Rich get richer and poor get poorer

[Hedonist]

I don't see how that is all relevant.

You don't think the bottom dwellers get rewarded but an opportunity, but if it's the middle of the pack than you do?

No, I think in both cases it would be opportunity. But it seems to me that you're suggesting that giving the bottom teams the best odds in the lottery is rewarding tanking/teams sucking, which is why I bring up rewarding one or the other for either flat out sucking or being mediocre respectively. I don't see how being mediocre makes you any more worthy of having a better opportunity of getting the top pick than someone in more desperate need of new talent.

Well, the suggestion is there isn't it? Let's turn around the perspective. If you consider higher chances a reward than smaller chances are a punishment right? So, a team that won't make the playoffs with 20 games to go is punished for winning games if anything.

Let me repeat: It's NOT about worthiness. It's about making every game mean something.

In desperate need for talent? Help yourself, really. Are we still talking America or what?
(was the socialism parallel in this thread or the other one? )

From the player's perspective, it wouldn't be much better for their careers as there's a good chance they'd be lower in the pecking order or even on the bench stuck behind an established veteran, which doesn't seem right for the top prospects who capable of contributing right away.

From a player's perspective the draft should be abolished immediately. Please let's not get into that. No freedom of choice where to play, low maximums for rookies (age discrimination), contract offers being matched and you can't go anywhere after what, 4 years, and getting traded to whereever without notice, I find it sickening, honestly.

Injuries, retirement and just plain bad luck with free agents or draftees are relevant because you also seem to be suggesting that if a team sucks, it's their own fault and they should just do a better job. While that certainly may be true, and poorly managed teams do continue to dwell in the basement, it's not always the case. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say; it's easy to look back at a Draft a couple of years ago and suggest what teams should and shouldn't have done, but there's always going to be can't-miss prospects that flop and teams that look great on paper falling apart for one reason or another. Teams can appear to do everything right, but still have everything end up going wrong.

There's a saying here "the winning coach is always right". While that is of course too much it is the name of the game. If it's your own fault or bad luck or whatever, you should do a better job next time to win. Or get better for that matter.

Of course hindsight is easy, but I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily fair and balanced this way. The Clippers have had a disproportionate advantage to succeed and as much as I would love the Clippers own the Lakers, I think they do deserve to suck actually.

You can't fairly say a team that's at the bottom of the league necessarily deserves to be there.

I'm not.
Figure this: you're defending this system because they as much as anyone 'deserve' a chance to be on top (= talent).

Let's just say they don't deserve either one. Let them play for it.

And that includes scouting, managing, coaching, team building, whatever it takes obviously.

If we flip the lottery system on its head, we're punishing all future basement teams for the transgressions of a few, the few that are legitimately and undeniably tanking. And seeing as though tanking doesn't guarantee anything except the chance they might get one of the top three picks, I say let them take the risk. If they're willing to lose face, alienate fans and potentially turn away free agents on the slim chance they'll get the top pick and the Next Big Thing coming out of college, that's their risk to take.

If you think it's punishment I think we can also agree that the opposite is actually rewarding.

I want to repeat - it being a long discussion - that the bottom team is still in the top half guaranteed and has a chance of a top pick if it's flipped, so in that sense they still have an advantage over the top teams. The beauty of it is that now every win is rewarded. And you're right they may be alienating their fans but what's worse, speaking for myself, alienating the basketball fans in general. The NBA as a league suffers. And I think more than from the existence of natural bottom dwellers.

Generally speaking, leagues prosper when the big market teams are succesfull. Celtics - Lakers was the dream final for a reason. When big market teams fight for the trophy year in year out the sport will benefit. If that is supported by the most money that is nothing to glorify but it doesn't call for a salary cap or a draft system to compensate that imo.

It's like not awarding an Oscar for the best picture to films with budgets over 50 million. Even the elections are more influenced by the economic market than basketball. The most popular end up with the most money and the best assets.
That's how it should be imo. NY has what 10 times more fans than NO but nothing to show for it.

And again, I generally like underdogs.

[Andrew]

But again, tanking is difficult to prove. It's easy to point to a losing team and say that they're tanking, but are they really? To truly tank, the effort to win must never be there throughout the whole season to the point where the team is going out of its way to lose from very early on. To me, resting the starters for the last five or ten games when you're hovering around the 12 win mark isn't tanking, or not badly enough that it's a big problem. If the season is that far gone, you might as well let your key players rest and recover from any nagging injuries (and avoid serious injury in meaningless games) and let some seldom-used players get a run. Who knows, that might be where a team finds their diamond in the rough.

Of course, if a team is sabotaging themselves 20, 30 games into the season and you can see deliberate tactics akin to point shaving, then that is shameful and it's a clear case of tanking. They still have to win the lottery though and as we all know, having the worst record hardly guarantees that.

I do agree that it's up to teams to help themselves, but again I return to the question of "how?". If they have no valuable trade assets and can't be players in the free agent market, the only option is the Draft. You don't hand them a top three pick, they're in the lottery same as everybody else but their need is greater and those are the markets where the top prospects usually have the best chance to make an impact (and not rot on the bench), so you give them the most chances. However, if they miss out, they miss out. After that, they get a pick in inverse order according to their place in the standings the same as everyone else.

[Mayerhendrix]

Read the title and my first thought was..."So we've started a thread here on the Obama administration now?!"

[Andrew]

There's one on that in General Talk, but that one's clearly marked.

[Hedonist]

But again, tanking is difficult to prove.

I'm not trying to prove it. The system allowing it to be viable option is a bad thing whatsoever imo.

The problem goes beyond the draft lottery and has much to do with the cap too. Contenders are getting stacked and some lottery teams give away their best players for expiring contracts. That's what the TS meant with rich getting richer etc I think.

Maybe something between 6 and 8 teams are contending for the title, which is allright in itself I guess, but what is a shame is some others being content with the label of rebuilding and the route taken in the proces. There's almost no shame in losing apparently. This is a direct result of the cap but also of the extreme volatility in quality of the franchises. In theory all franchises can become a contender so if they are not they have to somehow rebuild to get there. Because of that there are 6 contenders, 4 pretenders, 12 rising franchises building around talent and maturing trying to get some valuable playoff experience and aiming to be a contender 1,2,3 or 4 years from now and beyond..., 5 setting themselves up to catch that big fish in 2010 by absorbing scrubs with huge expirings and 3 shitholes (ballpark figures).

If the draft and the salary cap were designed to make sure the difference in talent between all teams would be marginal and thus to increase the level of competition it doesn't work. Benji claimed that the NBA is extremely competitive because so many different franchises have made a pretty succesfull playoff run in the past ten years. It's true. But they rise and fall and every year there are as many awful teams as contenders approximately.

I think that in a free market no draft league the number of contenders and awful teams would be around the same.
The main difference would be that the jersey's those teams represent would be more consistent. And because there would be less 'rebuilding' projects (instead it would be outright building rather) the level of competition would possibly increase I think.

If the draft and the cap would result in an incredibly close competition (let's say maximum wins < 60 and minimum 30 for any team) than I'd feel more love for it I think. It might not even be a stretch with a hard cap and draft system that gives each team a high pick after last year's low pick and vice versa. I must say btw I don't hate the draft in itself. As a gimmick, a tradition and event it is a beautiful thing. But I think it could and should be modernized at least.

I do agree that it's up to teams to help themselves, but again I return to the question of "how?".

Again, who cares?

I mean, let them figure it out. Maybe it takes a brilliant GM? Maybe there is no way at all and they should just cease to exist?

I think it's fair to say that you think it is important that every franchise will have a banner up in the rosters a hundred years from now? I don't.

If they have no valuable trade assets and can't be players in the free agent market, the only option is the Draft.

First of all, NBA player trades never cease to surprise me. Seemingly untradeable players are traded all the time.

Second, every team can be a player in the free agency market. A very important thing for any team to be succesfull is to find bargains. Marginal teams will have a tough time finding them but it's possible. Recognizing talent is the most important thing before the coaching and execution have to take over. Since Shaq and Duncan became Finals MVP as nr.1 picks there were a couple of low drafted ones in Kobe (13th) Pierce (10th) and Parker (28th). Regular season MVP's included Nowitzki (9th) and Nash (15th). All the teams that drafted them or obtained them did a great job in recognizing potential others overlooked. Luck has something to do with it maybe but that's always a factor.

This is true for the free agency but also for a draft if the lottery order would be flipped. At 14 there is talent available year in year out.

Would there be no draft at all and a free market league then lesser teams would be attractive to young players who want to establish themselves. You mentioned talent rotting on the bench, well in this situation talents would have the choice themselves to take the gamble on a big team or to grow steadily with an average team. Many will choose the second. The smart ones that aren't sure all-stars before they even played a game will.
Projecting soccer logics on it would create the situation in which players who prove to have star power will be sold to contenders making the average team money of the rich and able to invest in more talent and the organization itself.

As for big talents rotting on the bench when drafted high by the nr.17 etc. I don't think any nr. 17 would bench Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin or LeBron James. In a weak draft or in case all their starter places are locked (would be weird for a #17, but still) they probably would draft based on need. I don't expect major talents to suffer big time. High picks get traded plenty too, I'm not worried that would happen.

[Andrew]

I think it's fair to say that you think it is important that every franchise will have a banner up in the rosters a hundred years from now? I don't.

No, no, I wouldn't go that far. But do think every team should have a chance at the new talent coming in and I'm fine with the teams that fared the worst the previous season having the best chance of getting a high draft pick. In all honesty, it doesn't seem to be working out that badly for the league.

As for big talents rotting on the bench when drafted high by the nr.17 etc. I don't think any nr. 17 would bench Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin or LeBron James. In a weak draft or in case all their starter places are locked (would be weird for a #17, but still) they probably would draft based on need. I don't expect major talents to suffer big time. High picks get traded plenty too, I'm not worried that would happen.

Well, taking Blake Griffin as an example, what if the Suns had won the lottery having the best odds to do so under the system you're suggesting? Neither he nor Amar'e is really suited to play centre in the NBA so there's a situation to sort out there. And if they can't play alongside one another, one is going to have to go to the bench. You mention teams getting stacked...if the middle of the pack teams have the best odds of getting a top three pick, won't it just lead to more stacked teams?

[Hedonist]

I think it's fair to say that you think it is important that every franchise will have a banner up in the rosters a hundred years from now? I don't.

No, no, I wouldn't go that far. But do think every team should have a chance at the new talent coming in and I'm fine with the teams that fared the worst the previous season having the best chance of getting a high draft pick. In all honesty, it doesn't seem to be working out that badly for the league.

Topickiller. It kind of means you're fine with the bunch of expiring contracts absorbing teams too then I suppose.

Sure the NBA is still going strong in 20 years even if they change nothing but imo now there are a lot of crappy games and useless teams (i/o franchises, because who knows where they'll be 5 years from now) so there is much room for improvement.

Besides that, I don't think teams shouldn't be entitled to any kind of chance whatsoever. We simply disagree on that.

As for big talents rotting on the bench when drafted high by the nr.17 etc. I don't think any nr. 17 would bench Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin or LeBron James. In a weak draft or in case all their starter places are locked (would be weird for a #17, but still) they probably would draft based on need. I don't expect major talents to suffer big time. High picks get traded plenty too, I'm not worried that would happen.

Well, taking Blake Griffin as an example, what if the Suns had won the lottery having the best odds to do so under the system you're suggesting? Neither he nor Amar'e is really suited to play centre in the NBA so there's a situation to sort out there. And if they can't play alongside one another, one is going to have to go to the bench. You mention teams getting stacked...if the middle of the pack teams have the best odds of getting a top three pick, won't it just lead to more stacked teams?

Maybe they would have picked somebody else. Or traded him.

I don't think so, otherwise I wouldn't have said those players will usually get plenty of playing time. I'm not against stacked teams by no means, but I hate the enormous gaps in quality between teams. So I don't mind if teams trade away their best player if they get a good deal for it, but usually it's just about dumping the biggest contract and getting picks for a draft in two or three years. That's the rich getting richer and the poor crippling themselves.

[Andrew]

Topickiller. It kind of means you're fine with the bunch of expiring contracts absorbing teams too then I suppose.

I don't mean to kill the topic, but it does seem we've been saying the same things for a few posts now. At some point, I think we have to agree to disagree.

I think the situation with expiring contracts is a product of how out of control some salaries have become. With $10 mil contracts becoming the norm for above average players, it's put teams in a bad situation with the cap and now the luxury tax too and teams are doing what they can to trim the payroll.

Besides that, I don't think teams shouldn't be entitled to any kind of chance whatsoever. We simply disagree on that.

I guess so, but I would like to clarify I'm not talking about a handout. I think every time has a right to get better and be competitive, but it's still up to them to draft well, not sign people to ridiculous contracts that they can't perform up to and make the right trades. I certainly can't deny that.

[Mayerhendrix]

A better way to promote competitive play among lottery teams at the end of the system is to weigh the lottery differently; what I mean to say is, the current system should be modified so that there is a more equal distribution of lottery 'balls' in play. Right now the chances are as such (with 1 corresponding to the worst team, 2 to the second worst, and so on)

1. 250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the #1 pick
2. 199 combinations, 19.9% chance
3. 156 combinations, 15.6% chance
4. 119 combinations, 11.9% chance
5. 88 combinations, 8.8% chance
6. 63 combinations, 6.3% chance
7. 43 combinations, 4.3% chance
8. 28 combinations, 2.8% chance
9. 17 combinations, 1.7% chance
10. 11 combinations, 1.1% chance
11. 8 combinations, 0.8% chance
12. 7 combinations, 0.7% chance
13. 6 combinations, 0.6% chance
14. 5 combinations, 0.5% chance

If the system was made so that the differentiation between 1st place and 8th place wasn't a whopping 22.2% chance, then teams would have more of an incentive to keep winning games because tanking wouldn't benefit them as much. Granted, the worst team in the league rarely wins the lottery, but teams are still tanking under this system because the percentages show a clear numerical advantage to it.

[Andrew]

That's fair enough. To me that's a fair midground between the current system and Hedonist's proposal.

[Hedonist]

Topickiller. It kind of means you're fine with the bunch of expiring contracts absorbing teams too then I suppose.

I don't mean to kill the topic, but it does seem we've been saying the same things for a few posts now. At some point, I think we have to agree to disagree.

That's fair, it was leading up to that anyway. But I said it because it is that kind of an argument. It doesn't specifically go in to any point I put forth and appeals to a sentiment to be honest. It's an old-fashioned conservative argument against change. People use it all the time, so I don't blame you, also because the discussion has got to finish sometimes but just saying.

I think the situation with expiring contracts is a product of how out of control some salaries have become. With $10 mil contracts becoming the norm for above average players, it's put teams in a bad situation with the cap and now the luxury tax too and teams are doing what they can to trim the payroll.

I understand that. But I asked if you're content with it. Because it's collaterol damage of this system and 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' is embracing everything as it is.

Besides that, I don't think teams shouldn't be entitled to any kind of chance whatsoever. We simply disagree on that.

I guess so, but I would like to clarify I'm not talking about a handout. I think every time has a right to get better and be competitive, but it's still up to them to draft well, not sign people to ridiculous contracts that they can't perform up to and make the right trades. I certainly can't deny that.

Well, drafting right is a must. If you can't do that you're a bad GM period imo. I would make scouting the top priority of the franchise. The way I see it it is a handout unless you screw it up.

I think the strangleholds of big contract of crippled all-stars or simply over the hill would strangle teams less in a free market system. The top teams will take most of the blows; i.e. Chris Webber and Jermaine O-Neal's career-crippling injuries. Kind of a natural playing field evening phenomenon. Ideally, guys like that could be rented by lesser teams for a part of their huge contract that they can't afford.

[Andrew]

If you keep making blunders in the Draft then chances are, you're a bad GM and no two ways about it. However, the thread about can't-miss prospects here in NBA Talk is a good example of how seemingly good picks don't pan out for one reason or another. For all the scouting, for all the logical and intelligent things a team can do heading up to the Draft, there's going to be players who just won't pan out. Same goes for trades and free agent signings, though there's a greater element of unknown in the Draft since it involves players who have never played a minute in the NBA. At least if a team is making a trade for a player already in the league or signing a noteworthy free agent, there's more NBA-specific data to go by. That's not to let GMs off the hook completely, but sometimes they can do appear to do everything right and still have things go wrong.

[Hedonist]

It's like shooting. All players miss, but you gotta make sure you hit a high percentage.

[Lamrock]

You should tell that to your favorite player.

[Hedonist]

I don't have a favorite player.

[Calamaro]

May I ask why did you choose that username?

[Hedonist]

May I ask why did you choose that username?

I like Hedo allright, but I don't idolize him or anything. I like many players.

I signed up during the playoffs and I really enjoyed Hedo's play at the time. Still have a weak spot for every Kings-player from the early 2000s (except Bibby). He surprised me. I thought the username is fun because of the double meaning. And representing an anti-hero is fun in the first place. Kind of stands out between the LeBron and Kobe-avatars.

So I did tell the truth but my post may have been different if it was somebody else I was responding to.
Lamrock is trying to be a wisecrack. He wants to get even with me or something.

[Andrew]

I thought the username is fun because of the double meaning.

I appreciate it, so that makes two of us.

[Hedonist]

Cheers. Now that it's merely a slowchat... the other day when you changed your avatar because Gordon left I was shocked. I always thought it was Alonzo Mourning haha.

[Andrew]

I guess it was a bit of a Zo-like expression. Struck me as a good idea for an avatar a couple of years back.

Not sure what else can be said on-topic. Again, I do like Mayerhendrix's idea of balancing the chances in the lottery so that the teams that finished at the very bottom do have the best chances, but not as significant an advantage as they have now. If there's any genuine tanking going on, that might be a way to curb it if dropping a couple of places in the standings isn't going to matter much.

Actually, the NBA's two "special" drafts come to mind: the expansion draft and the disaster draft. Is it fair that expansion teams can select any unprotected player from the rest of the league? After all, if only eight or nine players can be protected (as is usually the case), a particularly deep team could lose a quality player. Then you've got the disaster draft, the NBA's contingency plan in the event that a team loses five or more players to death or dismemberment, in which the rest of the league can only protect five players.

I think the expansion draft is fair enough, any team that has more than nine highly talented players is still going to be fairly well off and with the expansion team seeing the league expand into a new market (or an old one, as the case might be) it makes sense from a business standpoint. It's also good for the players; take Gerald Wallace, who was having difficulty getting quality minutes in Sacramento but got a break with the Bobcats.

As for the disaster draft, it's such a rare and unfortunate situation that you'd hope would never happen but the league needs a contingency plan for the worst case scenarios so it strikes me as fair enough, though again I sincerely hope it would never come to that.

[Mayerhendrix]

The expansion draft system works well-enough as it is; apart from the Charlotte Bobcats and the Memphis Grizzlies, most of the recent expansion franchises have more-or-less become integrated into the general competitive flow of the NBA. It's tough for the deep team losing a quality player, but it's hard to find any current NBA team that has 9+ or 10+ irreplaceable players. Even on the defending-champ Lakers, you'd have most of the main guys protected and at most players like Sasha Vujacic, D.J. Mbenga, Josh Powell, or MAYBE even Adam Morrison being made available. Hardly a major blow to a team that's losing such players; if anything, the newly created franchises have a harder task out of actually building a rising squad around bottom-of-the-roster scrubs, I.R. waste-oids, and such players.

The disaster draft -- I didn't even know such a system was even really in effect. Considering in all major professional and pre-professional sports there's only one major example of an American team experiencing such a tragic disaster [Marshall], it's very unlikely to ever become necessary. And if, in fact, there is a team accident where several players are incapacitated/killed in a single blow, anyone with the audacity to complain about an unfair draft situation and how the team would be benefiting too much....is quite frankly an asshole.

[Andrew]

The expansion draft system works well-enough as it is; apart from the Charlotte Bobcats and the Memphis Grizzlies, most of the recent expansion franchises have more-or-less become integrated into the general competitive flow of the NBA. It's tough for the deep team losing a quality player, but it's hard to find any current NBA team that has 9+ or 10+ irreplaceable players. Even on the defending-champ Lakers, you'd have most of the main guys protected and at most players like Sasha Vujacic, D.J. Mbenga, Josh Powell, or MAYBE even Adam Morrison being made available. Hardly a major blow to a team that's losing such players; if anything, the newly created franchises have a harder task out of actually building a rising squad around bottom-of-the-roster scrubs, I.R. waste-oids, and such players.

Agreed, I have no problem with the expansion draft since a team can protect its best players and in most cases its entire core rotation. However, Hedonist did raise an interesting point about teams not necessarily needing to be competitive (ie not every team can compete for a championship and some will flat out suck) and that the playing field needn't necessarily be made level by giving the worst teams the best odds of getting the top picks in the rookie draft, in essence taking top rookies away from other teams. In an expansion draft of course, they are quite literally taking players away from other teams, though the players themselves might be somewhat established and in many cases probably not as valuable as some of the players entering the league in the rookie draft.

While I don't object to the concept of the expansion draft, it could be argued that expansion teams shouldn't be given a helping hand just because they're new any more than basement teams should get a benefit just for being bottom of the barrel, as Hedonist opined. I thought that might be an interesting tangent for the discussion since that point had pretty much been discussed to the point of "agree to disagree".