• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Lottery Reform, Like Winter, is Coming

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I guess I'll say it:

Why not make it like every other sport? Base it on record. Worst team gets the top pick.

How do you prevent outright tanking? Tie draft considerations into free agency. Miami would have just been awarded a pick somewhere in the first round. Not necessarily Cleveland's, but before Cleveland picks. Sort of like baseball.

OR, you can make it a point that if you sign someone else's player above a certain point, you forfeit a first round pick to them somewhere down the line. Already traded that pick? Tough shit. Guess you can't sign said player.

If you deter teams from stealing from each other, all of a sudden, teams begin to see the draft as a bit less of a saving grace that it's seen as now.
 
As a fan, I don't want to see it change. The hopes of hitting the lottery and getting a top pick and good player is the only damn thing that has gotten me through the past 4 years of being a Cavs fan. It gives fans of bad teams SOMETHING to look forward to. Without it, you just watch your team suck ass with no potential "reward" for being bad.
 
Gimme Some Mo said:
As a fan, I don't want to see it change. The hopes of hitting the lottery and getting a top pick and good player is the only damn thing that has gotten me through the past 4 years of being a Cavs fan. It gives fans of bad teams SOMETHING to look forward to. Without it, you just watch your team suck ass with no potential "reward" for being bad.
Click to expand...
Isn't this exactly why it needs changed, though? I mean, the only reason we were atrocious is because the lottery rewards you so much for being bad. If we had nearly identical odds being a team that just missed the playoffs compared to a team that had the worst record in the league, the GM would actually try and put a good team and coach out there.

Instead we had to suffer through unwatchable teams just so we could have a shot at a game changing player or two. We were crappy because of the system, if the system changes, we wouldn't have been so terrible.
 
SteelSmack said:
Isn't this exactly why it needs changed, though? I mean, the only reason we were atrocious is because the lottery rewards you so much for being bad. If we had nearly identical odds being a team that just missed the playoffs compared to a team that had the worst record in the league, the GM would actually try and put a good team and coach out there.

Instead we had to suffer through unwatchable teams just so we could have a shot at a game changing player or two. We were crappy because of the system, if the system changes, we wouldn't have been so terrible.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what would be worse, forcing teams to grossly overpay in free agency or obvious tanking. Tanking at least has an end game, whether it works out or not is a different story. Continuing to over pay marginal players due to limited lottery chances will never get you anywhere.
 
It would be all right if they had a system where more yeams got ping pong balls.

The 5 worst teams have the same odds (best odds) the next 5 have the second best odds, all the way down until the 5 best teams in the league.

You don't want to promote tanking, but there needs to be a clear incentive. Draw balls for the top 8 picks, and then let record fill in the rest.

Theoretically that way it could go

30th, 25th, 27th, 20th, 18th, 22nd, 15th, 19th, 1st, 2nd, etc.

So let's say 8% for the 5 worst, 40% total, 5% for the next 5, 65% through 10, 3% for 10-15, 80%, 2% for the next 5, 90%, 1.5% 20-25, 97 5%, and for the 5 best give them a .5% chance.

Theoretically the only tanking to be done would be trying to drop into a better (or rather worse) slot to try and get a better %.

The teams that are in the playoff hunt are going to go all out to make the playoffs, or to get homecourt during the playoffs. Tanking is not an option there, it would really only be the worst teams that would try to tank, just like now, but they wouldn't be rewarded for it.

Edit: and just to add, this would also make playoff teams first round pick more valuable as well. So a treadmill team, such as the fabled Atlanta Hawks actually could improve their team either by keeping the pick and drafting top 8, or trading it for proven talent. The only thing that you don't want is the team that wins the championship to get one of the top picks.
 
SteelSmack said:
Isn't this exactly why it needs changed, though? I mean, the only reason we were atrocious is because the lottery rewards you so much for being bad. If we had nearly identical odds being a team that just missed the playoffs compared to a team that had the worst record in the league, the GM would actually try and put a good team and coach out there.

Instead we had to suffer through unwatchable teams just so we could have a shot at a game changing player or two. We were crappy because of the system, if the system changes, we wouldn't have been so terrible.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the system reward bad teams with good picks? That's how every other sport does it and it's not a problem. The NBA is the only sport that makes such a big deal out of it.
 
Right, I think the system is perfect the way it is. Small market teams have nearly an impossible task of building a championship contender through free agency. The Bucks would never have gotten Jabari Parker if the system was changed. I never want to see a case where the rich get richer.
 
I think the main change the NBA needs to make is transitioning to a hard cap. We've all seen how that creates parity in the NFL, with any team (except the Browns and Jags, obviously) being able to turn it around from one season to the next. A hard cap basically forces players to move around or be forced to take huge pay cuts. You might see older vets willing to sacrifice to help their team, but you'll rarely see young guys in their prime doing it. You put in a hard cap and it effectively spells the end of superteams and increases parity throughout the league.
 
Maybe teams should just bid on the picks?

If we had a hard cap, teams would have limited financial resources so they would need to plan around the picks. I like the idea of eliminating the concept of a lottery, and instead having teams that want to build through the draft bid for a pick. This way a team that is stacked won't spend large resources on the first pick, and teams that are depleted would surely have the cap space to use regardless.

I think this is probably the best approach.
 
gourimoko said:
Maybe teams should just bid on the picks?

If we had a hard cap, teams would have limited financial resources so they would need to plan around the picks. I like the idea of eliminating the concept of a lottery, and instead having teams that want to build through the draft bid for a pick. This way a team that is stacked won't spend large resources on the first pick, and teams that are depleted would surely have the cap space to use regardless.

I think this is probably the best approach.
Click to expand...

This would be a very interesting scenario to see how teams would bid in depleted draft class such as 2013 compared to a much more loaded class like 2014. I would like to see how scouting changes under this model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top