View Poll Results: Would you like lottery teams to have 2 1st rd picks and playoff teams have 2 2nd rds?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - make the league more competitive and give lottery fans more hope.

    10 41.67%
  • No - keep draft as is.

    11 45.83%
  • I don't care.

    3 12.50%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54

Thread: Change to draft order process

  1. #21
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,362
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    I actually don't agree it will create parity... the issue with 'parity' in this league has had nothing to do with a teams capactiy to draft, but rather with finances (and geography). While teams will theoritically not be "as bad" for "as long", you will still have numerous teams intentionally losing for extended periods of time so they can horde picks.

    What you will have is a lot of short term flucuation in the good and bad teams, but it won't lead to parity.
    I'm not sure I agree with the blanket statement.

    San Antonio, OKC (and SEA before), Denver, Detroit from 2003-2008, Boston, Indiana from the early '90's until mid 2000's, Utah (with STockton/Malone and then Williams/Boozer), Portland, Sacramento late '90's- early 2000's, and Cleveland for prior 7 years all differ with this thinking. As does Golden State, LAC, NYK for prior 10 years and even last summer losing out on LBJ and Bosh, and Miami 5 years before super friends teamed up.

    As for teams intentionally losing, a team loaded with talent will not lose year over year and if it does there is an issue with the coach or management. With Durant, Green, and Westbrook the Thunder still only managed 23 wins - part of it is growing together and gelling.

    If a team is constantly losing they are the perennial losers - just as there are perennial winners. The middle will certainly improve in my opinion. Take out the top 5 and the bottom 5 and suddenly the middle 20 teams are a much better product under this system in my opinion.
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Tue Aug 23rd, 2011 at 11:25 AM.

  2. #22
    Raptors Republic All-Star hateslosing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    1,524
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    I actually don't agree it will create parity... the issue with 'parity' in this league has had nothing to do with a teams capactiy to draft, but rather with finances (and geography). While teams will theoritically not be "as bad" for "as long", you will still have numerous teams intentionally losing for extended periods of time so they can horde picks.

    What you will have is a lot of short term flucuation in the good and bad teams, but it won't lead to parity.
    Sorry, forgot to add that I was assuming the hard cap came in too. My bad.
    "When Life gives you lemons, you clone those Lemons to make super lemons!"
    -Scudworth

  3. #23
    Raptors Republic Superstar enlightenment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Im sorry but in all cases when we measure good and bad organizations and management we look directly at winning percentage. Boston was terrible before, Doc was given a hard time, and the organization was under scrutiny. Then the trade happened and all of a sudden Boston had one of the best General Managers in the game. Our perception of good and bad management is fluid, and directly related to the winning percentage before and after. The argument that we are rewarding bad management is then void because talent and circumstance are the real reasons winning percentages float up and down. I argue Bryant is one of the best GMs in the NBA, and that our organization is run very smoothly. Yet we've had issues with talent (Hedo, JO not performing to par, etc) and circumstance (Garbo's leg, MJ's indecisiveness, CB4). Does this mean that a second draft pick will reward a badly run team? or will it help shorten the rebuilding phase (usually a 4 year process of collecting draft picks) and allow faster fluctuations in year by year standings between teams? This will make the league more competitive and really rewards the casual fan base when one draft could seriously alter the fortunes of all teams, throwing the championship up in the air for anyone to grab.

    The biggest issue would be what happened between chicago and the raptors the year before last, when it was 1 game near the end of the season that decided who made the playoffs and who didn't. Thats the difference of having the 14th and 28th pick and the 29th pick and the 45th pick. Huge difference in talent available.
    Last edited by enlightenment; Tue Aug 23rd, 2011 at 01:56 PM.

  4. #24
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I'm not sure I agree with the blanket statement.

    San Antonio, OKC (and SEA before), Denver, Detroit from 2003-2008, Boston, Indiana from the early '90's until mid 2000's, Utah (with STockton/Malone and then Williams/Boozer), Portland, Sacramento late '90's- early 2000's, and Cleveland for prior 7 years all differ with this thinking. As does Golden State, LAC, NYK for prior 10 years and even last summer losing out on LBJ and Bosh, and Miami 5 years before super friends teamed up.

    As for teams intentionally losing, a team loaded with talent will not lose year over year and if it does there is an issue with the coach or management. With Durant, Green, and Westbrook the Thunder still only managed 23 wins - part of it is growing together and gelling.

    If a team is constantly losing they are the perennial losers - just as there are perennial winners. The middle will certainly improve in my opinion. Take out the top 5 and the bottom 5 and suddenly the middle 20 teams are a much better product under this system in my opinion.

    there is no doubt other factors that can influence a team long term success. And I am in NO WAY saying that just because a team is wealthy or in a good market that it automatically means success. Or that just because a team is 'poor' or in a bad market they will automatically lose. But those are the two major factors that influence player's decisions especially in FA (and how most teams stay good for a long time (ex. LA, Dallas) or become good/bad overnight (Cleveland vs Miami). That is if you are able to outbid anyone, and/or you have an attractive location, you have a huge advantage over every other team. Its why those issues need to be addressed to create parity. ie. Incentives for players to stick with their teams, giving teams a greater capacity to hold onto players etc. You don't see Lebron James even considering Minnesota. You didn't see Kobe (when wanting to be traded) asking for a trade to the Jazz. You saw Dwade laugh at the idea of going to Cleveland.

    Now a well run organization (good decision making, good risk management etc) can be good anywhere. So do we now turn around and say, hey you are doing a good job so I'm gonna take a first round pick away from you? SA is actually a perfect example as to why the draft system works well the way it does. Would SA have been as competitive as they have been for the last decade + if they weren't allowed those late first round picks? They've done an excellent job in a small market (not only in the draft but by other means) where they've had to compete against Dallas' wealth and LA's attractiveness, because they have made sound decisions (and ofcourse a bit of luck). Should those opportunities be taken away from SA, or OKC going forward, because soemone like David Kahn or BC have their head up their ass? I don't think so.

    "As for teams intentionally losing, a team loaded with talent will not lose year over year and if it does there is an issue with the coach or management."

    you don't think they would? You don't think a team wouldn't lose on purpose to load up on picks? Teams already have and do in the system they have now. While ethically or morally questionable, it would be a very sound and effective strategy for the long term development of a team.

  5. #25
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote enlightenment wrote: View Post
    The argument that we are rewarding bad management is then void because talent and circumstance are the real reasons winning percentages float up and down.
    that hardly "voids" the argument when it is GMs who make those decisions to bring in, draft, trade for, release, and pay that talent. Talented players don't just magically appear out of thin air.

  6. #26
    Raptors Republic Superstar enlightenment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    that hardly "voids" the argument when it is GMs who make those decisions to bring in, draft, trade for, release, and pay that talent. Talented players don't just magically appear out of thin air.
    Dan Gilbert, ill argue, is a crap GM. Yet his team had a few 60+ win seasons due to Mr Lebron, who did actually just magically appear in front of them. There is a lot of circumstance involved and I refuse to judge a GM based on his teams win/loss record.

  7. #27
    Super Moderator Joey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,647
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote enlightenment wrote: View Post
    Dan Gilbert, ill argue, is a crap GM. Yet his team had a few 60+ win seasons due to Mr Lebron, who did actually just magically appear in front of them. There is a lot of circumstance involved and I refuse to judge a GM based on his teams win/loss record.
    Dan Gilbert is the Owner ... Chris Grant is the GM.

    But I do agree with what you're saying.
    Luck does play a very large part in some teams success.
    In Masai we Trust.

  8. #28
    Raptors Republic Superstar enlightenment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Sorry My bad completely!!! Dan gilbert is definitely not the GM, but he is the head of the organization which is what Im trying to refer to. Ill rephrase: I refuse to judge the Management of a team based on its win/loss record.

  9. #29
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,362
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post

    Now a well run organization (good decision making, good risk management etc) can be good anywhere. So do we now turn around and say, hey you are doing a good job so I'm gonna take a first round pick away from you? SA is actually a perfect example as to why the draft system works well the way it does. Would SA have been as competitive as they have been for the last decade + if they weren't allowed those late first round picks? They've done an excellent job in a small market (not only in the draft but by other means) where they've had to compete against Dallas' wealth and LA's attractiveness, because they have made sound decisions (and ofcourse a bit of luck). Should those opportunities be taken away from SA, or OKC going forward, because soemone like David Kahn or BC have their head up their ass? I don't think so.

    "As for teams intentionally losing, a team loaded with talent will not lose year over year and if it does there is an issue with the coach or management."

    you don't think they would? You don't think a team wouldn't lose on purpose to load up on picks? Teams already have and do in the system they have now. While ethically or morally questionable, it would be a very sound and effective strategy for the long term development of a team.
    Here is SA's draft history: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...SAS/draft.html

    Since 1997 the only 1st round draft pick that has made any significant contribution is Parker while George Hill had been a good back up PG. They have picked players in the first round only to be traded (Barbosa, Salmons) before ever playing for the Spurs i.e. they picked for other teams. Splitter is still a work in progress after staying in Europe for an additional 2 years. Udrih had minimal impact in the league until he signed as a FA in Sacramento, same with Mahinmi although his impact even in Dallas has been minimal. Meanwhile the Spurs have also picked good players in the second round as well. Who's to say they wouldn't be better served with 2 second round picks each year? They have had Manu, Blair, Dragic and Scola as second round selections - although Dragic was traded immediately and contract squabbles sent Scola to Houston. My opinion is a good scouting team with a little luck will find decent players no matter where they select.


    As for the tanking it does happen at the end of every season. Good teams rest players for playoffs. Bad teams rest players to see what the scrubs they have are worth and to ensure they do not go too high in the rankings, no doubt.

    Teams already tank but if they select smart and get lucky it shouldn't have to last more than 3-4 seasons. With this change it might take only 2 seasons.

    There appears to a be a number of teams already tanking or recently concluded the tank. What about the Clippers who have been tanking for a decade before Blake Griffin (1 apperance in 14 years and 7 in 30)? or the T-Wolves (7 years)? Kings (5 years)? Bobcats (1 appearence in 7 years)? GSW (1 appearance in 16 years)? Memphis before last season (4 years with 3 first round exits prior and nothing for 9 years prior)? Nets (4 years)? Wizards (3 years)? Even the Thunder took 5 years to reappear in the playoffs as an 8th seed and it took the Knicks 7 years to make it back to the playoffs and only the 2nd time in 10 years.

    Tanking to me would mean intentionally losing. There comes a time at which point showing no improvement or signs of improvement is harmful to the team financially and to its fan base (although there are exceptions with LAC and GSW immediately coming to mind).
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Tue Aug 23rd, 2011 at 03:23 PM.

  10. #30
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Im sorry but in all cases when we measure good and bad organizations and management we look directly at winning percentage
    I guess I should point out that this was never completely true to begin with. (and Doc Rivers was never the GM). GMs are given credit for doing a good job before any or much success (Presti, Cho). Others have success and don't get credit (see your Cleveland example... ie. Jim Paxson who drafted Lebron and got fired 2 years later)

    Quote enlightenment wrote: View Post
    Dan Gilbert, ill argue, is a crap GM. Yet his team had a few 60+ win seasons due to Mr Lebron, who did actually just magically appear in front of them. There is a lot of circumstance involved and I refuse to judge a GM based on his teams win/loss record.
    No one is judging a GM based solely on their win/loss%. That was just a random statement you made. That still doesn't mean you aren't rewarding bad TEAMS with 2 first round picks while punishing good TEAMS by giving them none.

    As to GMs themselves, no one is discounting luck playing a role for a team (right place at the right time, or wrong place at the wrong time etc), but that hardly means the GMs shouldn't be held accountable for their decisions, no matter how good or bad they (or fans) think they are at that time. Don't tell me that Hedo didn't live up to expectations and therefore signing him wasn't BCs fault. Don't tell me JO wasn't BCs fault when he had the option of not trading for a 22mil player who was 2 years removed from any level of success and running on one leg. Don't tell me Bosh leaving wasn't BCs fault when he had the option of trading him for the last 4 years.

    If I offer Joey Dorsey a $10 mil contract deal for 5 years and he doesn't live up to the money, is it his fault to? Or mine for misappropriating money? If I trade Jonas V for Ben Wallace is it Ben's fault for not reverting back to his 2004 form? If I don't think DD is good enough to build around but I offer him max $ and build around him anywyas, is it all DDs fault for not being good enough to build around?

  11. #31
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    [QUOTE=Matt52;95909]They have picked players in the first round only to be traded[QUOTE]

    and like I said early, those picks are still assets that can be traded.

  12. #32
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,362
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    [QUOTE=GarbageTime;95912][QUOTE=Matt52;95909]They have picked players in the first round only to be traded

    and like I said early, those picks are still assets that can be traded.
    As could 2 second round picks with them being traded for one late first round pick or for another player or to attach to a salary dump.

  13. #33
    Raptors Republic Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The "Good Teams" don't even play their draft picks anyways. They get about 10 minutes a game in the preseason, and they would play a total of 5 minutes in the first week. Then it's off to the D-League for them where they stay for a heck of a long time without getting much of a chance. This change gives the draft players a chance to show what they can do on a "bad team" and it gives the team a higher chance of actually getting some young talent that would just go to waste on a team like the Lakers.

    For example, there have been talks of Alabi actually starting for the Raptors. If he were on the Lakers there's a 95% chance we wouldn't see the court all season. I'm all for this.

  14. #34
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,362
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Also it is not like playoff teams would have no shot at getting talent in the second round. Monta Ellis, Carlos Boozer, Manu Ginobilli, Gilbert Arenas, Okur, Mo Williams, Michael Redd all come to mind. Of course they are the exception and not the rule but most late first round draft picks are the exception as well.

  15. #35
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    As could 2 second round picks with them being traded for one late first round pick or for another player or to attach to a salary dump.
    Then why not give lottery teams 2 2nd rounders instead and everyone an opportunity in the first round?

  16. #36
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,362
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Then why not give lottery teams 2 2nd rounders instead and everyone an opportunity in the first round?
    Because the odds do not favour that scenario and again 'good' teams are good for a reason. Why put even better prospects on the bench?

    Again, the issue is having better prospects wasting on the bench of a good team and decreasing the amount of time (and luck) required to rebuild in any reasonable time frame.

    I think this would create a more competitive league.

  17. #37
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Because the odds do not favour that scenario and again 'good' teams are good for a reason. Why put even better prospects on the bench?

    Again, the issue is having better prospects wasting on the bench of a good team and decreasing the amount of time (and luck) required to rebuild in any reasonable time frame.

    I think this would create a more competitive league.
    so is it fair to say then that 2 2nd round picks can't be easily (or regularily atleast) traded for 1 late first rounder then?

    To the 2nd part this isn't a developmental league and shouldn't be treated as such. This is the best of the best competing. If player X gets drafted they shouldn't deserve or have a right to get playing time. Secondly if all the prospects are on a handful of teams, there will still be prospects not getting enough playing time in order for the other prospects to get more. Is player X more likely to start with Ray Allen or Tyreke Evans on the team? Is player Y more likely to get 30 min a game playing behind John Wall or Chris Paul?

    There is still a finite amount of roster spots, positions and playing time. If a player is good enough they will get time no matter what team they play for, if they aren't they won't. If a team sees something in a player they will get that opportunity. Its just a matter of time and taking opportunities when they come. While one player may need more freedom to learn, others need less. One can make an argument that playing with greats and/or vets or being given time to develop away from the court has helped some players learn and develop faster. It may be exactly what some players are lacking to get them to that next level.

    Look I know this is stemming from fans wanting the Raps to be better and faster. Especially since the next draft is classified as the best in a decade and it would be a great opportunity for the team. But what about the Indiana's or Philly's of the world. Make the playoffs simply by a function of being the best of worst, lacking star power to make that contending team, and now they get stuck having to turn 2 2nd rounders into something special, remaining a middling team for a few years until it falls apart, or blowing it up and starting over. Its bad enough for a team like that right now, but with no first round picks it makes it that much harder. (Hell, that may in fact make the tanking even worse than I initially thought. How much better off are you being the 9th or 10th seed team than the 8th?)

    Now imagine the Raps in that situation. How would one feel if they barely made the playoffs with the current roster (or something similar), didn't get Jonas but 2 2nd rounders instead? I bet NO ONE would want this style draft.

    I really dislike the idea. You don't fix whats not broken and you aren't going to create parity by eliminating equality. Its just going to create extreme boom and bust cycles with teams (so to speak), and in any given year a team will be much better off as a bust team than a team on its way to a boom. That is not parity.

    The structure of the draft is ideal how it is.

    If its player development people want then they need to look for a way to improve the NBDL (for example, and just an example not necessarily a good idea, treat it more like a farm team and require every rookie to spend atleast one year there). If its parity people want, they league needs to deal with the disparity of resources (ie. money), finding way to ease the burden of out of control/albatross contracts (ie. waivers, partially guaranteed contracts?) and ways to intice the 'stars' to stick around (franchise tag and hard-ish cap).
    Last edited by GarbageTime; Tue Aug 23rd, 2011 at 06:16 PM.

  18. #38
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,362
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    so is it fair to say then that 2 2nd round picks can't be easily (or regularily atleast) traded for 1 late first rounder then?

    To the 2nd part this isn't a developmental league and shouldn't be treated as such. This is the best of the best competing. If player X gets drafted they shouldn't deserve or have a right to get playing time. Secondly if all the prospects are on a handful of teams, there will still be prospects not getting enough playing time in order for the other prospects to get more. Is player X more likely to start with Ray Allen or Tyreke Evans on the team? Is player Y more likely to get 30 min a game playing behind John Wall or Chris Paul?
    Teams would not be using their top draft picks to draft another PG if they have Paul or Wall. Washington, for example, has holes at SF and a lack of depth with their bigs. NOH lack wings - those would most likely be the positions they would focus on or look to trade picks. All the more highly touted prospects would be on lottery teams. Playoff teams are in the playoffs for a reason. How much of an impact John Wall and, after the trade, Jordan Crawford add to the Wizards. How many more games did the Wizards win? They actually lost 3 more games on the season. How many wins did Ibaka and Westbrook add to the Thunder in 2008-2009? 3 - from 20 to 23 wins. The Thunder (and Presit) benefitted from a team (the Suns) who did not want guaranteed contracts of rookie contracts and sent a large contract out with 2 draft picks as compensation for saving money - coincidently getting Rondo was also through PHX selling a draft pick when they were competing at the upper echelon of the league.


    There is still a finite amount of roster spots, positions and playing time. If a player is good enough they will get time no matter what team they play for, if they aren't they won't. If a team sees something in a player they will get that opportunity. Its just a matter of time and taking opportunities when they come. While one player may need more freedom to learn, others need less. One can make an argument that playing with greats and/or vets or being given time to develop away from the court has helped some players learn and develop faster. It may be exactly what some players are lacking to get them to that next level.
    Your previous paragraph and example says different. Look at Jordan Crawford with Atlanta compared to Washington. Look at Darren Collison when Paul was injured last year. All players learn differently but there is no other learning experience like actual playing time.

    Look I know this is stemming from fans wanting the Raps to be better and faster. Especially since the next draft is classified as the best in a decade and it would be a great opportunity for the team. But what about the Indiana's or Philly's of the world. Make the playoffs simply by a function of being the best of worst, lacking star power to make that contending team, and now they get stuck having to turn 2 2nd rounders into something special, remaining a middling team for a few years until it falls apart, or blowing it up and starting over. Its bad enough for a team like that right now, but with no first round picks it makes it that much harder. (Hell, that may in fact make the tanking even worse than I initially thought. How much better off are you being the 9th or 10th seed team than the 8th?)
    This is not stemming from being a Raptors fan. This is stemming from watching teams stuck in the lottery year in and year out. Indiana and Philadelphia are not going to win regardless of their situation. If you have not read the article, please read it. The 76ers and Pacers are built for mediocrity. The only hope they have of getting better is if a franchise player falls in to their lap in the middle of the first round which is possible but highly unlikely. With this system the owners/management might be willing to tear apart the team and build an actual contender rather than a first round playoff doormat. Look at Milwaukee or Charlotte from 2009-2010 to last season, that is what the Pacers and 76ers have to look forward to. The 76ers and Pacers are already stuck in purgatory in my opinion.

    Now imagine the Raps in that situation. How would one feel if they barely made the playoffs with the current roster (or something similar), didn't get Jonas but 2 2nd rounders instead? I bet NO ONE would want this style draft.
    If the Raptors made the playoffs it would mean the current players have developed and there would have been free agent signings to bolster the roster. Last year was the first year of a tear down, re-tooling, rebuilding, whatever you want to call it. Fielding the most competitive team possible is no longer the prerogative rather building a team to compete for the championship is. The rebuilding process just started. Raps fans should be expecting another 2 trips to the lottery before any playoff appearances (one trip would be phenomenal as it would mean a total rebuild was done in just 2 seasons and 2 drafts).

    I really dislike the idea. You don't fix whats not broken and you aren't going to create parity by eliminating equality. Its just going to create extreme boom and bust cycles with teams (so to speak), and in any given year a team will be much better off as a bust team than a team on its way to a boom. That is not parity.
    It might create a boom and bust for certain teams but overall it should allow teams to get a few decent players in 1-2 drafts versus 3-4 for even the so called successful rebuilds.

    The structure of the draft is ideal how it is.
    Your opinion. Ask a Kings fan or a Warriors fan.

    If its player development people want then they need to look for a way to improve the NBDL (for example, and just an example not necessarily a good idea, treat it more like a farm team and require every rookie to spend atleast one year there). If its parity people want, they league needs to deal with the disparity of resources (ie. money), finding way to ease the burden of out of control/albatross contracts (ie. waivers, partially guaranteed contracts?) and ways to intice the 'stars' to stick around (franchise tag and hard-ish cap).
    All good suggestions as is this idea - in my opinion of course.

  19. #39
    Raptors Republic All-Star Fully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,125
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I have a fundamental problem with the idea. I think it's way too generous to the lottery teams and creates an uneven playing field for the teams that make the playoffs, and yes, even the elite franchises.

    I think the system is fine as it is. Teams that make good use of their high draft picks probably won't stay in the lottery for long but if you make a mess every June then you're probably going to finish near the bottom of the standings, and that's the way it should be. Bottoming out as a franchise shouldn't automatically entitle you to to be back in the playoffs in 2-3 seasons - your front office still needs to make some solid decisions when it comes to the draft.

    Minnesota is a great example. On the surface, they're exactly the type of team that would be aided by these proposed rule changes. They've been in the lottery seven straight years and haven't won more than 33 games for six seasons and running. But they've had 14 first rounders during that span of losing seasons and they've had a staggering seven top 7 draft picks during the same time. The system didn't let the T Wolves down, David Khan did by drafting guys like Corey Brewer, Jonny Flynn and Wesley Johnson when there was better players on the board, drafting two points guards in the top six in 2008, trading Brandon Roy on draft night for Randy Foye, or any of the other boneheaded things he's done in his tenure there. They've had ample opportunities to vastly improve their team through the draft but they've shot themselves in the foot time and time again. I don't see why the solution to this is to give them more draft picks and punish competent franchises in the process.
    Last edited by Fully; Tue Aug 23rd, 2011 at 09:51 PM.

  20. #40
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,362
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Fully wrote: View Post
    I have a fundamental problem with the idea. I think it's way too generous to the lottery teams and creates an uneven playing field for the teams that make the playoffs, and yes, even the elite franchises.

    I think the system is fine as it is. Teams that make good use of their high draft picks probably won't stay in the lottery for long but if you make a mess every June then you're probably going to finish near the bottom of the standings, and that's the way it should be. Bottoming out as a franchise shouldn't automatically entitle you to to be back in the playoffs in 2-3 seasons - your front office still needs to make some solid decisions when it comes to the draft.

    Minnesota is a great example. On the surface, they're a great example of the type of team that would be aided by these proposed rule changes. They've been in the lottery seven straight years and haven't won more than 33 games for six seasons and running. But they've had 14 first rounders during that span of losing seasons and they've had a staggering seven top 7 draft picks during the same time. The system didn't let the T Wolves down, David Khan did by drafting guys like Corey Brewer, Jonny Flynn and Wesley Johnson when there was better players on the board, drafting two points guards in the top six in 2008, trading Brandon Roy on draft night for Randy Foye, or any of the other boneheaded things he's done in his tenure there. They've had ample opportunities to vastly improve their team through the draft but they've shot themselves in the foot time and time again. I don't see why the solution to this is to give them more draft picks and punish competent franchises in the process.
    Solid points.

    The Minnesota example shows, in my opinion, that regardless of the draft process, poor decision and/or bad luck through injuries or players not performing to potential will trump all else. Getting 2 first round draft picks will not ensure teams make it back to the playoffs every 2-3 years but it most certainly would increase the likelihood. Picks still have to be made in real time. The current discussion is like buying a stock in hindsight - imagine picking up AAPL today at 1990's prices. Or, back to basketball, picking Boozer in the 2nd round of 2002 knowing what we know today.

    As the original article stated, this is pretty much a moot point as this is probably at the bottom of the negotiation priority list.

    The discussion has, however, helped me kill day 53 of the lockout!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

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
  •