Limit on Lottery Picks?

[DMC]

Should teams have a lock out period for getting all the ping pong balls just because they cannot run a decent franchise?

Ideally, teams on the bottom get good, cheap help and they rise. The help either makes the team a contender or the help moves on, either way the team should get something for it and remain somewhat competitive. All teams, within the life cycle of the 1st overall pick (effective years) should take turns getting buoyed by fresh, cheap talent. That's what should happen, and there should be a higher low than what we have today.

When some teams seem to be annual lottery teams, minus that one or two year span when they "made the playoffs", aren't they basically sucking off the teat of the system and never actually stepping up? They get free help, the help makes them money and they later trade the help or let it walk (like Cleveland did). They get back into the lottery and start over (like Cleveland did).

Even the good/great teams have had some lottery help, hell most if not all of them have, but they did something with it.

Should there be a limit of top 5 or so picks for a team over a given time period? If there were, would that force the league to constrict?

I get tired of seeing good players going to shit teams when you know those shit teams will never pan out, even with two or three 1st overall picks.

[ElNono]

Well, you really can't say that top 10 picks will always pan out... but I see what you mean... maybe a 3 year limit with a 2 year timeout in between...

[DMC]

Well, you really can't say that top 10 picks will always pan out... but I see what you mean... maybe a 3 year limit with a 2 year timeout in between...

You cannot say they will pan out, but you can say you would take those over the next 10. They are huge trading pieces, just the pick itself.

And I realize the 1st overall pick has been a mixed bag, and it's gone to a mixture of teams, but the top 5 picks seem to be all going to the shit then/shit now teams unless the picks are traded, even then the team got something for nothing.

Isn't it enough that a billionaire's business is getting propped up by larger markets with profit sharing, do they also need free talent they can use as bartering chips?

I cannot imagine the Wizards ever saying "blow it up let's start over". Who the fuck do they have that they ever could?

Maybe the duty cycle of "great teams" is too long, and a person can go a lifetime without seeing much change in the outcomes.

[ElNono]

There's also the thing with top players moving to big markets once their rook deal is done (countless examples, but Lebron is probably the most recent one). That put teams on the map for a few years but eventually they're bottom feeders again. You really can't penalize teams for that. The decision was the player's.

Supposedly the new CBA and the luxury tax penalties are supposed to address that, but we'll see.

[DMC]

Perhaps there's too much chaff and not enough wheat in the bag. When a decent 1st overall can become another team's franchise player when he's not even an All Star caliber player, that's saying a lot about the dilution of the talent in the league. Honestly, you cannot tell the difference between some 10 year role players and D-league players.

[JamStone]

What about if a team wins a top 3 pick in the lottery (since those are the only 3 picks that are actually part of the lottery), they are ineligible to win a top 3 pick again for the next 3 drafts.

[DMC]

What about if a team wins a top 3 pick in the lottery (since those are the only 3 picks that are actually part of the lottery), they are ineligible to win a top 3 pick again for the next 3 drafts.
Top 3 or top 5, either way.