NBA Considering Draft Wheel System To Eliminate Lottery

[sunsfan88]

The NBA is considering a proposal to eliminate the draft lottery as we currently know it in favor of a draft wheel.

The draft wheel would allow team to cycle through every draft slot and be guaranteed one top-six pick every five seasons and at least one top-12 pick in every four-year span.

The system is designed to protect against teams attempting to be bad or letting themselves be bad for a high draft pick.

The concept has gained traction in the higher levels of the NBA's league office and could be proposed to owners sometime in 2014, according to sources.

Others have expressed early opposition to the proposal.

Read more here:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-t...ng-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel

 

[Catlover]

The current system is a bad idea. This one is worse.

They need to dump the weighted lottery. Have a drawing to decide draft position amongst the non-playoff teams (one ping pong ball per team). Hold back a significant portion of the TV money instead of dispersing it equally to each club. Take that portion and divide it amongst the playoff teams. Clubs will then have an incentive to make the playoffs while at the same time the non-playoff teams will have an edge in improving via the draft.

 

[JerkFace]

I like chad ford's idea. Keep the weighted system similar to what it is now but take the three year average of each teams win/losses to determine the weighted order. Gets rid of the one year tank.

 

[Catlover]

I like chad ford's idea. Keep the weighted system similar to what it is now but take the three year average of each teams win/losses to determine the weighted order. Gets rid of the one year tank.

That would probably help with the tanking but most of the teams that tank are already bad. If a team has struggled for two years they're in great shape to throw in the towel for that third season. Also, the league wants to try and stop the small market teams from trying to make money by just keeping expenses low (the Donald Sterling approach) and my suggestion accomplishes both IMO.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

The current system is a bad idea. This one is worse.

They need to dump the weighted lottery. Have a drawing to decide draft position amongst the non-playoff teams (one ping pong ball per team). Hold back a significant portion of the TV money instead of dispersing it equally to each club. Take that portion and divide it amongst the playoff teams. Clubs will then have an incentive to make the playoffs while at the same time the non-playoff teams will have an edge in improving via the draft.

Initially I hated this idea and then I thought about it a little and actually quite like it. The Suns team this year is proof that if you put together a good plan and execute that plan you can rebuild without relying upon a high draft pick in any specific year.

 

[Errntknght]

One thing I find interesting about the wheel system is that when you trade for a draft pick, you know what you'll get. I'm not sure how it would play out however as lawyers are capable of perverting almost anything under the sun... who knows what kinds of devious clauses they'd dream up, so that their services would be in great demand to explicate the contracts. Like they are now. Curse Stern for bringing his cohorts into the league!

I like Catlover's system but re-distributing money will necessarily bring the player's union into the picture - the devil is always in the details, as the old saw goes.

 

[Russ Smith]

One of the many ideas I've seen is that the team with the worst record should have the same odds as the team that just missed the lottery.That way there is just as much incentive to tank and finish with the worst record, as there is to play your butt off and just barely make the playoffs. Both teams would have equal chance to get the #1 overall pick.

in normal years there are probably as many almost playoff teams as there are almost worst teams so it kind of works.

 

[Errntknght]

Whatever the system its key to have a top notch scouting/evaluating team. (Thanks for nothing D'Antoni.) It pays off on every transaction, including the ones you refuse to make. The Spurs have an amazing track record - emulating them would be a good idea, though, I have to admit I haven't a clue how they do it. I rather suspect it's Pops himself who makes the final decisions as he's as crafty as they come.

Len nonwithstanding, McDonough is off to a great start and I think we'll be even happier about his early work when Len and Goodwin develop.

I always imagined that Red Auerbach traded for future draft picks on the basis of team surrendering the pick - if they were historically bad he loved to get a future pick from them. After all, they'd imagine they were going to improve despite their history, humans always being so optimistic about their own future. So giving up a pick a few years hence doesn't seem like much.

 

[Catlover]

One of the many ideas I've seen is that the team with the worst record should have the same odds as the team that just missed the lottery.That way there is just as much incentive to tank and finish with the worst record, as there is to play your butt off and just barely make the playoffs. Both teams would have equal chance to get the #1 overall pick.

in normal years there are probably as many almost playoff teams as there are almost worst teams so it kind of works.

That's a key part of what I suggested earlier. My proposal also addressed the problem with teams coasting to the cash line instead of really trying to compete. Sterling has proven you can win at the bank without winning on the court and he's not the only owner that looks at it that way.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I like chad ford's idea. Keep the weighted system similar to what it is now but take the three year average of each teams win/losses to determine the weighted order. Gets rid of the one year tank.

I like this idea too. It is simpler. It also make each individual loss less significant.

Just add a financial penalty for being bad, like the top three teams to pick do not get a share of the lux tax money, and you're good. You could also give teams a bigger cash haul for playoff wins.

 

[devilalum]

IMO this system would just allow the league to put the top picks in the hands of the large market clubs. Because we all know the success of the NBA is all about keeping the Lakers and Knicks significant.

 

[BC867]

IMO this system would just allow the league to put the top picks in the hands of the large market clubs. Because we all know the success of the NBA is all about keeping the Lakers and Knicks significant.

But the NBA has been successful despite the Knicks not being significant since they won their only two championships (within a four year span) forty years ago.

Even the Ewing years did not fulfill the largest NBA market in the country.

 

[JCSunsfan]

But the NBA has been successful despite the Knicks not being significant since they won their only two championships (within a four year span) forty years ago.

Even the Ewing years did not fulfill the largest NBA market in the country.

The Knicks is probably a bad example. He should have said the Lakers, Celtics, Chicago, and New York South (Miami, which is not a large market team, but is so attached by population to NY it might as well be).

The three year average is the best way to do it, because a team like the Lakers can't tank one year, get a top pick and be back on top the next (Like San Antonio did that year that Robinson went down injured and they got Duncan).

Incentivize winning with money. Make especially lucrative if you are under the lux tax while doing it. You can also really make it profitable for the players by giving them big league bonuses throughout the rounds. While coaches and front offices might want to tank, players will not put up with it and will have no respect for a front office that does so.

 

[sunsfan88]

The NBA submitted an official proposal to reform the lottery system, dismissing the Wheel idea in favor a revised weighting system that shifts each team's odds of getting the top pick.

The proposal is essentially an attempt to squeeze the lottery odds at either extreme toward a more balanced system in which all 14 teams have a relatively similar chance at the no. 1 pick, per sources familiar with the proposal.

The new proposal will give at least the four worst teams the same odds of winning the no. 1 pick, approximately 11 percent for each club. The odds decline slowly from there.

The proposal also calls for the drawing of the first six picks via the Ping-Pong ball lottery, sources say.

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

 

[Chaplin]

I like this idea too. It is simpler. It also make each individual loss less significant.

Just add a financial penalty for being bad, like the top three teams to pick do not get a share of the lux tax money, and you're good. You could also give teams a bigger cash haul for playoff wins.

You guys are covering it all so that teams don't tank. But what about those teams that are genuinely bad? Seems unfair to punish teams that are simply not good by not allowing them means to get better--simply to eliminate tanking. Some teams are so bad they don't need to tank.

 

[Mainstreet]

I think a simple solution is to not let teams who draft in the top 5 picks (just throwing out a number) to draft in the top 5 picks in consecutive years or perhaps only draft in the top 5 picks every three years. Those teams would be pushed back if they land in those slots in the lottery. I think this would eliminate teams like Cleveland to benefit by being bad or lucky.

 

[mojorizen7]

NO MORE protected picks!

 

[Mainstreet]

NO MORE protected picks!

This too.

Also a first round pick should never be allowed to turn into second round picks like the Suns pick may from the Twolves.

 

[Mainstreet]

Here is a possible new idea from the Commissioner. See article from Chris Sheridan dated 7-21-14. It certainly would be better than the current system.

Speaking of which, commissioner Adam Silver mentioned last week that the NBA is looking into changing the odds in the lottery, giving more chances to teams that finished just outside of the playoffs as a way disincentivize tanking. Which leads us to Sam Hinkie, whose team could be a major player over the rest of the summer in brokering trades. The Sixers have $35 million in cap space, and they will eventually have to use it on someone. Or at least one would believe they will.

http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2014/0...ers-july-21-update-check-out-lebron-james-jr/

 

[Griffin]

You guys are covering it all so that teams don't tank. But what about those teams that are genuinely bad? Seems unfair to punish teams that are simply not good by not allowing them means to get better--simply to eliminate tanking. Some teams are so bad they don't need to tank.

Here's how I see it. Does a team who is genuinely bad need a very high draft pick in order to get to a level where it can compete for a playoff spot? This level of improvement can be easily accomplished with lower picks, smart free agent pickups, trades, coaching, and team effort alone. You do not need a franchise player to do that. If anything, the Suns have proven as much on several occasions.

So if higher picks were given to teams that just missed out on playoffs, as opposed to those who didn't come close, it would encourage teams to 1) always play to win 2) do whatever it takes to acquire enough talent and put enough effort to either make playoffs and get a higher draft pick.

 

[Jay Cardinal]

I like the wheel idea for a couple of reasons. It encourages teams to play their hardest (no higher pick for being bad), puts GMs on the spotlight to improve their teams through talent evaluation, and long-term allows each franchise/city to experience each of the available picks.

My biggest criticism would be for teams that have trouble attracting free agents (ie Minnesota, Milwaukee, etc.). The current lottery helps compensate them for their loss by giving them a better pick for having a presumably worse team after losing their star free agent. Also long term, I wonder if draft entrants would start to play games with the system (ie. Memphis is #1 in 2019 = no one declares, Los Angeles #1 in 2020 = everyone declares), just think it is possible to tie one team's luck to that of the surrounding teams.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I can solve their frigging problem and I don't need a stupid wheel or complicated formula to accomplish it. Just do away with the lottery and seed the teams in inverse order of finish. Take the share of playoff money that goes to the non-playoff teams, pool it and then divvy it up weighted in favor of the better teams. IOW, the non-playoff team with the worst record gets the least amount of playoff revenue. The team with the best record gets the most playoff money.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

NO MORE protected picks!

This would be great IMO.

I can solve their frigging problem and I don't need a stupid wheel or complicated formula to accomplish it. Just do away with the lottery and seed the teams in inverse order of finish. Take the share of playoff money that goes to the non-playoff teams, pool it and then divvy it up weighted in favor of the better teams. IOW, the non-playoff team with the worst record gets the least amount of playoff revenue. The team with the best record gets the most playoff money.

Steve

This. Although I would be much harsher and give no playoff money to the team with the worst record. If TV contracts and such keep exponentially increasing in value, the worst team would probably still get a nice chunk of change. I would probably from a lottery odds perspective probably include the worst 3 teams.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Get rid of trading picks for cash. I know the NFL got rid of that practice years ago.