Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Change to draft order process

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    just as fair as it was for the fans of the now good teams to have to sit through a rebuild.


    And while some of the better teams may not want those guaranteed contracts, they are few and far between. Even if we assume said pick would sit on the bench, the salary cost of late picks is not much and usually much better value than a vet player who would sit in his seat instead. Plus there is more long term potential from that player for the team, and that pick (or player) is also a trade chip. It is still an asset.


    All teams should be given the opportunity to stay highly competitive for the long term and that should be a function of good decision making. Changing the draft so that 'worse' teams get better quicker, and better teams get worse quicker, I do not think is the right approach. It rewards poor decision making and punishes good choices.
    I don't think there is any right or wrong in this debate rather perspective.

    Rewarding poor teams and poor decisions is addressed in the article in post #4.

    The goal of any team is to get a couple of core pieces to build around, grow with those players, and find other to compliment them. Looking at the top teams of the last 5 years (Lakers, Dallas, Nuggets, Spurs, Celtics, Cavs {before this year}, Suns {before this year}) very few have drafted a player that has stepped in and been a rotational player once they were a playoff team (Spurs had Hill, Suns had Lopez) because they already had their core players and 'team' in place - that is why they are good year in and year out.

    Again this is all perspective but I do not perceive this to be a punishment for playoff teams given the use of first round draft picks by upper echelon teams of the last 5-6 seasons. The number of late first round draft picks sold or traded would question the idea of playoff teams wanting the guaranteed contracts of first round draft picks.

    I do agree it could certainly hurt the borderline playoff teams or those stuck in purgatory, however, wouldn't it be poor decision making that got them in that position initially? Might the prospect of two guaranteed first round draft picks help them start a rebuild rather than get stuck on the mediocrity treadmill - especially if trading a good player returns another draft pick(s). Is the goal to win and compete for a championship each year or to get knocked out of the playoffs in the first round each year? The article in post #4 discusses this:

    One of the biggest problems is that teams have to make it through rebuilding processes and because they don’t want to suffer the horror of a true rebuilding year until it’s absolutely necessary, teams will enter purgatory, sticking with marginal contracts to get a few wins which end up being expensive in terms of moving forward and don’t help them. But they don’t have the talent to get by. But multiple picks gets them out of this. It means that if a team drafts well, they’re not trying to suffer through a painful year, but going forward aggressively. And if that team elects not to go completely young, they can trade the secondary pick for better players. It just means that the hole isn’t quite so deep to get back to contention.
    There are two major benefits to this - and again only my perception and opinion:

    1) it could help create a very competitive league (16-18 really good teams versus current 10-12 really good teams),
    2) fans of losing teams can have an extra prayer or hope.

    Regardless of the draft system, poorly managed teams are not going to be very good regardless of draft system and well managed teams will do well.

    Comment


    • #17
      This is interesting. The biggest benefit would be an increase in parity. Basically if you had one season where you had the worst record and got a top three and the 15th pick (two down from where we got Ed) you're already on your way.
      Examples where this would have been rediculous:
      -In '04, someone could have gotten Dwight Howard (1st) and Josh Smith (17th).
      -In '05, Derron Williams (3) and Danny Granger (17)
      -In '06, Brandon Roy (6) and Rojon Rondo (21)
      The list goes on. At the very least this would make watching rebuilding teams more fun. One thing I would be worried about is tanking. This would give teams even more of a reason to try to have the worst record. I'd like to see how it worked in practice.
      "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

      -Churchill

      Comment


      • #18
        hateslosing wrote: View Post
        This is interesting. The biggest benefit would be an increase in parity. Basically if you had one season where you had the worst record and got a top three and the 15th pick (two down from where we got Ed) you're already on your way.
        Examples where this would have been rediculous:
        -In '04, someone could have gotten Dwight Howard (1st) and Josh Smith (17th).
        -In '05, Derron Williams (3) and Danny Granger (17)
        -In '06, Brandon Roy (6) and Rojon Rondo (21)
        The list goes on. At the very least this would make watching rebuilding teams more fun. One thing I would be worried about is tanking. This would give teams even more of a reason to try to have the worst record. I'd like to see how it worked in practice.
        That is along the lines of what I was thinking.

        I think the worst case scenario would be similar to the NFL (not talking draft, talking season play). The well run teams with very good talent would be perennial contenders. Then every year you'd have teams competing who might disappear the next year due to an injury or whatever but fans would still have an entertaining team to cheer and know they have a chance next year.

        Another scenario to consider might be the NBA when the league was smaller. Each team had 2-3 current or near all-stars and games were more games were competitive.

        From a fan perspective of the entire league, I like the idea.

        Comment


        • #19
          hateslosing wrote: View Post
          This is interesting. The biggest benefit would be an increase in parity. Basically if you had one season where you had the worst record and got a top three and the 15th pick (two down from where we got Ed) you're already on your way.
          Examples where this would have been rediculous:
          -In '04, someone could have gotten Dwight Howard (1st) and Josh Smith (17th).
          -In '05, Derron Williams (3) and Danny Granger (17)
          -In '06, Brandon Roy (6) and Rojon Rondo (21)
          The list goes on. At the very least this would make watching rebuilding teams more fun. One thing I would be worried about is tanking. This would give teams even more of a reason to try to have the worst record. I'd like to see how it worked in practice.
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            I think they should consider something along the lines of what MLB does with Free Agents.
            If a team loses a certain calibre player to Free Agency they receive a pick in the corresponding location.

            I think they could alter this rule to take into consideration the teams record as well.

            I think rewarding 2 First Round Picks for EVERY lottery team, while teams JUST on the brink of the Playoffs only have access to Second Round calibre Talent is a bit extreme.

            Comment


            • #21
              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 23, 2011, 11:25 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.
                "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

                -Churchill

                Comment


                • #23
                  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 23, 2011, 01:56 PM.
                  The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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.
                        The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.
                            The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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 23, 2011, 03:23 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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)

                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X