Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker
I like Simmons idea better of giving each team in the lottery the same odds. You stop the late season tanking a little and allow a semi-decent team a chance to grab a star. Look what it did for a team like Chicago who was a fringe playoff team and immediately became a pseudo-contender in the East by the end of the year. Maybe you can give a slight advantage to worse teams so that you don't have teams tanking the 8 seed in the playoffs.
I personally would put every team in the lottery. Weight it down so that the worst team has maybe a 10% chance while the best has under 1%. It wouldn't punish teams like the Pistons who run a good organization and finish in the playoffs every year. They never have a shot at top talent in the draft which is a bit unfair while teams like the Bobcats get to squander picks in the top 5 year in and year out.
The other thing I'd do is not just have the lottery for the top 3 picks. It would be for the whole draft. Again, the odds are not in a team's favor to move up a lot, but it can happen. You might see an Orlando squad get a little lucky and pick 8th this year or something. The championship Bulls squads never really got a chance to add good young talent to their teams. Wouldn't it have been interesting to see them grab a top 10 pick one year to play alongside Jordan? Wouldn't it be entertaining to see a Lakers team have a shot at grabbing a Brandon Jennings? Maybe Miami getting Ricky Rubio?
The problem with the current system is that you have these young stars being brought into inept, shitty organizations. It'll take 4-5 years before most of them can even be on a contender. Do we really want to see a talent like Griffin end up in Memphis or Milwaukee? I'd rather see a Utah or New Orleans have a shot at getting that pick and being able to add him to the puzzle. I think it benefits the NBA as a whole as well as stops rewarding horrible organizations for their failures.
Note: I'm of course a little bias on this but curious what other people think. Was Derrick Rose being on the Bulls (market size out of the equation) better for the NBA than him being drafted by Washington where he'd have won 25 games?
|
I would love a full lottery, every spot up for grabs, no weighing. Aside from being spectacular television, I think it would just make the whole league more interesting.
Blake Griffin to the Clippers is not fun or interesting. Blake Griffin to the Celtics or Hawks or Nuggets or Spurs would be extremely interesting.
The only downside of course is that theoretically, it's harder for bad teams to get better. But I just don't think that would be a huge issue. You still have the salary cap. I think a team like the Clippers might actually benefit. Instead of being in perpetual rebuilding mode, knowing that they can always count on a top-5 guy coming in to give them hope, they'd have to change their outlook and look to build their team in other ways.
You'd have way more trades involving draft picks. Teams wouldn't be able to plan around a few bad seasons and the draft picks that come with them. There would always be pressure to maintain at least an "OK" team, because you never know when the #1 pick will drop in your lap.
This is one of those fun, creative ideas that will never happen with a conservative major league. The only way we'll ever seen any innovation in league structure, in any sport, is if a competitive league ever emerged.