# NBA Getting Rid of Draft Lottery?



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Proposal to change to a wheel system.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86940/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel



> Grantland obtained a copy of the proposal, which would eliminate the draft lottery and replace it with a system in which each of the 30 teams would pick in a specific first-round draft slot once — and exactly once — every 30 years. Each team would simply cycle through the 30 draft slots, year by year, in a predetermined order designed so that teams pick in different areas of the draft each year. Teams would know with 100 percent certainty in which draft slots they would pick every year, up to 30 years out from the start of every 30-year cycle. The practice of protecting picks would disappear; there would never be a Harrison Barnes–Golden State situation again, and it wouldn’t require a law degree to track ownership of every traded pick leaguewide.


Here's how the Wheel would look like:

http://i5.minus.com/iQ6x8xPmn1LGu.png


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

But... it's... so... simple.


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

Wheel o' Picks.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Supposedly a system to prevent tanking.


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

scdn said:


> Supposedly a system to prevent tanking.


Seems like all the leagues are dealing with this.

It makes sense in the current system for teams to play to lose.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Definitely increases the chances for a dynasty. Oh Miami, you just won your third straight championship? Congratulations! Here's Julius Randle!


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Tanking makes sense this year, since you have a relatively greater opportunity to get a franchise player. In most years Tanking is just a poor idea because the benefit is quite minimal. There might be one guy and having the worst record gives you an 80% chance of not getting him. 

Going second might net you a Kevin Durant ever so often and it might get you Michael Beasley. Most of the time the guy you need is not there even if you get the first pick. Tanking just has not been very effective in most cases, because the lottery is a total crapshoot and the team with the most ping pong balls rarely wins.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

What's the Harrison Barnes-golden state situation?

Personally I'm fine with the current system. More often then not, teams dont get better by sucking. That's not how Indiana or Houston built contenders.

And for every okc there's two sacramento and torontos.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Is this just a way to protect GM's from themselves by making bad decisions like tanking? Reminds me of the age limit, because GM's were drafting too many shitty 18 year olds or whatever. Let them fail, let them get fired.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

ATLien said:


> Is this just a way to protect GM's from themselves by making bad decisions like tanking? Reminds me of the age limit, because GM's were drafting too many shitty 18 year olds or whatever. Let them fail, let them get fired.


I think it is POSSIBLE you could look at it as a savior for some bad-GMs but there's another possibility and the perspective I choose to take, and I think its the one that the original author (Lowe) chose to take. Bad GMs are more likely to be given the boot quicker because the system would be set up to eliminate the idea of tanking for a better pick. A shitty GM can't tell his team "look, we're going to need to suck for 3 years to get the core we want, and we can go from there." - effectively giving himself about 5 years before anyone figures out "hey, this guy wasn't just tanking, he actively sucks at his job."

Under this plan - every team, good or bad, has an equal chance at a great draft slot at some point. I, personally, never saw the reasoning behind locking top teams out of top picks. I understand the whole competitive balance thing - but I think giving every team an equal opportunity regardless of finish each season to get at the best players in upcoming drafts is a good thing. This isn't going to turn the NBA into a communist state - it looks like a nice plan to me.

So a team manages to build a chamopionship squad in the years leading into its number-1-pick... Good for them! So what if the Heat built a dynasty, and then just as Lebron and Wade and Bosh are about to be free agents, they get the number one pick and Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker or Julius Randle just fall into their lap... Thats the way it goes. It isn't a role of the dice, every team knows what is coming.

Says this wouldn't be implemented until around 2020 anyway. It'd go into place the year after the last-traded-pick currently out there.


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

helps good teams stay competitive and gets rid of tanking but if a team like Milwaukee got Greg Oden or Andrea Bargnani 1st they'd have to wait for the 7th and 6th picks 4/5 years down the road to try and turn things around


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Vuchato said:


> helps good teams stay competitive and gets rid of tanking but if a team like Milwaukee got Greg Oden or Andrea Bargnani 1st they'd have to wait for the 7th and 6th picks 4/5 years down the road to try and turn things around


And you know what happens if a team like Miami gets an Oden or a Bargnani? They're going to have to wait for the 7th and 6th picks 4/5 years down the road to try for a hit again as well. They wouldn't be looking for a turnaround like Milwaukee - but all teams would have the same consequences for a miss.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

An issue I see here is lets say a top "once in a generation" prospect has a chance to enter the draft under year X (which lets say, the Minnesota, Charlotte or Milwaukee..etc have the pick) or wait one or 2 years to get on team Y (Miami, New York, LA...etc) 

I can see the draft prospect holding out 1, 2 more years in order to get on that better or more marketable team. You know there will be some back door shenanigans going on persuading him to stay longer to "make it big"


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

OneBadLT123 said:


> An issue I see here is lets say a top "once in a generation" prospect has a chance to enter the draft under year X (which lets say, the Minnesota, Charlotte or Milwaukee..etc have the pick) or wait one or 2 years to get on team Y (Miami, New York, LA...etc)
> 
> I can see the draft prospect holding out 1, 2 more years in order to get on that better or more marketable team. You know there will be some back door shenanigans going on persuading him to stay longer to "make it big"


I don't feel like that would be a problem. Why delay your second contract by two years? Rookie contracts are fixed, no? One million dollars today will always be worth more than one million dollars tomorrow.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

OneBadLT123 said:


> An issue I see here is lets say a top "once in a generation" prospect has a chance to enter the draft under year X (which lets say, the Minnesota, Charlotte or Milwaukee..etc have the pick) or wait one or 2 years to get on team Y (Miami, New York, LA...etc)
> 
> I can see the draft prospect holding out 1, 2 more years in order to get on that better or more marketable team. You know there will be some back door shenanigans going on persuading him to stay longer to "make it big"


Exactly what I was coming in to write.

Hey superstar consensus #1 overall pick, if you declare this year you're going to the Utah Jazz, or if you declare the year after you're going to the LA Lakers.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

ATLien said:


> I don't feel like that would be a problem. Why delay your second contract by two years? Rookie contracts are fixed, no? One million dollars today will always be worth more than one million dollars tomorrow.


Thats not my point. This would give the players coming out full control as to which teams they go to. They can plan this out as soon as they enter as a freshman. If they dont want to play for team X, wait one year to go to team Y. 

Contracts are one thing, but then endorsements, market size, lifestyle...etc can play major factors. 

I mean if you had a chance to wait one year and go to the Lakers or Miami over lets say...Utah... You know damn well a 19 year old will go


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I guess if a player is 50/50 about if they want to declare or return to school, that would come into play. But my guess is most prospects don't like working for free, and will leave as early as possible


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

OneBadLT123 said:


> Thats not my point. This would give the players coming out full control as to which teams they go to. They can plan this out as soon as they enter as a freshman. If they dont want to play for team X, wait one year to go to team Y.
> 
> Contracts are one thing, but then endorsements, market size, lifestyle...etc can play major factors.
> 
> I mean if you had a chance to wait one year and go to the Lakers or Miami over lets say...Utah... You know damn well a 19 year old will go


Yep. Plus I could see a lot more Kobe Bryanting going on. 

If you're a top prospect who's 3 years away from the draft and you know LA is picking 3rd, I can see a lot of young players saying "Well I really hope I land in LA. I only want to play there." and blah blah blah.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ATLien said:


> I guess if a player is 50/50 about if they want to declare or return to school, that would come into play. But my guess is most prospects don't like working for free, and will leave as early as possible


Marcus Smart anyone?


Players will play another year and live like kings on campus to play for a good team. 


There small market owners will never agree to this setup so its a moot point.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

R-Star said:


> Marcus Smart anyone?
> 
> 
> Players will play another year and live like kings on campus to play for a good team.
> ...


Harrison Barnes and Jared Sullinger also went back for another year when they were likely top-ten picks, although the impending lockout may have played into that as well. Enough guys have stayed an extra year for one reason or another that it isn't unthinkable a star could duck a draft they didn't like the order of.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Marcus Smart anyone?
> 
> 
> Players will play another year and live like kings on campus to play for a good team.
> ...


I like it. My team doesn't get ****ed by actually trying to build a playoff team, instead of actively trying to lose as many games as possible.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

ChrisWoj said:


> And you know what happens if a team like Miami gets an Oden or a Bargnani? They're going to have to wait for the 7th and 6th picks 4/5 years down the road to try for a hit again as well. They wouldn't be looking for a turnaround like Milwaukee - but all teams would have the same consequences for a miss.


No, Miami has the option of signing top free agents. Milwaukee, not so much.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

How about they do something logical for a change and eliminate the max salary, keep the cap in place, and then just eliminate the draft entirely? I know, I know, it makes far more sense to make sure that shitty teams stay bad for a generation to eliminate a non-problem.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Who is to say a consensus #1 pick will be the #1 pick the next year? What if "his" team decides on another player at 1 the next draft? He has to hope he falls to 30 the draft after that?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Being a guy who absolutely loves almost every NBA trade that has ever gone down, I can't think of enough positives about what this would do for the trade machine. If GMx knows for a fact that he's trading GMy the 20th pick two seasons from now and GMy knows for a fact that's what he's getting, they might have slightly different philosophical ideas of the value of that pick based on multiple factors... but it has to make negotiations smoother, right? 

I can't imagine how many trades die because guys can't agree on which picks to include because they don't know for sure whether or not their teams will be any good in those future seasons. I have to think this model would improve player movement.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

As E.H. Munro said, I think it's smart to penalize teams that sign ridiculous contracts. Shorten the rookie scale contract years and let young players still in development stage choose the teams that can afford them (for playing time/money/whatever). And give equal chance at lotto to all non-playoffs teams. Kinda will make lotto little less relevant but shifts the balance to smart team management, as in player evaluation, maintaining flexibility, etc. Just my two cents.



> However early in the process or raw the proposal, however, it's an incredibly positive sign that the league realizes they have an incentive problem and are looking at ways to fix it.


There's no way proposed predetermined order draft system could replace what we have in place right now but it's cool that they're at least thinking about improving the system to discourage teams from tanking.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I like that they're exploring ways to eliminate the incentive to tank. People always point to how tanking doesn't work (and it rarely does), but the problem is more about the incentive to tank creating less competitive teams. If there was no incentive to tank, I think the worst teams in the league would be much more competitive. 

This idea is pretty extreme and is not without problems, but the current system is not without problems either. They need to keep exploring ideas.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I like that they're exploring ways to eliminate the incentive to tank. People always point to how tanking doesn't work (and it rarely does), but the problem is more about the incentive to tank creating less competitive teams. If there was no incentive to tank, I think the worst teams in the league would be much more competitive.
> 
> This idea is pretty extreme and is not without problems, but the current system is not without problems either. They need to keep exploring ideas.


i personally think the current system is completely fine. it may not be perfect but the incentive to tank is really only there for people that don't know how to run a team (or took over a team that was in an awful situation due to someone else being incompetent). those people will end up screwing up whether tanking or not, so they really just need to be replaced rather than replacing the system as a whole.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

How much do teams financially benefit from making the playoffs in the 5 - 8 seed if they get knocked out in round one? That needs to be enough to motivate the top 20 teams to push for the playoffs.

Then make the bottom 10 a flat out lottery. No rules that you can't get lower than 3rd with the worst record or anything like that.

Then the next 12 teams could also be a flat out lottery for picks 11 - 22. Then the top eight sides that had home court in the first round playoffs pick in order of regular season record.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

There are about 10 teams actively tanking this year. The current system has to go. The proposed system has flaws but it's definitely better than what we have right now.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Adam said:


> There are about 10 teams actively tanking this year. The current system has to go. The proposed system has flaws but it's definitely better than what we have right now.


Well, better if you want to see a smaller league since it would lead to franchises being bad for a generation and the NBA savaging its American fan base. It would allow for the creation of a European league, though.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

edabomb said:


> How much do teams financially benefit from making the playoffs in the 5 - 8 seed if they get knocked out in round one? That needs to be enough to motivate the top 20 teams to push for the playoffs.
> 
> Then make the bottom 10 a flat out lottery. No rules that you can't get lower than 3rd with the worst record or anything like that.
> 
> Then the next 12 teams could also be a flat out lottery for picks 11 - 22. Then the top eight sides that had home court in the first round playoffs pick in order of regular season record.


You would still have people tanking to get a better chance at the top picks with that. The benefit of landing a superstar player is too great. Dan Gilbert lost hundreds of millions when LeBron left his team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> i personally think the current system is completely fine. it may not be perfect but the incentive to tank is really only there for people that don't know how to run a team (or took over a team that was in an awful situation due to someone else being incompetent). those people will end up screwing up whether tanking or not, so they really just need to be replaced rather than replacing the system as a whole.


Most of the time it's bad GM's and owners that tank by virtue of the worst teams usually having the worst GM's, but it can be used effectively by good GM's who hit bottom for a short time looking for a quick bounce back. Regardless of who is using the strategy and how good of a GM they are, the temptation to do it is undoubtedly there. It's a system that rewards short term losers with a long term asset. Even if it's all bad GM's doing it, the league can at least protect itself from the bad decisions (some of them anyways) of those bad GM's. This would improve the overall product top to bottom. 

For the record, I don't think the current system is completely broken and terrible. It's fine, but I think it could definitely be better.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Adam said:


> You would still have people tanking to get a better chance at the top picks with that. The benefit of landing a superstar player is too great. Dan Gilbert lost hundreds of millions when LeBron left his team.


My problem with the proposed system is major market teams will benefit massively. As pointed out earlier I can't see any way a team like Milwaukee could compete under that model.

It is almost impossible to think of a system that wouldn't benefit sophisticated tanking though.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

edabomb said:


> My problem with the proposed system is major market teams will benefit massively. As pointed out earlier I can't see any way a team like Milwaukee could compete under that model.
> 
> It is almost impossible to think of a system that wouldn't benefit sophisticated tanking though.


It has nothing to do with market. Perhaps you meant "dominant teams will benefit massively." Indiana is not a big market. OKC is not a big market.

Milwaukee isn't competing under the current system are they? There are more factors that go into winning and this system also makes a team picking first pick at the end of the draft afterwards.

You can get the #1 pick and still be complete shit (Cleveland). This proposed system is to eliminate tanking, and it also has subtle affects on player movement and balances the market in a lot of cool ways. You might not see Billy King trading away all your team's draft picks.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Also would stop the conspiracy theories of who wins the draft lottery.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Adam said:


> There are about 10 teams actively tanking this year. The current system has to go. The proposed system has flaws but it's definitely better than what we have right now.


10 teams? Being a bad team doesn't mean they are tanking


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Adam said:


> It has nothing to do with market. Perhaps you meant "dominant teams will benefit massively." Indiana is not a big market. OKC is not a big market.
> 
> Milwaukee isn't competing under the current system are they? There are more factors that go into winning and this system also makes a team picking first pick at the end of the draft afterwards.
> 
> You can get the #1 pick and still be complete shit (Cleveland). This proposed system is to eliminate tanking, and it also has subtle affects on player movement and balances the market in a lot of cool ways. You might not see Billy King trading away all your team's draft picks.


I'm not necessarily sure high performing teams like OKC and Indiana's position would benefit long term. They would get some nice picks to use for 3-4 years and then it would be like the Harden situation where they have to trade him for an expiring contract rather than pay luxury tax.

Now if in line with this there was to be a flat line salary cap introduced I could get on board.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This would improve the overall product top to bottom.


i would argue that a system that had each team pick in the 30 draft slots once every 30 years would reduce the overall product top to bottom. the top would very likely see an improvement but it would mean bad things for the middle and bottom.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

This is dumb.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

Dissonance said:


> This is dumb.


This.


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

Terrible idea. It gets rid of tanking sure... by putting small market teams at an even greater disadvantage than they're currently at.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> What's the Harrison Barnes-golden state situation?


So no one knows the answer huh?


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> So no one knows the answer huh?


http://www.businessinsider.com/golden-state-warriors-nba-tanking-2013-5


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Updates from Sloan:

1) According to Mike Zarren of the Celtics (who came up with this wheel idea), the current NBA pick protection list is 72 pages long and contains information about picks that have been traded as far as 7 years out from now. Therefore, the earliest any new system could be put in place would be the 2021-22 season.

2) Zarren is in favor of randomizing the top 3 picks each year (while using the wheel for the other 27 slots).

3) Adam Silver says this is the best idea he has seen for revamping the draft process. He has liked it since he first read the proposal over two years ago. He thinks it makes logical sense and he will be pushing to get it approved at the next owners meetings.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I don't see how you can randomize the first three draft slots, that makes this scheme, which is already biblically bad for the small market teams, utterly horrific. As in you may as well contract the Milwaukee Bucks now bad. 

I mean the draft is already hard enough on the small market teams, with at least one draft a decade that's an utter horror show. Telling the small market teams that they only get one top three pick a decade is bad enough, but to then compound that by saying "Oh, and there's no guarantee that you're even going to get a #1, so there's a pretty good chance that you're going to suck for a generation" is going to wreak havoc on franchise values. I can't imagine the small market owners go for this at all.

Is there any reason that the far more logical solution of assigning the teams with the two worst records picks 4 & 5 isn't being considered? Or even the three worst 4-6. That would prevent the current Sixers embarrassment (to wit their basically giving away decent NBA players for nothing to avoid winning games).


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Dissonance said:


> This is dumb.


What's dumb is to see 1/3 of the NBA tanking in hopes to land maybe 2-3 good players.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Pablo5 said:


> What's dumb is to see 1/3 of the NBA tanking in hopes to land maybe 2-3 good players.


If it's better for the teams' future, why not?

Some teams will be bad, that's just the way it is. Even if they try. It's impossible for everyone to try and compete. Only so little talent to do so. Or you be one of those mediocre teams who sign mid level talent or worse to bigger deals than they should. Make your situation worse.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Dissonance said:


> If it's better for the teams' future, why not?
> 
> Some teams will be bad, that's just the way it is. Even if they try. It's impossible for everyone to try and compete. Only so little talent to do so. Or you be one of those mediocre teams who sign mid level talent or worse to bigger deals than they should. Make your situation worse.


So how did the lottery work for Sac, Philly, and the other teams that were in the top 15 last year. I have season ticket for my local team in which im not a fan of, but being a fan of the NBA it's hard to watch such crap that the NBA has become. 

I think this move with the move of restricting players to enter the NBA before a certain age would better the college/nba game from a fundemental standpoint.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

The college game sucks like Lindsay Lohan after a night of pounding Jagrmeisters. If the NBA really wants better "fundamental" basketball the easiest solution is to start a league in the midwest in the St.Louis/KC region, lower the draft age to 16, increase the roster size to accommodate a full minor league roster and basically let the young'uns compete there. High school/AAU and the NCAA might hate it, but ****'em. Plus, everyone knew that last year's draft was a horror show before the year started, I don't think anyone went into 2013 with the goal of maximising their losses to draft a marginally better roleplayer.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

A better solution is to have the only option for kids that want to declare right out of high school is to go to the NBDL for a number of years. They will be paid and they can pratice their craft as much as possible without penalty from the NCAA.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

I don't like the idea of basically knowing your pick years in the future. It seems like it would definitely limit the value of picks in trades since there won't be that "potential for a high pick" situation.

Also, I simply don't like the idea of say the Champs or a super team(hell even a playoff team) having a guaranteed top 3 pick. The draft should be to help improve the bad teams and to allow small, less desirable markets the chance to get a hold of a franchise player. Granted it hasn't worked out for some teams but I don't see this new system changing that at all.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

l0st1 said:


> I don't like the idea of basically knowing your pick years in the future. It seems like it would definitely limit the value of picks in trades since there won't be that "potential for a high pick" situation.
> 
> *Also, I simply don't like the idea of say the Champs or a super team(hell even a playoff team) having a guaranteed top 3 pick. The draft should be to help improve the bad teams and to allow small, less desirable markets the chance to get a hold of a franchise player.* Granted it hasn't worked out for some teams but I don't see this new system changing that at all.


The problem with this statement is that the small market teams hasn't valued the draft like they should. Look at Philly, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. They have tanked in previous years and its sad to see another season with Philly and Milwaukee towards the bottom of the standings for another year.


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

Pablo5 said:


> The problem with this statement is that the small market teams hasn't valued the draft like they should. Look at Philly, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. They have tanked in previous years and its sad to see another season with Philly and Milwaukee towards the bottom of the standings for another year.


and they'll get high picks each year until they get better. with this wheel system they'd be stuck as a bad team getting role players three years in a row until they get the 8th pick in a mediocre draft and hope that player can turn the team around singlehandedly.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Vuchato said:


> and they'll get high picks each year until they get better. with this wheel system they'd be stuck as a bad team getting role players three years in a row until they get the 8th pick in a mediocre draft and hope that player can turn the team around singlehandedly.


You think you will find 50% of NBA fans to argue the point that Milwaukee should any have a NBA team? I have always said the NBA should be a few teams less.

Look at Cleveland. Right now their best player wants out bad and why is that? I would probably think that selecting a bum at #1 would make your star player want out….


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

Pablo5 said:


> You think you will find 50% of NBA fans to argue the point that Milwaukee should any have a NBA team? I have always said the NBA should be a few teams less.
> 
> Look at Cleveland. Right now their best player wants out bad and why is that? I would probably think that selecting a bum at #1 would make your star player want out….


well if this wheel forces teams to get competent management that'd be nice, but if Cleveland can't put a decent team around Kyrie with 3 top 5 picks I doubt they'd do better with mid-late firsts.

the wheel would stop teams from being intentionally bad to turn things around, teams would instead be unintentionally bad and stuck that way for years. If a team uses their only top 3 pick of the decade on a guy who has injury issues like Oden, or doesn't pan out like Derrick Williams, or it comes during an awful draft and your best choice is Otto Porter, they'd have little chance of being relevant for the entire decade if they can't attract free agents or get a steal in another draft.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Vuchato said:


> well if this wheel forces teams to get competent management that'd be nice, but if Cleveland can't put a decent team around Kyrie with 3 top 5 picks I doubt they'd do better with mid-late firsts.
> 
> the wheel would stop teams from being intentionally bad to turn things around, teams would instead be unintentionally bad and stuck that way for years. If a team uses their only top 3 pick of the decade on a guy who has injury issues like Oden, or doesn't pan out like Derrick Williams, or it comes during an awful draft and your best choice is Otto Porter, they'd have little chance of being relevant for the entire decade if they can't attract free agents or get a steal in another draft.


the biggest problems for years with the bottom feeders are that they draft like shit and expect a diamond. case in point Cleveland past draft @ #1


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Pablo5 said:


> The problem with this statement is that the small market teams hasn't valued the draft like they should. Look at Philly, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. They have tanked in previous years and its sad to see another season with Philly and Milwaukee towards the bottom of the standings for another year.


Why does this matter? So instead we should not even give them the chance to get a top pick? It's not that they didn't value it it's that they just missed on their pick. It's really easy for us to sit here and criticize how teams have drafted.

I'd much rather have the bad teams get the top picks, if they miss on them that just means the better teams will have a shot at a better player. Instead of giving the top teams a guaranteed top pick. What if say Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio or Detroit landed Kevin Durant? Or Detroit, San Antonio or Sacramento landed Lebron?

This wheel system is stupid, imo. Just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

5th worst record gets #1 pick
4th worst record gets #2 pick
3rd worst record gets #3 pick
2nd worst record gets #4 pick
Worst record gets #5 pick

Everybody else based off record.

Marcus For Commissioner


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

the wheel system is among the dumbest ideas ever. probably worse than changing the basketball. the nba has been coming up with a lot of stupid ideas recently and I wouldn't be surprised if adam silver was the main reason why.

at least nothing is more stupid than those t-shirt jerseys.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

RollWithEm said:


> 2) Zarren is in favor of randomizing the top 3 picks each year (while using the wheel for the other 27 slots).


This would defeat the whole purpose.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

If there's one thing this thread hammers home, it's just how overextended the NBA is. If the league has to bend _that_ far backward to assist hopeless franchises like Milwaukee, New Orleans, Charlotte, etc., to no avail, then why the **** are they even around in the first place? The wheel idea is whatever, but I'd rather Silver and friends do something truly useful and put their efforts into getting rid of 4-6 teams.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

This is the best idea ever to block the tanking.

NBA assigns the bottom 5 teams to NBA development league next season.

All of us can see Kobe, Gasol and Nash to play in the development league next 3 seasons. Isn't that wonderful?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Pablo5 said:


> Look at Philly, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. They have tanked in previous years


Milwaukee and Charlotte haven't. "Been bad" isn't the same as "tanked". 

The running joke about Milwaukee is that they've consistently prioritized making the playoffs over bottoming out, mostly winding up with 7/8 seeds and first-round blowouts. They aren't this bad this year because they decided it was better to tank for the lottery - they tried to put together a veteran playoff team, only OJ Mayo showed up fat, Larry Sanders has missed most of the season due to issues both on and off the court, and the locker room wound up toxic. 

Charlotte's last couple seasons aren't the result of a focused tank, either - it's what happens when you go all-out to make the playoffs with middling veterans, and then they get old. The seven-win season was, in reality, the aftermath of Charlotte doing everything they could to make the playoffs with a team built around middling veterans (and succeeding), and then having those players get old/fat. 

The wheel system isn't going to do anything to prevent the third-tier guys that also-rans will have to build their teams around from getting old.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

c_dog said:


> the wheel system is among the dumbest ideas ever. probably worse than changing the basketball. the nba has been coming up with a lot of stupid ideas recently and I wouldn't be surprised if adam silver was the main reason why.
> 
> at least nothing is more stupid than those t-shirt jerseys.


Well, it's fantastic for large market teams. Not so coincidentally the idea was proposed by a front office member of a large market franchise.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Floods said:


> If there's one thing this thread hammers home, it's just how overextended the NBA is. If the league has to bend _that_ far backward to assist hopeless franchises like Milwaukee, New Orleans, Charlotte, etc., to no avail, then why the **** are they even around in the first place? The wheel idea is whatever, but I'd rather Silver and friends do something truly useful and put their efforts into getting rid of 4-6 teams.


BINGO! you can now lock and close the thread!!!!


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Floods said:


> If there's one thing this thread hammers home, it's just how overextended the NBA is. If the league has to bend _that_ far backward to assist hopeless franchises like Milwaukee, New Orleans, Charlotte, etc., to no avail, then why the **** are they even around in the first place? The wheel idea is whatever, but I'd rather Silver and friends do something truly useful and put their efforts into getting rid of 4-6 teams.





Pablo5 said:


> BINGO! you can now lock and close the thread!!!!


Again - Milwaukee isn't a team that's constantly sitting at the bottom of the standings and just can't seem to draft a decent player. They've spent most of the last decade years doing exactly what implementing the wheel would seek to encourage, which should tell you something.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Floods said:


> If there's one thing this thread hammers home, it's just how overextended the NBA is. If the league has to bend _that_ far backward to assist hopeless franchises like Milwaukee, New Orleans, Charlotte, etc., to no avail, then why the **** are they even around in the first place? The wheel idea is whatever, but I'd rather Silver and friends do something truly useful and put their efforts into getting rid of 4-6 teams.


As eliminating four to six teams would cost the rest of the league somewhere in the neighbourhood of _three billion_ dollars it has a snowball's chance in Guatemala of occurring.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

People are only complaining because this draft class is stacked. Next year when it's not nearly as good no one will give a shit if someone is tanking. Keep the system we have now


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

The league is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Just like when they changed basketballs. Except, there will not be an easy fix for this once it screws up and if I am a team like Memphis, this is the last year I compete with this "pretty good team with no chance at a title" or you will likely be stuck there for eternity. I can tell you this, if it weren't for the lottery (even though Memphis picked the wrong guy almost every time), I likely have zero interest in my team during bad seasons. None. Zip. Zilch. 

One thing they ignore with the lottery and "tanking". The fan bases of bad teams are engaged in talking about their team. There is a lot of value in that as a business model.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> The league is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Just like when they changed basketballs. Except, there will not be an easy fix for this once it screws up and if I am a team like Memphis, this is the last year I compete with this "pretty good team with no chance at a title" or you will likely be stuck there for eternity. I can tell you this, if it weren't for the lottery (even though Memphis picked the wrong guy almost every time), I likely have zero interest in my team during bad seasons. None. Zip. Zilch.
> 
> One thing they ignore with the lottery and "tanking". The fan bases of bad teams are engaged in talking about their team. There is a lot of value in that as a business model.


Its easy for the Lakers, Celtics and Heats of the world to complain about the lottery. The next Lebron isn't going to leave the team who drafted him to play in Milwaukee though. The next Kobe isn't going to force a draft day trade to get him to his childhood favorite Bobcats either. The only people against the lotto are stories franchises who don't have to live through the draft. 

They're the minority on this discussion.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> The only people against the lotto are stories franchises who don't have to live through the draft.
> 
> They're the minority on this discussion.


Like I said, it ain't a coincidence that this idea comes from Boston's Assistant GM


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> The only people against the lotto are stories franchises who don't have to live through the draft.
> 
> They're the minority on this discussion.


I'm not against the lotto, myself. I just think the best way to do it was the first way the NBA did it. No more weight should be given to the teams with the worst records. Every one of the non-playoff teams should get their name in the hat exactly one time. The first three names pulled out should get the first three picks. Cut and dry.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

LeGoat06 said:


> People are only complaining because this draft class is stacked. Next year when it's not nearly as good no one will give a shit if someone is tanking. Keep the system we have now


Until the talent hits the floor the draft day HYPE is useless. I remember so called experts compairing Ben McLemore to Lebron. Tell how his 7.8 ppg is working out in Sac. This draft is over hyped like the rest.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

MemphisX said:


> The league is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Just like when they changed basketballs. Except, there will not be an easy fix for this once it screws up and if I am a team like Memphis, this is the last year I compete with this "pretty good team with no chance at a title" or you will likely be stuck there for eternity. *I can tell you this, if it weren't for the lottery (even though Memphis picked the wrong guy almost every time), I likely have zero interest in my team during bad seasons. None. Zip. Zilch*.
> 
> One thing they ignore with the lottery and "tanking". The fan bases of bad teams are engaged in talking about their team. There is a lot of value in that as a business model.


Fareweather aye?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> I'm not against the lotto, myself. I just think the best way to do it was the first way the NBA did it. No more weight should be given to the teams with the worst records. Every one of the non-playoff teams should get their name in the hat exactly one time. The first three names pulled out should get the first three picks. Cut and dry.


I'm not overly against that idea. In fact I think I may like it better. 

Gives the team who guts it out and tries their hardest all season only to narrowly miss the playoffs the same shot as some shit squad like Philly to win the draft.

You know what? Sign me up.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

or it could give teams that are in the 8-9 spot more reason to tank because they'll have a shot at the number 1 pick versus getting bounced out in the first round.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> or it could give teams that are in the 8-9 spot more reason to tank because they'll have a shot at the number 1 pick versus getting bounced out in the first round.


1 or two teams tanking to me is a hell of a lot better than watching the shit fest that's going on in the league right now. 

Portland or Pheonix deciding to take a shot at winning the lotto is worlds better than Philly, Orlando, Utah and others blatantly tanking all season.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

RollWithEm said:


> I'm not against the lotto, myself. I just think the best way to do it was the first way the NBA did it. No more weight should be given to the teams with the worst records. Every one of the non-playoff teams should get their name in the hat exactly one time. The first three names pulled out should get the first three picks. Cut and dry.


I always preferred that method. Never understood why they incentivized losing like they did. I mean I guess it's supposed to give a bigger edge to those that are struggling the most but it hasn't really made a difference since they rarely actually hold their place in the top 3 anyway.


Going back to this method is definitely a better decision than the dumbass wheel.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

from what I see, the Sixers and possibly Milwaukee are the only teams that are seriously and shamelessly tanking. More so the Sizers than the Bucks who are missing Larry Sanders. The Lakers have been ravaged by injury and Orlando is just very young and rebuilding. Same can be said of Boston after the trade of the Big 3 and their best player coming off ACL surgery. I honestly don't think the Jazz and Sacramento are trying to suck. they're just a step above where Orlando is in the rebuild. What the Sixers are doing trading away viable young talent like Evans for nothing is blatant tanking though. Thats just one team though.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

R-Star said:


> I'm not overly against that idea. In fact I think I may like it better.
> 
> Gives the team who guts it out and tries their hardest all season only to narrowly miss the playoffs the same shot as some shit squad like Philly to win the draft.
> 
> You know what? Sign me up.


I like that idea too. I don't even mind doing an equally-weighted draft that draws for more than the top 3, possibly even the entire lotto. It still gives bad teams a guarantee of not being trapped at the bottom of the draft for two years but doesn't penalize mediocrity as much. You don't mind building the ninth- or tenth-best team in your conference as much if you have a decent shot of getting a top-five pick to add to it. 



King Sancho Fantastic said:


> or it could give teams that are in the 8-9 spot more reason to tank because they'll have a shot at the number 1 pick versus getting bounced out in the first round.


A) How many teams do you _really_ think would pass up the extra revenue generated by a postseason appearance for a 1-in-14 shot at a top pick?

B) Is there any evidence of this happening when the league had this system?

C) Is a team tanking it's way to 38 wins really such a problem, considering what we have now?



King Sancho Fantastic said:


> from what I see, the Sixers and possibly Milwaukee are the only teams that are seriously and shamelessly tanking.


I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that Milwaukee's openly tanking the season. They gave it an honest effort at an eight-seed this season but had everything that could go wrong happen. The Lakers giving Kobe that extension is more indefensible than anything the Bucks did this year.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I'm not overly against that idea. In fact I think I may like it better.
> 
> Gives the team who guts it out and tries their hardest all season only to narrowly miss the playoffs the same shot as some shit squad like Philly to win the draft.
> 
> You know what? Sign me up.





l0st1 said:


> I always preferred that method. Never understood why they incentivized losing like they did. I mean I guess it's supposed to give a bigger edge to those that are struggling the most but it hasn't really made a difference since they rarely actually hold their place in the top 3 anyway.
> 
> 
> Going back to this method is definitely a better decision than the dumbass wheel.


Another alternative (that I heard Zach Lowe mention) would be to slightly alter the weighted system by "lotto-picking" the entire first 14 picks rather than just the top 3. So the worst teams would still have the highest probability of getting a top pick, but the team with the absolute worst record would not be guaranteed a top 4 pick at worst. 

However statistically unlikely, the worst team in the league would have a chance at picking 14th overall and the best non-playoff team would have a chance at landing anywhere between 1 and 14 (rather than only having a shot at being 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 14th).


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Pablo5 said:


> Until the talent hits the floor the draft day HYPE is useless. I remember so called experts compairing Ben McLemore to Lebron. Tell how his 7.8 ppg is working out in Sac. This draft is over hyped like the rest.


Who the hell compared McLemore to LeBron.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

RollWithEm said:


> Another alternative (that I heard Zach Lowe mention) would be to slightly alter the weighted system by "lotto-picking" the entire first 14 picks rather than just the top 3. So the worst teams would still have the highest probability of getting a top pick, but the team with the absolute worst record would not be guaranteed a top 4 pick at worst.
> 
> However statistically unlikely, the worst team in the league would have a chance at picking 14th overall and the best non-playoff team would have a chance at landing anywhere between 1 and 14 (rather than only having a shot at being 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 14th).


I had thought about that as well. Though I'm not sure if that change would really have much impact. I mean how often do 3 teams move up now? When was the last time that happened? Maybe if they changed the amount of weight each team is given to make it a bit more spread out. But all that's doing is hurting the bad teams and benefitting the good teams.

Is there a way to just punish the teams that are tanking? Are there guidelines the league could set forth that define what's considered tanking vs rebuilding and if somebody breaks it they get some sort of penalty. Whether that be lose a draft selection or automatically get like the 14th pick or something.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

RollWithEm said:


> Another alternative (that I heard Zach Lowe mention) would be to slightly alter the weighted system by "lotto-picking" the entire first 14 picks rather than just the top 3. So the worst teams would still have the highest probability of getting a top pick, but the team with the absolute worst record would not be guaranteed a top 4 pick at worst.
> 
> However statistically unlikely, the worst team in the league would have a chance at picking 14th overall and the best non-playoff team would have a chance at landing anywhere between 1 and 14 (rather than only having a shot at being 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 14th).


I like lotto-picking the entire lottery with the "one team, one entry" model.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Bogg said:


> I like that idea too. I don't even mind doing an equally-weighted draft that draws for more than the top 3, possibly even the entire lotto. It still gives bad teams a guarantee of not being trapped at the bottom of the draft for two years but doesn't penalize mediocrity as much. You don't mind building the ninth- or tenth-best team in your conference as much if you have a decent shot of getting a top-five pick to add to it.


If anything I think the fact that it would encourage teams to always go for the playoffs since there is now no benefit to losing more games, would actually help teams build faster. 

Take the Sixers for example, they could of held on to any of Holiday, Turner or Hawes and still gotten a chance at a top pick. Which would clearly make them better suited for next year. Not to mention it would help keep fans interested in their team, and thus the league, which should only spike revenue as well.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

l0st1 said:


> If anything I think the fact that it would encourage teams to always go for the playoffs since there is now no benefit to losing more games, would actually help teams build faster.
> 
> Take the Sixers for example, they could of held on to any of Holiday, Turner or Hawes and still gotten a chance at a top pick. Which would clearly make them better suited for next year. Not to mention it would help keep fans interested in their team, and thus the league, which should only spike revenue as well.


Well, they have a much better chance at a top pick this year under the current system, and they probably _still_ trade Holiday for two lottery picks under either system, but it takes away the rewards of being biblically awful without completely disassociating draft order with performance (most importantly keeping the very best rookies from being placed on the very best teams).


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Bogg said:


> Well, they have a much better chance at a top pick this year under the current system, and they probably _still_ trade Holiday for two lottery picks under either system, but it takes away the rewards of being biblically awful without completely disassociating draft order with performance (most importantly keeping the very best rookies from being placed on the very best teams).


Oh, I realize that. But it would take away the incentive of shipping Turner and Hawes out for nothing just to lose more games and get ping pong balls. My point was moreso that, that wouldn't happen if all lottery participants were weighted equally.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

l0st1 said:


> Oh, I realize that. But it would take away the incentive of shipping Turner and Hawes out for nothing just to lose more games and get ping pong balls. My point was moreso that, that wouldn't happen if all lottery participants were weighted equally.


Yea, agreed. Hell, if anything, Philly might have made one or two buy-low moves on guys that are useful but wouldn't threaten to push them into a playoff spot this season. Of course, you also run the risk of a team that's unintentionally terrible, like the Bucks this season, getting frozen out of the top prospects and having to run it back next year with something like this roster plus Rodney Hood, which isn't quite as reassuring as what the Bucks fans are looking at now.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Who the hell compared McLemore to LeBron.


Nobody. Pablo just really, reaaaaaaaalllllly loves Lebron. 

So he thinks everything in the whole basketball world must be about him.

I've never met any posters like that before for it was a bit of a shock to me....


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Bogg said:


> Yea, agreed. Hell, if anything, Philly might have made one or two buy-low moves on guys that are useful but wouldn't threaten to push them into a playoff spot this season. Of course, you also run the risk of a team that's unintentionally terrible, like the Bucks this season, getting frozen out of the top prospects and having to run it back next year with something like this roster plus Rodney Hood, which isn't quite as reassuring as what the Bucks fans are looking at now.


That's true, but there can't really be a perfect system. At least not entirely. And drafts being crap shoots doesn't guarantee anything. I mean the look at the Cavs recent drafts for evidence of that. I'd say this method keeps it more balanced than every team rotating around a wheel.

Or hell, even cut the lottery into two lotteries. Bottom 7 teams get picked 1-7 with one entry per team. Then 8-14 do the same. That way a team like the Bucks that are just having a shitty year would be stuck with the 14th pick or something. Though that would probably still lead to teams tanking to improve their draft stock I guess.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> from what I see, the Sixers and possibly Milwaukee are the only teams that are seriously and shamelessly tanking. More so the Sizers than the Bucks who are missing Larry Sanders.


The sad part about Milwaukee is that they _weren't_ tanking. They had every intention of making the playoffs and did everything that the draft wheel's supporters claimed teams would do if there were no lottery. And a 17 win season will be the result. (Christ, unlike the Sixers they even made a trade deadline deal to _improve_ rather than giving away the NBA players on the roster.)


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Why not penalize teams that are consistently in the lottery? Say if your team has had two top 10 picks in the last 3 years they are banned from being in the lottery the year after. Would force teams to start drafting properly or face a penalty of loss of a pick. Then it rewards teams that compete hard by bumping them up into the draft lottery in place of the non eligible team. You could see a 8-10th placed team getting a lottery pick as a reward one year for playing hard.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> Why not penalize teams that are consistently in the lottery? Say if your team has had two top 10 picks in the last 3 years they are banned from being in the lottery the year after. Would force teams to start drafting properly or face a penalty of loss of a pick. Then it rewards teams that compete hard by bumping them up into the draft lottery in place of the non eligible team. You could see a 8-10th placed team getting a lottery pick as a reward one year for playing hard.


It's not in the league's best interest to double down on a bad team's misery. I think everyone's just losing sight of the fact that these aren't thirty separate businesses competing against each other in a free market that's being tampered with by evil socialist policies. This is one business with thirty branches - the Lakers & co are better off with the league having successful franchises throughout the country with many different fan bases they can perform in front of. "Let's severely punish incompetence, and if we're lucky even drive some contraction" doesn't do a whole lot to grow the brand.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

All of the teams are worth in excess of 350 million dollars. That's the ones which are at the bottom of the barrel. You guys can talk all you want about contraction, but some one has to pay if those teams go away. So if you contract one team the other owners have to cough up 10 to 15 million dollars each to compensate the owner of the franchise. You contract two teams and it's 20 to 30 million dollars each.

That is not going to happen by the way.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Floods said:


> If there's one thing this thread hammers home, it's just how overextended the NBA is. If the league has to bend _that_ far backward to assist hopeless franchises like Milwaukee, New Orleans, Charlotte, etc., to no avail, then why the **** are they even around in the first place? The wheel idea is whatever, but I'd rather Silver and friends do something truly useful and put their efforts into getting rid of 4-6 teams.


The same Milwaukee that won a championship and has the 8th best winning percentages of all time? Are you just dissing them because the city sucks ass?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> The same Milwaukee that won a championship and has the 8th best winning percentages of all time? Are you just dissing them because the city sucks ass?


Uh, yeah. The city sucks ass, it's not a viable major league market, and no one wants to play there. So they're more or less doomed depending on how far backward the league wants to bend over to assist them and other shitshows like Minnesota, Charlotte and New Orleans (when Anthony Davis packs his bags in 5-6 years). With that in mind, why should those franchises even exist at all?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Floods said:


> Uh, yeah. The city sucks ass, it's not a viable major league market, and no one wants to play there. So they're more or less doomed depending on how far backward the league wants to bend over to assist them and other shitshows like Minnesota, Charlotte and New Orleans (when Anthony Davis packs his bags in 5-6 years). *With that in mind, why should those franchises even exist at all?*


Again - because they drive profits for the league. If you want to debate that a single small-market franchise would be better located someplace else, then whatever. However, if you're going to pine for a league that shrinks back down to 24 teams, it won't happen because it's bad business.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Again - because they drive profits for the league. If you want to debate that a single small-market franchise would be better located someplace else, then whatever. However, if you're going to pine for a league that shrinks back down to 24 teams, it won't happen because it's bad business.


Thanks. He reminds me of the fans that complain that a certain team that is better than another is on national tv less than an inferior team. Portland and lakers this year for example. They forget this is a business.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Bogg said:


> Again - because they drive profits for the league.


How much?



> If you want to debate that a single small-market franchise would be better located someplace else, then whatever. However, if you're going to pine for a league that shrinks back down to 24 teams, it won't happen because it's bad business.


Oh. Well in that case, **** it. Let's expand to 40.



Jamel Irief said:


> He reminds me of the fans that complain that a certain team that is better than another is on national tv less than an inferior team.


What the **** are you talking about?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Floods said:


> How much?
> 
> 
> Oh. Well in that case, **** it. Let's expand to 40.
> ...


You have no business sense so you feel like profitable and successful (Bucks 8th best of all time!) teams should be contracted because LeBron doesn't want to vacation in their cities.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> You have no business sense so you feel like profitable and successful (Bucks 8th best of all time!) teams should be contracted because LeBron doesn't want to vacation in their cities.


And you're throwing out your usual asinine strawmen.

Winning one title 43 years ago doesn't automatically make a team successful. Nor does having a certain cumulative winning percentage, especially when they haven't been relevant since the 80s. The Bucks are a hopeless franchise that are run by blithering idiots, playing in a bad excuse for a major league market. Profitable? Where are these profits coming from? Tell me, fat boy.

Maybe you should stick to being Bogg's cheerleading section.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Floods said:


> How much?


Well, the NBA made a profit of about $40 million in under a year and a half simply by flipping the Hornets. Given that the league is as profitable as it's ever been and there's a line of the super-rich looking to purchase teams, it's kind of hard to make an argument that poorly-performing teams are hamstringing the league. You can give it a go if you'd like, though. 




Floods said:


> Oh. Well in that case, **** it. Let's expand to 40.


I know you're trying to be glib in a "if you're going to point out why my ideas don't make sense, I'm going to set up some strawmen to knock down" kind of way, but there's a reason you keep hearing the idea of overseas expansion kicked around every few years - the league is extremely profitable as it is, so much so that the only things keeping it from expanding further are logistics and not having the raw talent available. 

They probably _would_ go to 40 if it was workable (which it isn't at this point) because of how lucrative it would be. If you figure the cost of an expansion franchise is something like $300 million right now, selling outside buyers 10 teams would net each owner something in the neighborhood of a $30 million lump-sum payment plus a much more lucrative annual media-rights deal, given that at this point we're probably discussing adding a Madrid/Barcelona/Paris/Berlin/Istanbul European division and a Mexico City/Buenos Aires/Rio/Sao Paulo/Brasilia South American division (I dunno, throw London and Rome in there instead of two of the Brazilian cities, we're already acknowledging it isn't workable right now so it doesn't matter. The point is you're adding _major_ media markets - to the tune of entire countries - in this scenario).


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Floods said:


> And you're throwing out your usual asinine strawmen.
> 
> Winning one title 43 years ago doesn't automatically make a team successful. Nor does having a certain cumulative winning percentage, especially when they haven't been relevant since the 80s. The Bucks are a hopeless franchise that are run by blithering idiots, playing in a bad excuse for a major league market. Profitable? Where are these profits coming from? Tell me, fat boy.
> 
> Maybe you should stick to being Bogg's cheerleading section.


Right, so winning more titles than 10 franchises you didn't name combined and consistently winning games doesn't make you successful. Your "relevant since the 80's" comment shows how ignorant you are since they were a couple of points from making the NBA finals a decade ago.

Run by blithering idiots maybe true, but so were the Celtics, Knicks, Nets, Mavs, Kings, Cavs and countless other teams. Instead of getting the idiots out your solution is to can the whole franchise. Genius.

You really need me to explain where NBA team profits come from? More hopeless than I thought.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Definition of hard headed-

http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-forum/438262-contraction.html#post6176180
@Dornado, you still haven't convinced Floods the Bucks are a relevant franchise.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Right, so winning more titles than 10 franchises you didn't name combined and consistently winning games doesn't make you successful. Your "relevant since the 80's" comment shows how ignorant you are since they were a couple of points from making the NBA finals a decade ago.


So what? One arbitrary run to the conference finals, when the east was absolutely terrible, doesn't cancel out the sea of awfulness that bookends that one season on both sides.



> Run by blithering idiots maybe true, but so were the Celtics, Knicks, Nets, Mavs, Kings, Cavs and countless other teams. Instead of getting the idiots out your solution is to can the whole franchise. Genius.


People never stopped caring about the Celtics and Knicks. Because Boston and New York are actual major league markets. If the Nets hadn't moved to Brooklyn they'd be right at the top of the list of teams that should be wiped out. Take away their seven years of LeBron (that they failed to create any real success with) and the Cavs might be the biggest embarrassment of them all.

North America doesn't have 30 suitable major league markets. This goes for the NBA, MLB, and NHL. They all have too many teams.



> You really need me to explain where NBA team profits come from? More hopeless than I thought.


Humor me. And tell me how well the Bucks are doing. Or let someone else do it and then quote their post and cheerlead for them. Then go and archive random shit.



> By the way you shouldn't call people with abs fat, The Big Donut aka Cake boy.


Abs don't jiggle, fat boy.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Not every market has to be a major market to justify it's existence. If you want to see 24 teams from a basketball standpoint, I can understand that I guess but from a business perspective they will expand before they contract.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Floods said:


> So what? One arbitrary run to the conference finals, when the east was absolutely terrible, doesn't cancel out the sea of awfulness that bookends that one season on both sides.
> 
> 
> People never stopped caring about the Celtics and Knicks. Because Boston and New York are actual major league markets. If the Nets hadn't moved to Brooklyn they'd be right at the top of the list of teams that should be wiped out. Take away their seven years of LeBron (that they failed to create any real success with) and the Cavs might be the biggest embarrassment of them all.
> ...


So.....let's do this one more time. The Seattle group offered something like $365 million for 65% of the Kings last year. How do you propose selling the ownership on the idea of each owner cutting checks of nearly $20 million per team to contract a successful league down 5-6 teams? What do you think Marc Cuban says when you ask him for $100 million to reduce the number of markets that Dirk gets to play in front of?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Bogg said:


> Well, the NBA made a profit of about $40 million in under a year and a half simply by flipping the Hornets. Given that the league is as profitable as it's ever been and there's a line of the super-rich looking to purchase teams, it's kind of hard to make an argument that poorly-performing teams are hamstringing the league. You can give it a go if you'd like, though.


Teams that don't generate any local or national interest are dead weight on the sport. Those days on the schedule could/should be going to better matchups against more relevant teams, creating more interest in the league. 



> I know you're trying to be glib in a "if you're going to point out why my ideas don't make sense, I'm going to set up some strawmen to knock down" kind of way, but there's a reason you keep hearing the idea of overseas expansion kicked around every few years - the league is extremely profitable as it is, so much so that the only things keeping it from expanding further are logistics and not having the raw talent available.


Who cares about Europe? Expand to St. Louis, Kansas City, Alberquerque, Louisville, Vegas, and five other places. Sure, they may not be particularly great markets, but they'll still make profits, right?

There's not enough talent for the league at 30 teams, considering the litany of guys playing right now who have shit fundamentals and an iffy grasp at best on how to play (something you saw much less of before the NBA blew their load and expanded like wildfire in the 90s).



> They probably _would_ go to 40 if it was workable (which it isn't at this point) because of how lucrative it would be. If you figure the cost of an expansion franchise is something like $300 million right now, selling outside buyers 10 teams would net each owner something in the neighborhood of a $30 million lump-sum payment plus a much more lucrative annual media-rights deal, given that at this point we're probably discussing adding a Madrid/Barcelona/Paris/Berlin/Istanbul European division and a Mexico City/Buenos Aires/Rio/Sao Paulo/Brasilia South American division (I dunno, throw London and Rome in there instead of two of the Brazilian cities, we're already acknowledging it isn't workable right now so it doesn't matter. The point is you're adding _major_ media markets - to the tune of entire countries - in this scenario).


Major markets like London and Paris actually _would_ be a welcome addition, as opposed to wastelands like Milwaukee and New Orleans that simply could not be bothered.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Not every market has to be a major market to justify it's existence.


Never said they did. They just have to adequate support their team. If I just systematically wanted all smart markets gone then I'd be campaigning for OKC and Utah to go away. But I'm not.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Milwaukee and New Orleans are both great cities.

Also, tone down the personal/off-topic stuff guys


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Floods said:


> So what? One arbitrary run to the conference finals, when the east was absolutely terrible, doesn't cancel out the sea of awfulness that bookends that one season on both sides.


"Sea of awfulness" consisting of a playoff berth and a near miss? I like you say this but then think a couple losing seasons cancels out the 8th best winning percentage in league history. 



> People never stopped caring about the Celtics and Knicks. Because Boston and New York are actual major league markets. If the Nets hadn't moved to Brooklyn they'd be right at the top of the list of teams that should be wiped out. Take away their seven years of LeBron (that they failed to create any real success with) and the Cavs might be the biggest embarrassment of them all.
> 
> North America doesn't have 30 suitable major league markets. This goes for the NBA, MLB, and NHL. They all have too many teams.


If they make money how are they not suitable? Someone cares.



> Humor me. And tell me how well the Bucks are doing. Or let someone else do it and then quote their post and cheerlead for them. Then go and archive random shit.


For one Disney is paying the NBA as a whole billions. That revenue is shared. When I lived in southwest virginia I paid thousands to attend Bobcats games. The same bobcats you want to contract. As for the Bucks, per forbes the franchise is valued at over 400 million dollars, makes 109 million in revenue and has a operating income at 11.5 million. I'd take that money! Makes sense to contract them because.... you don't care about them right?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I wonder if Jamel throws up in his mouth a little bit every time he types something in defense of the Bucks.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Bogg said:


> So.....let's do this one more time. The Seattle group offered something like $365 million for 65% of the Kings last year. How do you propose selling the ownership on the idea of each owner cutting checks of nearly $20 million per team to contract a successful league down 5-6 teams?


More competitive league in the long run, less diluted talent pool, the remaining teams have more opportunities to become relevant instead of just spinning their wheels, at which point fan interest spikes and eventually they make their money back and then some.

Silver and his boys can make it look prettier I'm sure.



> What do you think Marc Cuban says when you ask him for $100 million to reduce the number of markets that Dirk gets to play in front of?


What exactly does the league lose by not having Dirk make two pointless trips to New Orleans per year? They don't even care about their own team.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> "Sea of awfulness" consisting of a playoff berth and a near miss? I like you say this but then think a couple losing seasons cancels out the 8th best winning percentage in league history.


1991–92	NBA	Eastern	Central	7th	31	51	.378 Del Harris
Frank Hamblen	
1992–93	NBA	Eastern	Central	7th	28	54	.341 Mike Dunleavy	
1993–94	NBA	Eastern	Central	7th	20	62	.244 Mike Dunleavy	
1994–95	NBA	Eastern	Central	6th	34	48	.415 Mike Dunleavy	
1995–96	NBA	Eastern	Central	7th	25	57	.305 Mike Dunleavy	
1996–97	NBA	Eastern	Central	7th	33	49	.402 Chris Ford	
1997–98	NBA	Eastern	Central	7th	36	46	.439 Chris Ford	
1998–99	NBA	Eastern	Central	4th	28	22	.560	Lost First Round (Indiana) 3-0	George Karl	
1999–2000	NBA	Eastern	Central	5th	42	40	.512	Lost First Round (Indiana) 3-2	George Karl	
2000–01	NBA	Eastern	Central	1st	52	30	.634	Won First Round (Orlando) 3-1
Won Conference Semifinals (Charlotte) 4-3
Lost Conference Finals (Philadelphia) 4-3	George Karl	
2001–02	NBA	Eastern	Central	5th	41	41	.500 George Karl	
2002–03	NBA	Eastern	Central	4th	42	40	.512	Lost First Round (New Jersey) 4-2	George Karl	
2003–04	NBA	Eastern	Central	4th	41	41	.500	Lost First Round (Detroit) 4-1	Terry Porter	
2004–05	NBA	Eastern	Central	5th	30	52	.366 Terry Porter	
2005–06	NBA	Eastern	Central	5th	40	42	.488	Lost First Round (Detroit) 4-1	Terry Stotts	
2006–07	NBA	Eastern	Central	5th	28	54	.341 Terry Stotts
Larry Krystkowiak	
2007–08	NBA	Eastern	Central	5th	26	56	.317 Larry Krystkowiak	
2008–09	NBA	Eastern	Central	5th	34	48	.415 Scott Skiles	
2009–10	NBA	Eastern	Central	2nd	46	36	.561	Lost First Round (Atlanta) 4-3	Scott Skiles	John Hammond (EoY)
2010–11	NBA	Eastern	Central	3rd	35	47	.427 Scott Skiles	
2011–12	NBA	Eastern	Central	3rd	31	35	.469 Scott Skiles	
2012–13	NBA	Eastern	Central	3rd	38	44	.463	Lost First Round vs. (Miami), 0-4	Scott Skiles
Jim Boylan	
2013–14	NBA	Eastern	Central	4th	13	55	.191 Larry Drew	


What a successful franchise!




> For one Disney is paying the NBA as a whole billions. That revenue is shared.


So they're not actually making that money, it's being given to them by the league.



> When I lived in southwest virginia I paid thousands to attend Bobcats games. The same bobcats you want to contract. As for the Bucks, per forbes the franchise is valued at over 400 million dollars, makes 109 million in revenue and has a operating income at 11.5 million. I'd take that money! Makes sense to contract them because.... you don't care about them right?


Gotta love creative accounting.

They should be contracted because they add nothing to the league.

So what's your defense for New Orleans?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Floods said:


> More competitive league in the long run, less diluted talent pool, the remaining teams have more opportunities to become relevant instead of just spinning their wheels, at which point fan interest spikes and eventually they make their money back and then some.
> 
> Silver and his boys can make it look prettier I'm sure.
> 
> ...



Your argument initially was the bucks suck so bad that Silver has to bend over backwards to help them. Then I point out only 7 teams has won more. Then it morphs to they aren't making money. Now it's the talent pool is diluted.

Good job.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Floods said:


> 1991–92	NBA	Eastern	Central	7th	31	51	.378 Del Harris
> Frank Hamblen
> 1992–93	NBA	Eastern	Central	7th	28	54	.341 Mike Dunleavy
> 1993–94	NBA	Eastern	Central	7th	20	62	.244 Mike Dunleavy
> ...


Whats your point? Were the Clippers on your contracted list? Pull up their records since 1991. What about Atlanta? Minnesota? Oakland? Memphis? Toronto?

Want me to go on?

Just admit you put your foot in your mouth and repeated your mistake of 2010 by acting like the Bucks historically are a shitty franchise.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Oh @Floods.... I love it. 

You're good for at least 1 of these a year.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Your argument initially was the bucks suck so bad that Silver has to bend over backwards to help them. Then I point out only 7 teams has won more. Then it morphs to they aren't making money. Now it's the talent pool is diluted.


It's all of the above. Nothing's morphing, and there is no "then." I'm just reacting to what you guys come up with. Why would I keep hammering on the Bucks spending the past two decades in the crapper in response to you or Bogg coming at it from the profit angle instead?

I just posted the Bucks records since 91. They had one random 52 win season/conference finals run in 2001 and a random 46 win season in 2010. If either of those squads was anything more than a flash in the pan, they would have been able to sustain the "success" of those two seasons. They didn't.

Milwaukee is horrible. It's not a major league market. Neither is New Orleans.

At 30 teams, the NBA's talent pool is very diluted.

There it is for you. In summary form!


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Whats your point? Were the Clippers on your contracted list? Pull up their records since 1991. What about Atlanta? Minnesota? Oakland? Memphis? Toronto?


Why would you contract a franchise out of LA?

Atlanta's garbage, they're another terrible market. They only care about college sports.

Minnesota's a good market. But the Wolves, and the people running them, are just the worst.

Toronto has surprisingly decent attendance. The Raptors have a following, for sure.

So... what's _your_ point?



> Want me to go on?


Please do, I'm enjoying this!



> Just admit you put your foot in your mouth and repeated your mistake of 2010 by acting like the Bucks historically are a shitty franchise.


They are. At what point do you stop surfing on a championship from 1971, especially when you haven't been relevant since the 80s?


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Floods said:


> Why would you contract a franchise out of LA?
> 
> Atlanta's garbage, they're another terrible market. They only care about college sports.
> 
> ...


Well, the thread you started(that I believe Jamel linked to) you actually did suggest contracting the Clippers. And you even argued that you were not catering to big cities by using your inclusion of the Clippers as evidence.




Floods said:


> I'd contract at least 6 teams from the NBA. Minnesota, Toronto, the Clippers, and New Orleans would definitely be gone, New Jersey (I'm not sure where they are in their arena plans right now, though) probably gone, not sure who the last team would be. If Memphis hadn't appeared to turn the corner lately, I'd vote them. Maybe Milwaukee





Floods said:


> If you read the original post correctly, you would see that among the teams being eliminated are Minnesota, Toronto, the Clippers (an LA market, albeit a smaller one than the Lakers), which are bigger markets than any of the following: San Antonio, Utah, Memphis, Portland, Oklahoma City, Sacramento, Indiana, Orlando. Basically, 1/3 of the teams in what would now be by far the smallest of the four major US sports leagues. 7 of those cities don't even have teams from any of the other major leagues.
> 
> So what was this about big-market catering?



There are always fluctuations in teams. I mean the Clippers went from a laughing to stock to probably one of 4-5 true contenders for a title in just a couple seasons. Memphis was an absolute joke now they are a good team that always plays their best in the playoffs. There's nothing wrong with Minnesota other than the Front Office/Ownership, so unless your plan is to oust them and implement a new group there is no reason to move them.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Why would you contract a franchise out of LA?
> 
> Atlanta's garbage, they're another terrible market. They only care about college sports.
> 
> ...


I hate to jump in this amazing thread, but anyone who says the Bucks of the late 90's early 00's weren't relevant is just plain wrong. 

That was a fun team. A relevant team.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Milwaukee's problem is ownership. Everything has gone down hill since Kohl bought the team. Saying Milwaukee can't support a properly run major sports franchise is bullshit. The Brewers were one of the worst frachises in baseball for 20 years then a new stadium and new ownership came along and started making good baseball decisions and the brewers have become one if the hottest tickets in town to the tune of around 3 million paid attendance for several years in a row now. I don't think its fair to rip apart a city when the management of their team consistantly shits all over them. Before Kohl the Bucks were a well oiled machine similar to teams like the Jazz and the fans were there in droves. Its hard to blame a fanbase for checking out when it feels like they are given a Tyler Perry movie to watch instead of a Scorcese movie. It all comes down to putting a product on the floor cause Milwaukee is a great sports town.. Just look at the support the Packers,Brewers, Badgers and Golden Eagles get.. The proof is right there.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Floods said:


> More competitive league in the long run, less diluted talent pool, the remaining teams have more opportunities to become relevant instead of just spinning their wheels, at which point fan interest spikes and eventually they make their money back and then some.
> 
> Silver and his boys can make it look prettier I'm sure.
> 
> ...


Are you basing this off of any precedent or research that's been published, or is this one of those "I've spent a lot of time thinking about this so I know I'm right" kind of things? Keep in mind these teams are actually profitable and there's more demand than supply for franchises. 

The kind of contraction you're talking about is going to cost the 24-25 other owners something to the tune of $3 billion. Now, given that most of the majority owners around the league are somewhere between late-middle-aged and downright old, they're not likely to be interested in making an investment that's going to break even 50 years down the line. Unless you can show me something demonstrating how contracting a half-dozen teams is going to increase league revenues by more than that $3 billion over the next 15 or so years, it seems like you're just making stuff up as you go along.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

l0st1 said:


> Well, the thread you started(that I believe Jamel linked to) you actually did suggest contracting the Clippers. And you even argued that you were not catering to big cities by using your inclusion of the Clippers as evidence.


And those were shitty posts and looking back I was wrong about them. Contracting an LA team is a bad idea. Toronto has a following. I made those ****ing posts in early 2010.



> There are always fluctuations in teams. I mean the Clippers went from a laughing to stock to probably one of 4-5 true contenders for a title in just a couple seasons. Memphis was an absolute joke now they are a good team that always plays their best in the playoffs. There's nothing wrong with Minnesota other than the Front Office/Ownership, so unless your plan is to oust them and implement a new group there is no reason to move them.


What happens when Memphis goes back to being mediocre? 

The Wolves are an all-around joke and they're a distant 4th in the Minnesota sports scene.

Why you're jumping down Jamel's archive hole and arguing based off of that I have no ****ing idea. Talk about low-hanging fruit.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> I hate to jump in this amazing thread, but anyone who says the Bucks of the late 90's early 00's weren't relevant is just plain wrong.
> 
> That was a fun team. A relevant team.


Other than that one fluke conference finals run all they managed was a few 40 win seasons with first round exits.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Bogg said:


> Are you basing this off of any precedent or research that's been published, or is this one of those "I've spent a lot of time thinking about this so I know I'm right" kind of things? Keep in mind these teams are actually profitable and there's more demand than supply for franchises.


Mostly the latter.



> The kind of contraction you're talking about is going to cost the 24-25 other owners something to the tune of $3 billion. Now, given that most of the majority owners around the league are somewhere between late-middle-aged and downright old, they're not likely to be interested in making an investment that's going to break even 50 years down the line. Unless you can show me something demonstrating how contracting a half-dozen teams is going to increase league revenues by more than that $3 billion over the next 15 or so years, it seems like you're just making stuff up as you go along.


Yeah, well, that's why Silver has guys to make the proposal nice and attractive.

Still a more worthy pursuit for the league than finagling all sorts of stupid shit every new CBA designed to help the teams that can't be helped at the expense of the league's backbones.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Floods said:


> And those were shitty posts and looking back I was wrong about them. Contracting an LA team is a bad idea. Toronto has a following. I made those ****ing posts in early 2010.


You'll be saying the same thing in three years about these posts. 

Floods: you can only have a small market team if you consistently win 50 games. Even if you make money. Forget that this is a business.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Other than that one fluke conference finals run all they managed was a few 40 win seasons with first round exits.


Sam Skeletron Cassell? Ray Allen? Glen Big Dog Robinson?

That was an exciting big 3. 

Darvin Ham blocking the **** out of Rik Smits in the playoffs?

Pretending Mike Redd was going to be a suitable replacement for Ray Allen?


Question marks???




....memorable


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> You'll be saying the same thing in three years about these posts.
> 
> Floods: you can only have a small market team if you consistently win 50 games. Even if you make money. Forget that this is a business.


Nope.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Floods said:


> And those were shitty posts and looking back I was wrong about them. Contracting an LA team is a bad idea. Toronto has a following. I made those ****ing posts in early 2010.
> 
> 
> What happens when Memphis goes back to being mediocre?
> ...


I'm not arguing anything, simply pointing out that what you stated earlier as reasoning isn't in line with now is all. I get opinions change but you in fact said the exact then as you did now.

Why does it matter if they are 4th in their own city? Are they profitable? Do they have a fan base that consistently supports them? That's what matters, and the answer to both is yes.

There is no reason to contract teams at this point.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

l0st1 said:


> I'm not arguing anything, simply pointing out that what you stated earlier as reasoning isn't in line with now is all. I get opinions change but you in fact said the exact then as you did now.
> 
> Why does it matter if they are 4th in their own city? Are they profitable? Do they have a fan base that consistently supports them? That's what matters, and the answer to both is yes.
> 
> There is no reason to contract teams at this point.


He's married to the idea that contraction is great and is convincing himself that it makes business sense. The only logical argument he made was dilluted talent pool, but the nba doesn't care about that more than profits. 

There's a reason that amongst all the business genius that run the nba and it's teams nobody will waste a second considering it. In fact they are pushing the opposite (expansion). 

Maybe they should consult the twenty year old with no significant business results in his resume that admits his ideas three years ago,were stupid.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

I don't see why they don't just give every team a chance to win the lotto. For example:

Last place gets 30 ping pong balls while first place gets one. However, instead of only the top 3 picks are lotto, every pick is lotto. That way if you're a mediocre team, you have a shot at a top ten pick.

Edit: add in that you can trade in your second round pick for extra ping pong balls.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Teams that finish 9th - 15th in their conference get two lottery balls.

Teams that finish 5th - 8th in their conference get one lottery ball.

Teams that finish 1st - 4th (ie. have home court advantage in round one) pick in order of regular season record.

Straight up lottery with no guarantees for the worst teams.

Bad teams have no motivation to tank.

Mediocre teams can push for the playoffs and still have a shot at landing a high pick if they make it.

Teams battling for home court in round one of the playoffs would value that over a 1/36 shot at the number one pick.

Go ahead and destroy this proposal :laugh:


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

Floods said:


> It's all of the above. Nothing's morphing, and there is no "then." I'm just reacting to what you guys come up with. Why would I keep hammering on the Bucks spending the past two decades in the crapper in response to you or Bogg coming at it from the profit angle instead?
> 
> I just posted the Bucks records since 91. They had one random 52 win season/conference finals run in 2001 and a random 46 win season in 2010. If either of those squads was anything more than a flash in the pan, they would have been able to sustain the "success" of those two seasons. They didn't.
> 
> ...


That 2010 team was only a flash in the pan because of the horrific Bogut injury. Think about where the Bucks would be now if that never happened. First off, they would've made it past the first round that year. Secondly, Bogut was arguably the second best C in the league that year and was only improving. He kept Jennings in check and made him a better player. If Bogut doesn't destroy his elbow, Jennings grows up differently and the Bucks franchise probably would have had a run of top 5 finishes in the East. 

This franchis has had tons of bad luck (which they only make worse through terrible win-now trades and FA acquisitions, but I digress).


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Floods said:


> Yeah, well, that's why Silver has guys to make the proposal nice and attractive.


Again - the proposal is to spend billions of dollars in the short-term to reduce the number of media markets the league competes in, on the idea that sprinkling a couple of good players across the remaining 24ish teams will make the league markedly more popular. It doesn't make any sense, which is is why nobody's considering it. Just saying that Silver needs to try harder to sell it ignores the reality that it's not in Silver's best interest to bring it up in the first place.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Floods said:


> Yeah, well, that's why Silver has guys to make the proposal nice and attractive


Three billion would be the rough market rate of closing six franchises. However, given the recent sale price of the Kings that could go as high as four billion. And that wouldn't be the end of it. Because this would wreak havoc in the negotiations of their new network broadcast deals, which would reduce the revenues of the surviving owners right as you're asking these guys to pony up $125 million apiece to contract the league by 20%. 

And even that won't be the end of it because the NBA would be facing lawsuits from all the local broadcast affiliates that have ponied up money for the rights to the newly contracted teams, so now the other 24 owners are going to have to settle out those lawsuits and add that to the tab. 

Oh, and while we're on the subject, any of these teams playing in publicly financed arenas? Guess who else will be suing? And jesus. those lawsuits are going to cost _billions_ to settle given the price of big city arenas and the bonds that get floated to cover the cost. Oh, and guess what no NBA team will ever get again after contraction? 

So now we're talking billions of dollars in expenses, hundreds of millions in lost revenues, a similar loss in terms of available corporate welfare, and we're _still_ not done. Throughout the last fifteen years of the Stern regime he has been working overtime to steer NBA teams away from individual owners like Mark Cuban and to investment groups. Because investment groups are easy to control and like stability and increasing franchise values, and now by introducing _massive_ instability into the system you've suddenly made NBA franchises a bad investment. There is literally no way to make this a rational financial decision as your wet dream would cost most of these people _as much as a ****ing professional sports franchise_.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Floods is so stupid. Get that guy off my site.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

You're all right. I like the idea of contraction from an idealist perspective and got carried away trying to make it sound feasible for the real world. My sincerest apologies.


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Minnesota
New Orleans
Sacramento

Cleveland
Charlotte
Milwaukee or Philly



Those are the teams that are owned by terrible owners. They dont give a damn about the product on the floor. Get rid of them and the NBA would be a much better leauge!!!!


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Pablo5 said:


> Minnesota
> New Orleans
> Sacramento
> 
> ...



Pelicans have a very good up and coming team.
Sacramento are under new management and have already showed signs of improvement.
Gilbert definitely cares about his team, they just haven't done a good job drafting after Kyrie. That's not on the owner/city.
I'm struggling to find your logic for Minnesota/Philly

The only teams you could potentially point the finger at would be Charlotte and Milwaukee. And that's only because of poor management/ownership. The Fans/City are not the problem.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

l0st1 said:


> The only teams you could potentially point the finger at would be Charlotte and Milwaukee. And that's only because of poor management/ownership. The Fans/City are not the problem.


The Bobcats put Rich Cho in charge a couple years ago and he's been pretty consistently competent ever since, and Milwaukee is in the mess they're in precisely because of a commitment to winning as much as they can _right now_ every year, which is exactly what the anti-lottery crowd wants.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> You'll be saying the same thing in three years about these posts.





Floods five days later said:


> You're all right. I like the idea of contraction from an idealist perspective and got carried away trying to make it sound feasible for the real world. My sincerest apologies.


Thank you for saving me from a future bump.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Oh god this place.

Is there even a point to getting into a future discussion with you? We both know that whatever happens you're just gonna link back to this and say 'YEAH SO THERE SUCK IT FLOODS.'


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Bogg said:


> The Bobcats put Rich Cho in charge a couple years ago and he's been pretty consistently competent ever since, and Milwaukee is in the mess they're in precisely because of a commitment to winning as much as they can _right now_ every year, which is exactly what the anti-lottery crowd wants.


As far as Charlotte goes, I agree. That team has improved and should continue as long free agents find it a desirable destination now with Walker and Big Al.

Milwaukee I agree that's why they are in this position. And giving out stupid contracts to try and stay mediocre. 

My post wasn't reasoning for the change in lottery moreso for contraction. My preference isn't to contract by any means, I think it's a stupid idea all around. Just pointing out that those are the only two teams I could possible see an argument made if contraction was the decision that was made.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Floods said:


> Oh god this place.
> 
> Is there even a point to getting into a future discussion with you? We both know that whatever happens you're just gonna link back to this and say 'YEAH SO THERE SUCK IT FLOODS.'


Only if it applies to subject at hand, or if your behavior mimics your actions here.


----------



## AllRim (Jun 19, 2012)

Floods said:


> Oh god this place.
> 
> Is there even a point to getting into a future discussion with you? We both know that whatever happens you're just gonna link back to this and say 'YEAH SO THERE SUCK IT FLOODS.'


Suck it long time floods


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Maybe @R-Star wants to come in and take a pot shot or two? He's been awful quiet through this.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Maybe you want to come in and suck it long floods.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Maybe @R-Star wants to come in and take a pot shot or two? He's been awful quiet through this.


Meh.

You consistently do this. Pick such an asinine side of the argument that any sane person would know they're going to lose. Yet you do it every few months. Its like you enjoy having everyone pile on your dick head opinion. 


You're an odd duck Floods.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-lottery-reform-is-coming/

Proposal was officially submitted this week.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Good. Philly can **** off now.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

I hope this passes. It'll make for a much more competitive league.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

It's rigged anyway.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

my original thought was to keep the current system. but seeing as how the lottery appears to be rigged, at least this way what we see is what we get.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Porn Player said:


> It's rigged anyway.





c_dog said:


> my original thought was to keep the current system. but seeing as how the lottery appears to be rigged, at least this way what we see is what we get.


and how do you propose the league does that?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I like it. Shift the probabilities to make tanking less enticing.


----------



## Kreutz35 (Dec 23, 2011)

Yeah I like this. It's not a drastic change, but still makes blatant tanking less enticing.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Bogg said:


> and how do you propose the league does that?


proof the lottery is not rigged: Lakers get the #7 spot


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Bogg said:


> and how do you propose the league does that?


My idea is to make the entire draft a lottery. Champs get one ping pong ball and the worst team gets 30 ping pong balls. Every pick is then a lottery pick where the 8th seed can get a franchise player and become a contender overnight without ruining their cap space. I don't see why every team shouldn't get a chance to alter it's destiny via the draft. Besides, I feel that the teams most deserving of a top pick are the middling teams.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I know I'm usually the one who calls bullshit on these ESPN reports but...... ESPN is reporting that the 76ers are aggressively trying to fight against the proposed new draft format. 

I think at this point the league should just fine Philadelphia for blatantly tanking.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I know I'm usually the one who calls bullshit on these ESPN reports but...... ESPN is reporting that the 76ers are aggressively trying to fight against the proposed new draft format.
> 
> I think at this point the league should just fine Philadelphia for blatantly tanking.


http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...509_714637428607330_714637428607330#f279bb3d0

I'm the second top comment in the comments section (Mike Hayman) and wow I just reminded myself why I hate discussing basketball on social media.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

cima said:


> http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...509_714637428607330_714637428607330#f279bb3d0
> 
> I'm the second top comment in the comments section (Mike Hayman) and wow I just reminded myself why I hate discussing basketball on social media.


Started a bit of a fire there, didn't you?


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Started a bit of a fire there, didn't you?


Yeah and there's a couple of people who have some good insight but the rest of the people I am surprised that they know how to make a computer function.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

cima said:


> Yeah and there's a couple of people who have some good insight but the rest of the people I am surprised that they know how to make a computer function.


The only place I've had that is a worse experience than posting on an ESPN article is doing the same on video game articles on GameTrailers.com. 

In both situations I was dumbfounded by how stupid a good number of the population is.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Agreed.

So back to the topic, as I was saying on ESPN.com am I the only one who thinks this guy is a moron for calling this past season a huge success? I understand his strategy, but I think for him to publicly say all the things that he's said, especially saying "huge success" is downright absurd.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

cima said:


> Agreed.
> 
> So back to the topic, as I was saying on ESPN.com am I the only one who thinks this guy is a moron for calling this past season a huge success? I understand his strategy, but I think for him to publicly say all the things that he's said, especially saying "huge success" is downright absurd.


Guys like Bill Simmons are calling Sam Hinkie a genius for tanking and then picking injury prone big men and guys they can stash overseas. 

A bad team tanking one year in a stacked draft? Sure. I can understand that and it doesn't bother me too much. Consistently striving for failure and picking players who won't help any time soon? That's pathetic and should be punished by the league.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Guys like Bill Simmons are calling Sam Hinkie a genius for tanking and then picking injury prone big men and guys they can stash overseas.
> 
> A bad team tanking one year in a stacked draft? Sure. I can understand that and it doesn't bother me too much. Consistently striving for failure and picking players who won't help any time soon? That's pathetic and should be punished by the league.


Why does it need to be punished by the league? Consistently striving for failure and picking players who won't help is what gets GM's fired. It'll work itself out.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

They already got MCW, Noel, Embiid, and Saric. As far as I'm concerned, that's more than enough consolation for the shitty teams they've been putting out on the floor. But this ****er wants another shot at the top pick this year too? Get the **** out of here man. This is why the system needs changing. Funny how there aren't any reports of other opposition to change other than these assholes. If I was a loyal 76ers season ticket holder I would be beyond pissed off.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ATLien said:


> Why does it need to be punished by the league? Consistently striving for failure and picking players who won't help is what gets GM's fired. It'll work itself out.


I disagree. Not if the owner is an idiot. There are certain teams that are consistently shitty for extremely long periods. Its clearly circumventing the league. 

We're going to have a big dog and pony show when it turns out an 80 year old rich white man that everyone knew was racist says something racist, and tell everyone how its detrimental to the league, but we're supposed to not give a **** when a team is blatantly throwing games? 

If two teams are tired record wise fighting for 8th place with only one game left, and one team gets to play San Antonio and the other Philadelphia, you don't see a problem with that?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

If I'm a 76ers player, I'm embarrassed right now. It honestly feels like they're promoting a losing culture there.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The Sixers just showing the NBA first hand that there is an incentive to tank and it's actually a strategy being employed. They wouldn't be objecting if it wasn't. 

That should just give the NBA more reason to put it into effect. I've always said they need to take away the incentive to tank. Even well-meaning teams at the beginning of the season can fall into the trap late in the season when the playoffs are out of reach. What the Sixers seem to be doing is just blatant tanking in hopes it creates a stacked team in a couple years. 

It will be nice for all 30 teams to be competing the best they can all year.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The Sixers just showing the NBA first hand that there is an incentive to tank and it's actually a strategy being employed. They wouldn't be objecting if it wasn't.
> 
> That should just give the NBA more reason to put it into effect. I've always said they need to take away the incentive to tank. Even well-meaning teams at the beginning of the season can fall into the trap late in the season when the playoffs are out of reach. What the Sixers seem to be doing is just blatant tanking in hopes it creates a stacked team in a couple years.
> 
> It will be nice for all 30 teams to be competing the best they can all year.


How do you get this to happen though? The proposed wheel system? I don't think you can find a proposed system that won't have flaws.


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

Basel said:


> If I'm a 76ers player, I'm embarrassed right now. It honestly feels like they're promoting a losing culture there.


Seriously, makes you wonder if one or more of their young guys said they wouldn't re-sign w/ the team when the time came if the 76ers would rethink their strategy. 

I also think there is a league-wide under-appreciation of the player development process. I think players that are exposed to the playoff atmosphere early on become better players later.


----------



## goodfoot (Feb 28, 2009)

Do a lottery for every pick with equal odds for all non-playoff teams...no reason to tank.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

goodfoot said:


> Do a lottery for every pick with equal odds for all non-playoff teams...no reason to tank.


Probably the simplest answer. I'd be much more comfortable with that.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The Sixers just showing the NBA first hand that there is an incentive to tank and it's actually a strategy being employed. They wouldn't be objecting if it wasn't.
> 
> That should just give the NBA more reason to put it into effect. I've always said they need to take away the incentive to tank. Even well-meaning teams at the beginning of the season can fall into the trap late in the season when the playoffs are out of reach. What the Sixers seem to be doing is just blatant tanking in hopes it creates a stacked team in a couple years.
> 
> It will be nice for all 30 teams to be competing the best they can all year.


I think my lottery system would do it. Open the draft lottery to every pick and give odds based on record. I really don't see how the raptors or Hawks need less help than the 76ers. Every team should have a shot at a top pick. 30 ping pong balls for the worst and 1 for the champs. Every pick is then raffled. Then they reveal it miss America style

In that system, tanking won't really improve the odds that much. Then we'll also see good teams get that one missing piece more frequently.


----------

