? what do you think the Astros are doing?

The NFL, there's not that much to be gained from winning the draft, you can get superstars late in the first round, or later rounds and people draft positionally and even then, it's not like a few teams didn't "Suck for Luck" (maybe it was deliberate that indianapolis didn't have a competent backup qb even though they knew manning was going to be out with surgery.... and yes they did it from round 1) .

Whereas the nba is in a situation where 2 guys can make you a contender.....

As for adding other teams, that doesn't fix it, that just means teams try to drop from 6th to 7th, the reality is no matter what system the nba attempts, there will be teams exploiting it.

The question the nba has to answer is "what teams do i want trying to lose", the nba has rightfully long decided that the worst teams is certainly better than any team competing for the playoffs, there will always be teams trying to lose.

 

Well no one ever expects the players to throw games on purpose. When people say tanking that's not ever what they mean.

They mean the FO putting a bad team out there and pretty much knowing the results. I don't think the Astros went into the season looking to lose, they had no other option but to lose.

We are talking about teams that have a option to remain competitive but then throw it away. Like the Celtics, had this new lottery system been in place do you think the Celtics make that trade?

Bad teams that make bad moves eventually always end up drafting top 5 any ways. Like the Astros. Only difference is there is no one player they can draft that will save the franchise like Lebron. They will need more than just one guy and then they will have to convince that guy to actually stay. Like a abd team in the NBA.

The only thing the NBA system does is give those bad teams a bone every once in a while. Those teams enjoy success while their superstar player is planning on jumping to L.A, NY, or some other team where his buddy plays. Why? Because what really happened was a bad FO just got lucky, surrounding players like Dwight and Lebron with marginal players and wondering why they left. Watch a bad team get Wiggins, surround him with trash and then he'll be packing his bags because he's tired of losing to the next superstar duo/trio. Every once in a while they get a extremely loyal player like Garnett who they have to beg to leave because they can't figure out why Garnett and 4 scrubs can't win anything.

So I guess it's good for those teams...for the 5 or so years they have that player.

The point remains...the Astros had no choice. If they had a choice they would choose to be mediocre. Every single baseball team would choose that. A few good signings to go along with a mediocre team and you're right back in the hunt. The astros sucked and the only thing that's going to get out of them is great draft choices, trades, signings. Not getting lucky like in the NBA and riding your money horse until he decides to go play for the Lakers or with his best pal.

Also I seriously doubt the 6th seed is going to tank. The Warriors were the 6th seed this year, the Hawks on the East. Also to move up from 6th to 5th means playing a team you have a better chance against. ALSO the 6th seed has some pretty good players on their teams that are not going to lie down and tank.

The NBA is the only major sports lead in the world that encourages losing and we are supposed to be okay with that?

It just sucks for Charlotte fans, Magic fans, and Cleveland fans that they are forced to watch bad teams with the hopes of hitting the lottery. Their entire seasons a wash...

And it's even worse for Bucks fans who have nothing to look forward to, who were rooting for their team to lose.

if the NBA hopes to EVER get on the level of NFL or even MLB in the states they have to get Milwaukee fans to actually want to root for their team to win every night. There will never be true parity in the NBA because a player like Lebron can dominate year in and year out...but you can at least give fans a reason to watch.

 

Will you stop parroting this bull**** as though it has any validity?

Any sport that has a draft encourages losing in one shape or another, the value of tanking is then a product of the impact of the individual, that's why Indianapolis tanked an entire season from day 1 for Andrew Luck, quarterbacks are worth that much, so are basketball players because there can be only 5 guys on the court and one can completely dominate possession.

 

How did Indianapolis tank?

They lost Peyton Manning and all of a sudden that's tanking? We do remember they did lose Peyton Manning to a serious neck injury right? They just sucked is all, they didn't make any additional moves like NBA teams do where they jettison their best players

So when Tom Brady went out did the Patriots start tanking? They made the best of their season as ANY NFL team does. If there is ANY league in the world that will NEVER lose from day one it's the NFL and the Major Soccer leagues. Never.

The Colts didn't tank. They just sucked without Manning. They barely had any talent around Manning in the first place, their defense was soft every year, their RBs sucked, their WRs were of the average variety (other than Wayne) that was made better by Manning, all of a sudden Manning is out...now remember throughout the year they kept Manning in hopes that he would return. They didn't kick him out the door, but when they got the #1 pick it made that decision much easier. There is not one team in the NFL that goes into the season hoping to lose, not one. I can say that with confidence, hell if it weren't for the new rookie scale most of the teams actually admitted to not wanting the #1 pick at all.

This is what we are talking about again. A mediocre team in the NBA will literally make moves they know that will make their team worse. No other major sports league does this happen. Of course there is trading a old vet for a few young prospects because the team is going nowhere (Astros) anytime soon...but you don't find middling teams every year BEFORE the season even starts saying "Welp, lets suck this year. Lets trade our all-star PG for a unproven center that may not even play half of the year."

 

I like the idea of getting better picks based on higher ranking up to playoff seed.

If I get to remodel the system I would make it that team 1-7 gets to the playoff automatically with medium picks. 8-15 will get to battle it out playoff style, but only 2 of 3 instead of 4 of 7, for the last playoff spot AND the best pick. Sure some teams will tank at the end of the season to get that chance for the 8th seed. But they have to risk both losing the playoff seed AND a medium pick while needing to spill blood to just to get that 8th seed.

Then by ranking from 8-15 the picks gets worst going down which encourages teams to do well. While on the other hand from 1-7 the picks gets worst as you win more which gives opportunities for lower seeds to improve their team.

This will encourage teams to try to get into the playoffs to guarantee a decent pick, while those that didn't get in will be wild cards to get the best pick and a chance for the playoff. I think competition will be fiercer every year where bad teams will really push their way to get as close to 8th seed as possible. Tanking will not be an option.

 

It's not the lottery that encourages teams to be bad. It's the large impact of superstars. You now have teams that clear out good players just to clear the cap space to go after name-brand free agents. It's a little less stark than tanking for a pick, but the medicrity tread-mill of 'managing you cap-space' isn't really any better. The Martin/Scola Rockets never had a chance to be anything -- we were literally in a holding pattern until Morey could find that superstar and we all knew all those players on the interim team would be gone once we found one. Is hoping in the potential of a mediocre team (to trade their middling assets for a star) really qualitatively different than hoping in the potential of a bad team (to leverage their draft position for a star)?

I allege that if you're not contending, it doesn't really matter to the overall competition how bad or mediocre you are. There are less than 8 competitors in the league, and 22+ teams in stages of building.

 

FIFY.

This is why letting teams hoard more than one franchise players is bad for competition. There aren't enough franchise players to go around for all 30 teams. If a few teams take two or more, it just leaves the vast majority of the league in a waiting loop. Having the #1 pick doesn't guarantee that you get a great player. A lot of luck is involved.

 

yes. the average team trying to win (such as the Martin/Scola Rocks) is different from a team designed to lose.

 

It's fun to see your team win...but we often had times in the GARM where everyone would argue if we should trade lowry, scola, pretty much anyone that had any value for young unproven players and draft picks...just to get out from the middle.

But if it didn't matter. Say what DA proposed was in effect...then we'd all be rooting for our team to win because why not? We still get a chance at the top 5 pick (a legit chance) and we get to watch our team battlefight it out.

People always complain about the quality of the league and how the NBA needs less teams. I always disagree, especially with a worldwide talent pool. It's just that the teams in the middle try to be bad and the bad teams are usually just fine with where they are at if they don't have a superstar.

Personally I think this is the reason why superstars mean more than the team in the NBA, because no one actually appreciates guys like Granger or Iguodala whose good enough to keep your team average but not great enough to be a contender...so what you see is basically fans of their own teams wanting to get rid of those guys because in reality they are holding the team back.

I think fans and teams as a whole would have a lot more pride then they do now. Teams have no shame in bottoming out in the NBA and when they do journalists and critics say "Good job!"

 

How so? Neither 'trying to win' not 'designed to lose' result in a championship. Only contenders win championships.

I think those guys are well appreciated -- as a second or third star. Parsons gets plenty of love here, but it'd be a different story if he was the first option.