lottery reform idea: packet drafting

[K...]

Critics of the lottery sometimes cite how teams like the cavs can get repeated lottery talent and never improve.


That's similar to people who argue that people on a particular welfare program never get richer so the welfare should be cut.


So what if instead of giving the lottery teams one pick, give them three. 1,4,10; 2,5,11; 3,6,12, & 7, 13,14, and 8,15,25; 9,16,26 Next set of lottery teams get normal picking order but get; 17,27; 18,28 etc.

Playoff teams get nothing. This means 14 teams get 34 picks.

I think I'd rather see bad teams change players fast. Pair this with amnesty provisions for lottery winners (specifically for veterans), and a no repeat rule (you cannot get the first tier more than once every three years), and we might have a better league

[Mitch]

Already preparing for the post-pop & Dunc era?

[DPG21920]

Critics of the lottery sometimes cite how teams like the cavs can get repeated lottery talent and never improve.


That's similar to people who argue that people on a particular welfare program never get richer so the welfare should be cut.


So what if instead of giving the lottery teams one pick, give them three. 1,4,10; 2,5,11; 3,6,12, & 7, 13,14, and 8,15,25; 9,16,26 Next set of lottery teams get normal picking order but get; 17,27; 18,28 etc.

Playoff teams get nothing. This means 14 teams get 34 picks.

I think I'd rather see bad teams change players fast. Pair this with amnesty provisions for lottery winners (specifically for veterans), and a no repeat rule (you cannot get the first tier more than once every three years), and we might have a better league

It's bad management which causes teams to never improve. Giving more assets to poorly run teams is a recipe for disaster. Plus, you then penalize winning by taking their already limited asset away.

[K...]

It's bad management which causes teams to never improve. Giving more assets to poorly run teams is a recipe for disaster. Plus, you then penalize winning by taking their already limited asset away.

Ultimately though, isn't it all one business entity?

Playoff teams have there own incentive to win, since it equals more home games. They'd still get free agent college players. But instead of picks 16-30 now they effectively choose only second round talent. I'm fine with that.


The whole bad management idea is spot on, but we can't banish ownership like Donald sterling all the time.

The no repeat (once every a years) is a limit on abuse.

Plus you can't have it both ways: arguing that the draft hurts playoff teams but will not overcome bad management.

All I'm saying is that Philly style, Multi year tanking would be reduced in favor of giving the picks all at once.

[Clipper Nation]

OP: faggot posting

[K...]

I WANT MY DMAN NOBEL PRIZE

[DMC]

Critics of the lottery sometimes cite how teams like the cavs can get repeated lottery talent and never improve.


That's similar to people who argue that people on a particular welfare program never get richer so the welfare should be cut.


So what if instead of giving the lottery teams one pick, give them three. 1,4,10; 2,5,11; 3,6,12, & 7, 13,14, and 8,15,25; 9,16,26 Next set of lottery teams get normal picking order but get; 17,27; 18,28 etc.

Playoff teams get nothing. This means 14 teams get 34 picks.

I think I'd rather see bad teams change players fast. Pair this with amnesty provisions for lottery winners (specifically for veterans), and a no repeat rule (you cannot get the first tier more than once every three years), and we might have a better league
Years of the 1st overall pick and most of the draft class being duds pretty much makes all of that pointless.

[Franklin]

playoff team getting nothing? I guess then in the second half of every season you'd see 5-10 teams tanking for a #9 or lower seed instead of pursuing a playoff spot. It kind of fixes the lottery, but kills the season... one step forward, two steps back proposal, imho.

[K...]

playoff team getting nothing? I guess then in the second half of every season you'd see 5-10 teams tanking for a #9 or lower seed instead of pursuing a playoff spot. It kind of fixes the lottery, but kills the season... one step forward, two steps back proposal, imho.

Well, consider whether non lottery picks are really worth anything. Are you going to miss the playoffs for 24,34? After 34 you get free agency. And you can still buy or trade your pick. There will definitely be tanking up front but with no lottery there's no chance of a quasi playoff team getting a high pick. So I don't see tanking there unless you put the quasi playoff team above recent "lottery winners" in the pick rankings (via the exclusion rules)


I don't know. The main thing I want to see is teams not play repeat lottery like the Lakers or 76ers. Get your high pick talent, next year you are barred from the 3 pick level, but can get 17,27. I don't know if I'd want an exclusion for a team tanking to get 17,27.

If you make your exclusion rule as "no top tier if you have been top tier in the last two drafts" than the max tank would get:
1,4,10,17,27,17,27,1,4,10 in a four year period. I suppose a multi exclusion rule could be used, like no repeats within 2years, but also only two top tier trips within 10 years.

[DPG21920]

Again, the problem is they are poorly run franchises. Not that they have had no chance to redeem themselves. It would be like giving the worst gambler in the world more money.

[Franklin]

I proposed a solution many years ago... the team that finishes with the shittiest record shall be deprived of their draft pick (or rearranged to the non-lottery zone) so even the bottom teams would have some incentives to work hard.