Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Anti-Tanker? Introducing the 'Wheel'

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    983
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Miekenstien wrote: View Post
    nice post ezz but i don't think i could disagree with the wheel more. i do agree it is management that ultimately enables a team to survive but the idea of the spurs or heat getting the top pick when they are capped out and then able to sign him for four years is a deal breaker for me.

    i still think the draft is the best way to introduce talent into the league and what a team does with it is up to them. i think the idea i like the most is keeping the draft where a team can only drop a certain amount of places but also have a tournament to determine order for the non playoff teams. teams on the brink of the playoffs should be able to break out of no mans land and it encourages teams to not give up striving for improvement.
    A single elimination tournament could work well to eliminate tanking, especially if you're not allowed to use players that weren't active for the last 5 games of the season (discourages teams from shutting guys down late).

    Say you take the 14 non playoff teams and the 2 worst playoff teams for a total of 16 teams. You play the first round. The losing teams would be assigned picks 9-16 in order of their records. This means that the worst team in the league would at least get the 9th pick in the draft. While this would leave them with an outside shot at a star, 9th isn't high enough to blow up your roster and tank for.

    In the next round the losers would be assigned picks 5-8. Then picks 3 and 4 would be assigned to the semi finalist losers, and finally the first and second pick would go to the winners and runner ups respectively. Some people might say the best team would be guaranteed to win, but I don't think that's necessarily true because it's single elimination. The gap in skill between college teams is much wider than among nba lottery teams, and they STILL regularly have upsets.

    There are problems with this though. When would these games be played? Also, motivating players could be an issue, although idk why guys wouldn't want to improve their teams.

    I think it could be fun tbh. Imagine the Raptors going on a run in the tournament and winning the rights to Andrew wiggins?

  2. #62
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ezz_bee wrote: View Post


    Craig's Christmas Conspiracy!!!

    If you believe that the best 5 teams right now (in any order) are the Heat, Pacers, Blazers, Thunder, Spurs, that doesn't do a lot to support your theory, since 4 of them (all but the Heat) are small market. Also what about the Knicks? The Mecca of the basketball world, they should be the best team in the NBA based on the logic of your system. With literally years of this system being in place there is ample data and time for the effects of the system you are pointing to have a HUGE effect. So why ARENT the Knicks the winningest team in the history of the NBA, or at the very least just behind the Lakers and Celtics? How do you account for the fact they've been mediocre at best, even with all the advantages they should have? I would argue, that they have TERRIBLE ownership/management which TRUMPS all the incentives they should have being in the biggest media market in NA (or second biggest?). Or are the Knicks actually the Spurs, and vice-versa... an ingenious maneuver by the Matrix to hide its tracks... ~I think you are on to something here~

    In fact you could argue that in NY case the system worked against them, as being a big market got them Melo, and that (according to some sources) they traded for Bargs because of the agency he was with.

    There is no matrix. Yes there are some advantages that you point out based on market size and advertising, but they have less of an effect than good ownership/management. Also Toronto is a HUGE market we are also under performing based on the system you say is in place, again I would point to management/ownership accounting for the difference between the advantage of being a big market and success on the court. Being a big market may help you attract big names, but if you sign those guys for more than they're worth (cough Amare, cough, cough) you will not be able to be a contender. Management trumps money... just about every time.
    I don't think thats necessarily a fair assessment.

    I agree with you that management trumps money (good or bad), but the system in place has definetely been more favourable for 'wealthy' and 'attractive' markets over small or regular markets. The lesser markets have to do things differently, take a larger non-financial risk than big markets (although on a relative basis their financial risk is often larger). Tank to draft high, or hope to get lucky obtaining a superstar(s) somewhere not very high in the draft and not get stuck in the middle. The premier markets though? They can do that to, but also horde assets to trade later or free up cap space to buy a star. There is no treadmill for them that they can't buy their way off of if they choose to.

    That right now most of the top teams are small markets, doesn't change that being rich/large/attractive gives a clear preference over a lesser market, and we've seen an ever growing trend towards that.

    If we look at all the dynastic teams that have existed in the NBA, we see a clear trend towards the wealthy/large. LA, Boston, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Chicago with only the odd small (Spurs and Utah in the 90s) and mid size (Detroit) markets. Even if we put Cleveland with Lebron as a dynasty team, it required a ridiculous investment on Gilbert's part that was likely only affordable thanks to the $ Lebron generates (and well, Lebron himself).

    NY and Brooklyn may be having terrible years, but I think thats just coincidental to the current CBA. Yes they are there because of bad decision making, but they were able to potentially overcome previously bad decision making by throwing $s at the problem, something Indy or Charlotte would never be able to do

    Now I don't think Silver (and formally Stern) are sitting in a room with the Buss' and Dolans of the league overlooking the on goings and controlling how each season will work out or dictating the outcome of the draft. But I don't doubt that Stern has over the years worked the CBA to get as many stars as possible into large markets.

    If we look at the top US markets (both pop and as FA destinations - usually related, although not always - see Washington), only 1 is 'tanking' - Boston. 2 thought this was a contention year (the NY teams) and are terrible, and 2 suffered season ending injuries to their stars (Chi and LAL). Miami, GS, Clippers, Dallas, Houston are all going for it (or atleast were planning to go for it). Washington, well they are just doing what washington always does... and a hard market to place (they are like Toronto.. large, but not attractive)

    If we compare the % of big/attractive markets that felt they could be contenders vs the % of small-mid/unattractive markets that felt they could, and the % of big tankers vs small tankers... there is a clear discrepency.

    Again, its not that I disagree that good/bad management isn't a difference maker, rather its that the system can make certain GMs look better or worse than they are, which makes those who don't stand out (presti/buford/bird vs King/Dolan (I know technically not GM)) of questionable quality or atleast make the decision making process much easier or more preferrable for them.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,022
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    Can't resist. For someone who always complains about posters wearing "blinders", and enjoys picking nits, there's nothing like an absolute statement to show off your hypocrisy!
    "always complains....."? Hmmm, speaking of absolutes. Pfffft. But I guess I should have added the silly "imo", that seems to appease everybody, for that's all I was doing: expressing my opinion, without a lengthy essay, though that quoted comment had more to it than your quote. That said, it doesn't take much to discount the NBA never taking "the wheel" seriously. Small market owners, of which there are more, would never agree to it.

    Others have poked the same holes in it i would, so no need to repeat the same stuff. I will add, all it takes is a tad bad luck, as in a team's only ever #1 pick coming in a weak draft year, *cough, AB", coupled with the very year the NBA changed eligibility rules (could that happen again?), and not be able to draft a KD, while he goes to a Miami/LA/NY the next year, because the wheel says so. Somehow, when there's much evidence that the league is trying all it can, with some resistance from the players' union, to make the playing field as balanced as it can, it doesn't seem to make much sense for them to throw it all out to go to a random luck draft system, that has the potential of burying a bad team in the cellar forever, even if they now have new/better ownership/management/coaching.

    So where is this cheap shot "hypocrisy" you speak of?

  4. #64
    Raptors Republic All-Star Superjudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Niagara
    Posts
    2,357
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    Craig's Christmas Conspiracy!!!
    Hey man, my conspiracy is pretty Rad if you ask me.

    Y'all are crazy

  5. #65
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,576
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    I don't think thats necessarily a fair assessment.

    I agree with you that management trumps money (good or bad),

    but the system in place has definetely been more favourable for 'wealthy' and 'attractive' markets over small or regular markets.

    NY and Brooklyn may be having terrible years, but I think thats just coincidental to the current CBA. Yes they are there because of bad decision making, but they were able to potentially overcome previously bad decision making by throwing $s at the problem, something Indy or Charlotte would never be able to do
    Bold 1, glad you agree with me!

    Bold 2, I agree with you, large markets and teams that can out spend others have AN advantage over teams that can't/wont'.

    Bold 3, Not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that throwing money at the problem was something teams could do more of in the past but can't do it (as much) now? IF so I would agree you, but again, this shift as a result of the CBA weakens the Craig's position.

    The Raptors are a large market team, and I would think they are at least in the top 20 in terms of free agent destinations. You could argue that half the league gains more benefit from "the system" than the raps, but you could just as easily argue that we've got it better than the other half of the league. And yet we are a bottom 5 team using pretty much any metric of on court success. Again, I am happy to recognize that big markets/spenders have an advantage over small markets/non-spenders, it would be dumb to argue otherwise. My problem is that by using those arguments we mask/discount the biggest factor, which is the competence of ownership/GM, and owner's/GM's (including our own dearly departed Bryan) use those arguments to as excuses to cover up the fact that they just made bad decisions. I refuse to enable bad management any longer!

    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  6. #66
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    799
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    Bold 1, glad you agree with me!

    Bold 2, I agree with you, large markets and teams that can out spend others have AN advantage over teams that can't/wont'.

    Bold 3, Not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. Are you saying that throwing money at the problem was something teams could do more of in the past but can't do it (as much) now? IF so I would agree you, but again, this shift as a result of the CBA weakens the Craig's position.

    The Raptors are a large market team, and I would think they are at least in the top 20 in terms of free agent destinations. You could argue that half the league gains more benefit from "the system" than the raps, but you could just as easily argue that we've got it better than the other half of the league. And yet we are a bottom 5 team using pretty much any metric of on court success. Again, I am happy to recognize that big markets/spenders have an advantage over small markets/non-spenders, it would be dumb to argue otherwise. My problem is that by using those arguments we mask/discount the biggest factor, which is the competence of ownership/GM, and owner's/GM's (including our own dearly departed Bryan) use those arguments to as excuses to cover up the fact that they just made bad decisions. I refuse to enable bad management any longer!

    Eez, always like your posts. I think perhaps you mis-understood my original comment about 'money' being the root cause of the problem. I wasn't talking about management spending their way to success, I was talking more about a very hard cap, combined with 100% free agency (no max salaries). This would be the ultimate free market system. Players still get x% of revenue - which is the hard cap AND Lebron James gets paid what he's worth to the league. It would also mean that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have a James/Wade/Bosh trio, so elite players would be likely be more distributed throughout the league - which is one of the goals of the wheel. In keeping with this, I'm also advocating, eliminating the draft completely, which means that rookies would also be free agents - so again, if you want to roll the dice on Andrew Wiggins fresh out of college at $25M/yr, and it doesn't work, then you've screwed yourself until his contract expires. Perhaps, one modification could be a max limit on the length of rookie contracts, say 3 yrs, so that at least teams can get out of those situations faster.

    I was not advocating that you can spend your way out of trouble - Brooklyn is the latest franchise in a long history of bad management to prove that to false.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •