NBA draft lottery reform voted down, system stays as is

[spursparker9]

"Several teams started to wonder about unintended consequences and voted ‘no’ to be able to do further study," one owner told Yahoo Sports.

Among the “no” votes were big-market teams Chicago and Washington, a source said, with small-market Sacramento, in a strange twist, voting for lottery reform.

The remaining teams that voted no were Phoenix, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Detroit, Miami, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Utah, Washington and Atlanta, sources said.


:toast
source: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--nba-owners-nix-lottery-reform-plan-154009158.html

[Chinook]

Shame. I do think that if the league is so obsessed with limiting player movement, they need to stop making it so that the best prospects go to the worst teams. A team like Philly may not be worth Noel's time since they've cut so much talent recently. But they have him by the balls for five to nine years regardless.

[Mr. Body]

It would have had bad effects. Presti was right.

I have no major problem with teams tanking. It's not like those teams would be any good to begin with. What Philly's doing isn't even that bad - I'd rather a team clear deck every now and then and try to rebuild instead of trying to jury-rig failures.

[Raven]

awesome.

[DesignatedT]

Further study is good.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Somewhere in Philly they're planning a 0-82 season.

[elbamba]

I noticed a lot of the teams with connections to the Spurs in their management and coaching staffs voted no.

[taps]

I noticed a lot of the teams with connections to the Spurs in their management and coaching staffs voted no.

Yeah, we Spurs fans are such a superstitious bunch that the FO was afraid the league might travel back in time and take away Timmy!

[Mark in Austin]

I'd much rather prefer each lottery team get the same odds.

[Andthentherewas21]

I'm not against some type of reform, but the changes that were being advocated were too severe and would likely have had some of the repercussions that Presti outlined. A better system would be to not allow teams consecutive years of high picks, so for instance if a team gets the 1st overall pick (or within the top 3) in 2014, then the highest they can get in 2015 is the 6th overall pick. In the case the team drew a pick 1-5, all the other teams would just move up a spot. They could even extend it so in the third year the highest pick they can get is the 8th or 10th or something. That would prevent teams from tanking for years on end (without showing improvement) while still allowing them the opportunity to get some talent if needed.

Personally I have a bigger problem with the Cavs acquiring 3 overall #1 picks and another 2-3 in the top 5 over a 4 year period due to the incompetence of its FO then I have with a team that has been perpetual 1st round fodder and decides to blow it up rather than continue to be mediocre and on the bubble year after year.

[Das Texan]

Shame. I do think that if the league is so obsessed with limiting player movement, they need to stop making it so that the best prospects go to the worst teams. A team like Philly may not be worth Noel's time since they've cut so much talent recently. But they have him by the balls for five to nine years regardless.


No if they want to limit player movement, they will take away Bird rights conveying with players in trades.

[Chinook]

No if they want to limit player movement, they will take away Bird rights conveying with players in trades.

No. That'll do the same thing that taking away Bird rights for S&Ts did: It'll make it to where players leave without the original team getting any compensation for them. They need to bring the only Bird rule back if anything.

[Obstructed_View]

The best three lottery teams should get the most ping pong balls. The remaining teams should get fewer ping pong balls by record, the worst teams getting the fewest. Teams that don't work hard to win games, field competitive teams and sign free agents can't suddenly get an infusion of talent they can underpay and milk until they leave via free agency, only to repeat the process. Teams that can't succeed under that model can be contracted. If a team wants to tank its way out of the postseason in order to get a shot at a high draft pick, then the league will have to address the fact that they have too many teams in the playoffs.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I would imagine the league might be pretty angry with Sam Presti's lobbying against the reform. Could we consequently see some sort of a decrease in OKC's free throws this coming season? I wouldn't bet against it.

Also, the league absolutely cannot afford to allow Philly to succeed in their approach, now or in 5 years time.

[TheGreatYacht]

Thank god. Only way the small markets have a chance to compete is by building through the draft, or tanking... Since they never sign big names via Free Agency (ex. SA, OKC)

If you're a Spurs fan, you'd be an idiot to want the new format where the Phoenix fucking Suns can get the #1 pick being the 14th worst team. With our big 3 leaving soon, we have no other chance at getting a star other than tanking.

[mudyez]

Maybe thats too european thinking, but it would work for me if the worst team in West and East relegate to the D-League (with 28 Teams remaining in the NBA...and the two teams coming back after a year...with 2 other leaving) while getting their pick a year later.

I don't care how they pay the players for that year.

[Andthentherewas21]

Maybe thats too european thinking, but it would work for me if the worst team in West and East relegate to the D-League (with 28 Teams remaining in the NBA...and the two teams coming back after a year...with 2 other leaving) while getting their pick a year later.

I don't care how they pay the players for that year.

Wouldn't work in the NBA. There is too much of a talent disparity between the two, even with a team like Philly. Not to mention the D-league teams don't have the infrastructure in place to support an actual NBA fan base. And that is forgetting all the business and legal aspects it would have to overcome (i.e., there isn't a 1-1 ratio so a d-league affiliate serving multiple teams would potentially become an NBA team under your proposed system, the players union would never allow for a situation that would essential lose 12-15 of its members guaranteed money for a year and there is no chance they would earn their full salaries if they were a D-league team.) Then there are issues the owners wouldn't agree to such as paying a bunch of players they didn't agree to play ostensibly on their court. There are a thousand other issues as well, but in the end there just isn't the same type of dynamic in terms of infrastructure and operation in the NBA/D-league situation as there is between the different clubs and leagues in Europe.

Not to say that it couldn't someday evolve to be closer to that, but at this point it isn't a realistic possibility.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

i hate the top 3 thing they do. i think they need to flip the lottery favor and add 1st round playoff losers and the 2 teams in the finals. the best team to not make the playoffs should get the best chance for the 1 overall. the worst 3 reg season records should have about the same chance as the 1st round bounced and the 2 from the finals. maybe the finals champs should have about the shame chance as the 4th worst reg season record. the rest is just flipped lottery and whatever chance is left.

boom. make the playoffs, try to make the playoffs, win the finals, try to make the finals. tanking might land you a franchise player, but it might also land you a new city. i guarantee the draft and lottery selection would see rating boosts. and there would be a lot less rookie busts, when good teams can pick good players. bad teams can get creative with staff and expert development, or suck and relocate. the nba has a socialist draft system, and it's time for it's fall.

[Andthentherewas21]

i hate the top 3 thing they do. i think they need to flip the lottery favor and add 1st round playoff losers and the 2 teams in the finals. the best team to not make the playoffs should get the best chance for the 1 overall. the worst 3 reg season records should have about the same chance as the 1st round bounced and the 2 from the finals. maybe the finals champs should have about the shame chance as the 4th worst reg season record. the rest is just flipped lottery and whatever chance is left.

boom. make the playoffs, try to make the playoffs, win the finals, try to make the finals. tanking might land you a franchise player, but it might also land you a new city. i guarantee the draft and lottery selection would see rating boosts. and there would be a lot less rookie busts, when good teams can pick good players. bad teams can get creative with staff and expert development, or suck and relocate. the nba has a socialist draft system, and it's time for it's fall.

That doesn't solve the tanking problem, it just moves it from the worst teams in the league to the teams that are the 7-8 seeds. Admittedly teams wouldn't be tanking seasons away (just the games at the end that generally are more important to seeding). There would still be tanking due to the low chances of an #8 seed taking down a #1, especially in a scenario like the Eastern conference the past few years where it was all but certain that the Heat and Pacers would be in the conference finals.

It also doesn't address the problems of small/undesirable markets acquiring talent. Not that I was a fan of New Orleans getting the #1 pick right after the league sold it, but without it what All-star caliber player was going to NO in FA? Particularly after CP3 forced his way out. It would have been a perpetual bottom feeder, and under the system you propose, they would have little chance of improving their position. Even successful teams in small markets have had trouble acquiring top-tier free agents (see: SA, OKC) and often have to overpay to get mid-tier guys, a team that isn't even on the bubble would have even worse prospects and no mechanism to improve.

[ThomasamohT]

I think that the lottery should include every team that gets eliminated in the first round in addition to every team that doesn't make the playoffs. This would give a bit more incentive to strive for the playoffs. Also you should even out the odds a bit, not 1 to 1 like it was originally but something that gives a little less incentive to tank (10% for worst down to 2% for playoff teams). Finally I like the idea that if you received a top 3 pick one year, you become ineligible to receive a top 3 the next year. You don't want to punish bad teams TOO much but outright tanking, especially for several years needs to be discouraged.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

That doesn't solve the tanking problem, it just moves it from the worst teams in the league to the teams that are the 7-8 seeds. Admittedly teams wouldn't be tanking seasons away (just the games at the end that generally are more important to seeding). There would still be tanking due to the low chances of an #8 seed taking down a #1, especially in a scenario like the Eastern conference the past few years where it was all but certain that the Heat and Pacers would be in the conference finals.

It also doesn't address the problems of small/undesirable markets acquiring talent. Not that I was a fan of New Orleans getting the #1 pick right after the league sold it, but without it what All-star caliber player was going to NO in FA? Particularly after CP3 forced his way out. It would have been a perpetual bottom feeder, and under the system you propose, they would have little chance of improving their position. Even successful teams in small markets have had trouble acquiring top-tier free agents (see: SA, OKC) and often have to overpay to get mid-tier guys, a team that isn't even on the bubble would have even worse prospects and no mechanism to improve.

the clipper picks that the hornets could have gotten for paul. in my fantasy pick determining system. they would have been high reg season record with no playoff birth, 1st round exit, or even finals appearance possible. And if not any of those, New Orleans could simply play and manage to win a few more games for their own pick to be better. i'd call that satisfactory small market opportunity.

[mudyez]

Wouldn't work in the NBA. There is too much of a talent disparity between the two, even with a team like Philly. Not to mention the D-league teams don't have the infrastructure in place to support an actual NBA fan base. And that is forgetting all the business and legal aspects it would have to overcome (i.e., there isn't a 1-1 ratio so a d-league affiliate serving multiple teams would potentially become an NBA team under your proposed system, the players union would never allow for a situation that would essential lose 12-15 of its members guaranteed money for a year and there is no chance they would earn their full salaries if they were a D-league team.) Then there are issues the owners wouldn't agree to such as paying a bunch of players they didn't agree to play ostensibly on their court. There are a thousand other issues as well, but in the end there just isn't the same type of dynamic in terms of infrastructure and operation in the NBA/D-league situation as there is between the different clubs and leagues in Europe.

Not to say that it couldn't someday evolve to be closer to that, but at this point it isn't a realistic possibility.

yeah, never ment it seriously.