Reply With Quote
Not bad, but what about trading picks?
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...o-to-the-wheel
The Proposal
Grantland obtained a copy of the proposal, which would eliminate the draft lottery entirely 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.
The system is simpler to understand in pictorial form. Below is the wheel that outlines the order in which each team would cycle through the draft slots; the graphic highlights the top six slots in red to show that every team would be guaranteed one top-six pick every five seasons, and at least one top-12 pick in every four-year span:
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...o-to-the-wheel
Not bad, but what about trading picks?
.
damn this is an impressive idea. i'm all for it after first glance
not sure what's unclear about it, tbh
Oh, missed that part at first glance, my bad bruh
Interesting, just hope the Spurs don't get stuck picking in the late 20s once they go into full suck mode in a few years. Then again, the Spurs would likely put together a decent enough team post Duncan to be in That dreaded 7-10 seed range which would be frustrating to some fans hoping for the team to rebuild through the draft as soon as possible. This would protect team like the Jazz (with he exception of this year), Suns (this year), and Spurs (in the future) against themselves.
I can can see the perpetual teams complaining already. Frankly, The teams that perpetually can't get their act together like the Cavs, Bobcats, and Wiz will only have their front offices to blame, and the hope is that ownership shows those people out the door ASAP.
If they did this the talent level would be even more lopsided than it already is. Bad teams need the lotto picks tbh
What's to stop top college players from waiting an extra year to go pro in order to avoid bad teams with #1 picks and be drafted by good teams with #1 picks?
Sure, after this last one coming up tho
If you are good enough to go #1 overall and you play an extra year in college just to avoid a certain team from drafting you, then you deserve the blown knee you are sure to get by waiting. If you can go #1, you enter the draft. After the first person who waits blows his knee, no one will wait after that.
But if Portland is taking with 1pick, regardless they suck or not, and you waited a year or not, you`ll blown your knee.
I don't see that as a bad thing. The NCAA would probably love this proposal. The player can choose (like he can now) and assume the risks associated. My bet is that top college players will take the money now more times than they will pass on it to join a contender in future years (and get less minutes from the start).
I'm all for changing the draft process but it's not easy.
This is the big problem. Also, you'll still need luck to land a high pick in a draft with good prospects.
BTW, this proposal isn't to eliminate the draft. It's to eliminate the lottery which causes tanking.
i'm not sure how many players will turn away millions of guaranteed dollars when there is a chance of hurting yourself or your draft stock
About $5.3 million.
And superstar don't stay with the team that drafted them anymore.
So I think most of them will go to the bad team, get their millions, their 20/10 years as rookie / sop re they could never have with a contender and only then go to the Lakers in year 4 of their career
I think this system results in league contraction. ty teams who are ty for management reasons, or they are just in a low interest market, would eventually have to close shop. Right now they get a solid pick, milk him for attendance and then as he leaves for a better team when he's able. Then the team drafts another 1st and start over. All the while they provide ty teammates for this guy and the worst coaching money can buy.
So sure. I don't have a problem with it.
Cleveland?
It's not a bad suggestion, but they need to offset it with something that helps bad teams. Like, maybe giving "lottery" teams an extra MLE or an extra round of picks.
This will kill small market bad teams. How exactly is a team like Milwaukee going to gain any attendance if they suck horribly, then their fans know for a certainty they're picking 26th and 22nd the next two years? The high pick every four years sounds good but some teams won't make it four years with bad attendance that becomes even worse when fans know they're absolutely guaranteed to suck at least 2 more years with zero hope.
lol what a stupid idea
lol i was thinking this sounds like some re ed "i am trying way too hard to sound smarter than i am" type of Grantland article written by Zach lowe or Bill Barnwell. Lo and behold, it's a lowe article.
Giving bad teams an extra round of picks after the top 30 players are gone doesn't work in the NBA when there's little to no difference making talent left after the 1st round (for that matter almost all the difference making talent is gone after the first 10 picks).
People will reply withbut Gilbert Arenas
If you connect the red numbers, you get the devil's symbol, so it's entirely plausible this is Stern's idea...
My idea to help balance Nba teams. 1st ten worst finishers will get to draft 2 players within 1st 20 picks. The worst - 10th place will draft the 1st 10 and will go reverse order starting on the 11th pick. Basically, 10th finisher will get to draft 10 pick and 11th pick. After that it can run the existing way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
