I was wondering what many thought about this entire "draft" concept in which the worst teams in the league get rewarded for having bad seasons. It has been going on for years and will continue to do so, but what your opinions on its effect on a league?

On the one hand, it allows teams that have rotten seasons to get themselves a franchise calibre talent, but it also encourages mediocre teams to intentionally "tank" in order to have the worst season possible. In the end, whoever "tanks" best has the best chance of getting the best pick. Is this fair?

The draft allows the best young talent to be spread evenly among teams so rich teams don't monopolize all the young talent (unlike what happens in European soccer). But since it is not possible to enter league without entering the draft, it makes it nearly impossible for a player to play for the team he grew up rooting for or is dying to play for. Is that fair?

With the draft only picking a certain amount of players every year, it forces many marginal pro players to attend college and receive an education which will serve them well later in life. At the same time, it deprives the game of the youngest of superstars who could help grow the economics of the game. Good or bad?

When combined with a salary cap, the draft serves as pretty much the only way for a team to win a championship. Thus, the integrity of the game continually comes into question as non-championship calibre teams battle to be the worst team in the league by making moves detrimental to the team's success. This serves to lower the quality of a league.

The draft forces championships to be won by the team which has the best possible thinkers heading the operation. But it also forces teams to deal with "draft picks" or items that are not real. Many times cash or players are exchanged for something that is purely imaginary until draft time. Does that make sense?





So many different pros and cons about this. Thoughts?

[Edited by - nykdunk on 03/09/2005 23:21:39]

I think for now on the mediore teams should get a chance at the #1 pick. That would make the Knicks the favorite to land the #1!

most mediocre teams are a big player away. I think it would be great for the league!

If that happens, then you would have the same 4 teams playing for the title every year.

The current system works great, why should it be changed, just cause the Knicks management is terrible and can't deal with it?

Posted by simrud:

If that happens, then you would have the same 4 teams playing for the title every year.

The current system works great, why should it be changed, just cause the Knicks management is terrible and can't deal with it?

The current system will not change. It is tradition to it do this way, but surely you'd agree that it can be done better? As it stands, teams must get bad to get good, and the faster a team gets bad, the faster it will be good. In the end, organizations are playing to lose. How can this be a good thing? Mediocre teams like we have here on the East Coast are in a hopeless situation because they don't play to lose and aren't good enough to win.