fishmike wrote:

Vmart wrote:I’m still a proponent of throwing all the teams in the lottery. It’s the only way to not rewarding tanking. The reason is if a good team gets a top pick they are more likely to trade the pick. Which stimulates trade. On the other hand if a top team likes the drafted player more than what they have it still creates trade. I’m really tired of this draft order BS. Put all the 30 teams in a bin and start from bottom up.

sure... and if the Knicks stink year after year and GS wins the lottery or a playoff team wins the lottery that makes sense?

Totally disagree. The worst teams should get the best picks because that is what they NEED. Its not about rewarding tanking. Its about trying to balance the league. Teams that are losing, tanking or not are doing so because they lack the talent to compete. Awarding that talent to teams that already has it makes sense? I dont think so at all.

What is the difference between super friends and winning draft lottery. If GS had won a draft lottery it would have thrown their think off and who know may not of even considered adding Durant.

newyorknewyork wrote:

Vmart wrote:I’m still a proponent of throwing all the teams in the lottery. It’s the only way to not rewarding tanking. The reason is if a good team gets a top pick they are more likely to trade the pick. Which stimulates trade. On the other hand if a top team likes the drafted player more than what they have it still creates trade. I’m really tired of this draft order BS. Put all the 30 teams in a bin and start from bottom up.

IMO they need to more so target mediocrity. I believe up 5th seed down should have the best odds at winning the lottery.

Teams will be more willing to sign veteran players to push to be a competitive playoff team. So the player union would probably love the idea.

Teams would no long get stuck in that good enough to make playoffs but never good enough to advance stage. Then decide to tear it down and rebuild which happens about 98% of the time.

Believe it would be easier for teams to become better then it is now. I know the purpose of the lottery rewarding the worse teams are so every team eventually has a chance to be good. But the structure doesn't really create that. But if teams can work on at least getting to mediocre. Then under this system of 5th seed having the best odds. They can then be rewarded and have a better shot at being good. So signing those FAs or making trades in those win now moves wont kill a team as it does today. If you look at the heavy traffic for GMs that's it right there. So if they can actually be rewarded for it then imo would make a more competitive league.

This also should be paired up with the development of the G-league. Which should turn into a true minor league system foe the NBA. They maybe should require one yr mandatory for rookies. This would boost the G-league ratings and stature. Each team should have its own G-league and they should try to emulate baseball as much as they can that makes sense for NBA.

Also heard a great idea on the radio of the NBA eventually taking over AAU. Funding their own facilities. Providing the coaches. And taking control of the future NBA players which in turn is their future product.

I like the inverse idea but I’m almost sure the bottom playoff teams would start to tank to get higher odds. Bad teams would definitely play harder and I’m sure management plays to win just enough.

knicks1248 wrote:The league should look into the knicks because if your telling me that we are going out there competing, then we are in serious trouble..

perry and mills put together a 50 CENTS roster because they only play for 2 quarters

Our third quarters stink of tank, but the League only has to look back even when we had Porzingis to see that we had that problem even when we did want to win.

I think in our case, the players aren't giving their best on defense because of Porzingis being out, them feeling the season is lost and also because Hornaceck isnt getting to them anymore, if he ever was.

Nah, we are natural-born tankers. Our way to the top 7 in the draft is effortless.

newyorknewyork wrote:http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22615784/nba-making-plans-get-involved-high-school-level-once-again-espn

Within the past year, league officials began canvassing teams on their ideas and interest in the NBA creating academies that would house and train dozens of the country's elite high school basketball players, sources said. This academy concept has been floated for years, notably by Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

These academies would've been modeled after European-style operations that soccer and basketball franchises use and after the NBA's own international academies. The NBA currently operates three academies in China, one in India and one in Senegal and has a global academy with prospects from across the planet at the Australia Institute of Sport. They recently opened another academy in Mexico City to serve standout Latin American teens.

However, after discussions with teams and examining challenges and possible unintended consequences with establishing these operations in the U.S., the NBA has decided not to go down the academy path at this time, sources said.

Instead, the league might be looking at how it can get in touch with prospects while they're playing in high school with camps, tournaments and other connection points as they move through high school, with the summer being a focus point.

In this way, the league could bring in some of its experts to advise high-level prospects on training methods, recovery, nutrition and life skills. All this in addition to providing professional coaching and playing techniques that could better translate to the professional game and make the eventual transition to the NBA, G League or even high-level college basketball easier.

The NBA already has created an "in between" for the G League and NBA rosters with two-way contracts, in which players earn the equivalent of $75,000 when in the G League and then earn an NBA minimum salary when with the parent club. A plan to create another version of this could be launched for 18-year-olds that would make it more financially attractive for them to stay in the U.S. and get more NBA-level coaching and training as they prepare to eventually be formally drafted into the league.

I like this. That said, all I think is really necessary is that if you start college, you have to finish college. If you opt out of college, you can go straight to the NBA. I don't see why a team couldn't draft a player and control his rights while he's in college. Because really isn't that what we want? Guys to play four years of college and come into the pros properly trained?

Vmart wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Vmart wrote:I’m still a proponent of throwing all the teams in the lottery. It’s the only way to not rewarding tanking. The reason is if a good team gets a top pick they are more likely to trade the pick. Which stimulates trade. On the other hand if a top team likes the drafted player more than what they have it still creates trade. I’m really tired of this draft order BS. Put all the 30 teams in a bin and start from bottom up.

sure... and if the Knicks stink year after year and GS wins the lottery or a playoff team wins the lottery that makes sense?

Totally disagree. The worst teams should get the best picks because that is what they NEED. Its not about rewarding tanking. Its about trying to balance the league. Teams that are losing, tanking or not are doing so because they lack the talent to compete. Awarding that talent to teams that already has it makes sense? I dont think so at all.

What is the difference between super friends and winning draft lottery. If GS had won a draft lottery it would have thrown their think off and who know may not of even considered adding Durant.

So if GS wins the lottery their dynasty continues and 15 teams with losing records miss out on high end talent that can balance the league.

You DO understand the concept of worst teams getting higher pick in EVERY sport is about balance yea? The NBA is unique to the other sports because the NBA draft is so top heavy. Its tough to sway teams from tanking but the reason tanking exists in the first place is the need.

"Who's with me?"

jskinny35 wrote:What if they rotated where each year only 5 teams have a lottery to earn the 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5th pick. Next year it's 3 other teams (regardless of record). This would reduce the strategy to win or lose to earn a specific pick. So every 6 years the cycle restarts... Would also ensure every team has a chance to rebuild or add some quality youth. I think of teams like Minnesota or Philly that have all this young talent wheras teams like GS, Spurs, etc have mostly vets and will end up needing to rebuild for 3-5 years anyway. Kinda like the Lakers and Celtics had to after the 80s glory days... All teams operate in 3-5 year cycles with coaches, GMs anyway...

"Who's with me?"

A mid level Celtics front office guy brought up this variation of reform. It was called "The Wheel"

These would be the open complications to start ( not saying I agree or disagree, but these would be the baseline opening conflicts)

- There would have to be some kind of weight for odds, even for a pool of five teams, so every team would need a chance to have the most odds, meaning to reform to this would mean it would need to be a full THIRTY YEAR CYCLE.

- The problem with any cycle that long is it cannot accommodate expansion. The NBA would like to get to 32 teams at some point.

- All teams would want to get into the cycle early, meaning they'd have no guarantee what the NBA will look like in 5/10/15/20/25 years, so they'd want their stacked odds before some new reform took place

- There would need to be a lottery for which conference and division goes and in what order. Since it would weigh for a system that lasts a full 30 year cycle, this would have to be the most involved lottery ever done. You still have a lottery problem in some fashion here.

- Lots off players won't say this, but no one wants to play in Canada. When the Raptors come up, and if they win the draft lottery, a top prospect might sit it out and stay in school. That sounds insane, but we are talking about a league where a team has a wine bath film festival idiot punching fire extinguishers.

- Teams that have invested in trading for future draft assets have no incentive to vote for a system that now penalizes their asset base

It is an interesting idea. But it creates as many questions as it hopes to answer.

The larger problem is this. Every time a franchise sells for a record price, all NBA franchise values skyrocket. The "gift" the league gives you is to win the lottery. You think Anthony Davis is where he is by luck? Fewer people will want to bid on NBA teams without the hope of an incoming franchise player to rebuild the franchise ( because if a team had a true franchise player, no owner would sell that team in the first place. How many sports teams are sold while they are in a true contention window as the favorites?)