Antonio Harvey's NBA Lottery Idea

[PtldPlatypus]

Just described on "The Game", I'm curious as to your thoughts, because I think it has some merit. Basically, he suggests removing both the draft lottery and the NBA age minimum, assigning draft spots by record, but placing tiers in the draft:

Top 5 pick--must have at least two years of college
Top 10 pick--must have at least one year of college

So, if you want to come straight to the NBA from high school, you can, but you can't go any higher than 11th. If you want to be a #1 pick, go prove yourself in college for a couple years first. He also believes this would help the bad teams because they would be drafting more NBA-ready players (ignoring the fact that the past 3 rookies of the year have been one-and-done's), and give non-playoff teams an incentive to play better so that they have the option to draft high-school kids if they want to.

So, what do y'all think?

 

[BGrantFan]

Where do foreign players factor into this idea?

 

[BGrantFan]

Also, the Top 5 in this draft would be pretty thin if you had to have at least 2 years in college.

Behind Evan Turner, who is there? Gordon Hayward? He could go from a 20th pick to Top 5 based on this system. Greg Monroe? Lottery talent, but Top 5? I say this without knowing how non-college foreign players would be slotted.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Where do foreign players factor into this idea?

He didn't say, so I didn't speculate. Most likely age based, 20+ top 5, 19y top 10, 18y everyone else. Personally, I'd recommend 22/20/18, but that's just me.

 

[illmatic99]

Also, the Top 5 in this draft would be pretty thin if you had to have at least 2 years in college.

Behind Evan Turner, who is there? Gordon Hayward? He could go from a 20th pick to Top 5 based on this system. Greg Monroe? Lottery talent, but Top 5? I say this without knowing how non-college foreign players would be slotted.

That's the flaw in his idea. There is no guarantee that second/third/fourth year players are more NBA ready than freshmen. And considering the fact that the worse teams are looking for stars (high upside, even if they are raw initially), I don't think this idea works.

 

[noknobs]

That's really a horrible idea. That means that if the next Lebron James wants to be one and done and enter the draft after his freshman year, the worst 5 teams aren't allowed to draft him, while better teams can? Stupid.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Also, the Top 5 in this draft would be pretty thin if you had to have at least 2 years in college.

Behind Evan Turner, who is there? Gordon Hayward? He could go from a 20th pick to Top 5 based on this system. Greg Monroe? Lottery talent, but Top 5? I say this without knowing how non-college foreign players would be slotted.

That was also the case in 2006, when the age-limit was first implemented. Clearly, it would take a couple years to see how a change such as this would generally impact the draft on a year-to-year basis.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That's really a horrible idea. That means that if the next Lebron James wants to be one and done and enter the draft after his freshman year, the worst 5 teams aren't allowed to draft him, while better teams can? Stupid.

Also, it means that if the next Lebron wants to go to the NBA straight out of high school, the 10-worst teams can't draft him. Of course, he'd have to (potentially) forfeit several million in rookie salary to do so, because he'd be going #11 instead of #1.

As for the terrible teams not getting the next Lebron--be less terrible. Why should a team be rewarded for losing 70 games with a franchise player? I'd rather reward a team that won 35 games and at least had a shot at a playoff spot until the last month.

 

[illmatic99]

Why should a team be rewarded for losing 70 games with a franchise player? I'd rather reward a team that won 35 games and at least had a shot at a playoff spot until the last month.

Giving a superstar to a really shitty team rather than a mediocre team, would result in more parity for the league, leading to better competition overall.

 

[noknobs]

Also, it means that if the next Lebron wants to go to the NBA straight out of high school, the 10-worst teams can't draft him. Of course, he'd have to (potentially) forfeit several million in rookie salary to do so, because he'd be going #11 instead of #1.

But he'd still be getting paid millions for two extra years instead of going to college... and he'd potentially get that big contract two years earlier after his rookie contract.

As for the terrible teams not getting the next Lebron--be less terrible. Why should a team be rewarded for losing 70 games with a franchise player? I'd rather reward a team that won 35 games and at least had a shot at a playoff spot until the last month.

Wow... You serious?

 

[Tince]

This is a horrible idea.

 

[BGrantFan]

Here's another idea. Let's put the 16 playoffs teams in a lottery, with the lowest record having the most chances at #1, and this year, Cleveland having the fewest chances. The current lottery teams would draft from #17 to 30 based on record. Worst at #17, and Memphis at #30.

This is fair because it doesn't reward bad teams, and it rewards young, up and coming teams like OKC, Portland, and Atlanta. Teams that are good enough now to be out of the lottery, but still with holes.

 

[Tince]

David Stern should just give the largest markets, the most lottery balls.

 

[BGrantFan]

David Stern should just give the largest markets, the most lottery balls.

I say let's go back to the days of frozen and/or bent envelopes. Back when the cheating was obvious and nobody cared because the Knicks got the #1 pick.

[video=youtube;WWExLwQenW0]

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But he'd still be getting paid millions for two extra years instead of going to college... and he'd potentially get that big contract two years earlier after his rookie contract.

He'd get his big contract sooner, but do the extra years necessarily make up the difference, especially when annual salary inflation is considered? For instance, compare what Blake Griffin got by going #1 in '09 vs what Derrick Rose (had he gone prep-to-pro) would have gotten as the #11 in 2007 (the spot actually claimed by Acie Law). Law got $6M over 3 years. Griffin gets $16M for his first 3. Then, say Rose gets a max extension--$80M? If Griffin gets one 2 years from now--$90M? So a player could get a $10M larger rookie contract by going to college, and then a larger extension because it happens later. Get paid sooner, or get paid more?

Wow... You serious?

Why not? Same scenario as above, Rose goes #11 to Atlanta. This year's playoffs are VERY interesting. Also, oddly enough, Oden and Durant would still have gone to us and Seattle, only at the 6/7 spots (unless of course they had chosen to come out the year before or stay a year longer...who knows?)

 

[ehizzy3]

Terrible...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blaze01]

It was horrible idea....

The NBA should do itself a favor and add a year to the eligibility list, meaning no player can enter the NBA until they have completed a minimum of two years of college OR if they wish, play overseas for two years (ala Brandon Jennings)....

So they can still "get paid" if they choose to do so by playing overseas.....

As for the order of the draft, it is fine the way it is....Just b\c you have the worst record doesn't guarantee you the #1 pick, but does guarantee you at worst the #4 pick....

That is fair IMO....

 

[Nikolokolus]

If I had the worst record in the NBA and some arbitrary rule forced me to take Greg Monroe over say a player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins I sure as hell wouldn't be happy, and especially wouldn't be happy to see a 41 win team like the Rockets or some other middle of the pack team end up with a top five talent just because of the rule.

It's a creative approach, but ultimately flawed; talent wins in the NBA not college experience.

 

[hasoos]

That is utter bullshit. The NBA and it's age limit are pretty hypocritical at best IMO. Look at the finals over the last few years. Almost every team is lead by a guy who came into the league straight out of high school.

Cavs-Lebron.
Magic-Howard
Lakers-Kobe

I think if you actually looked at the numbers on players who went to school, and who didn't go to school, and how many of them turned out to fail in the NBA and or be knuckleheads, the percentages would be about the same. Some guys are ready earlier than others, that is reality. There is no reason to penalize them and make them risk injury.

If anything is the problem, it's the leagues management teams which continually make mistakes. Nobody is forcing them to sign these young players to fat contracts before they are proven. Nobody is forcing them to draft them. But they are. If they want to look for somebody to blame for their decisions, they should look in the mirror.

 

[oldmangrouch]

That was also the case in 2006, when the age-limit was first implemented. Clearly, it would take a couple years to see how a change such as this would generally impact the draft on a year-to-year basis.

Bingo.

The first year would be messy, but after that, the best players would abandon "one-and-done" and start sticking around long enough to be a top pick.

 

[BGrantFan]

Bingo.

The first year would be messy, but after that, the best players would abandon "one-and-done" and start sticking around long enough to be a top pick.

Not unless they get rid of the rookie scale, though. It would be better to be paid right out of HS as a #11 pick if you're an elite player for two years and hit your max contract 2 years early than it would be to not be paid for 2 years and be the #1 or #2 player in the draft. That's under the current system, of course, but the money made up for two years of max contract would more than offset the difference between being the #11 pick for two year verus the #1 pick for 4 years.

This only applies to the LeBrons, Durants, healthy Odens/Bynums, and Howards, though.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

That's really a horrible idea. That means that if the next Lebron James wants to be one and done and enter the draft after his freshman year, the worst 5 teams aren't allowed to draft him, while better teams can? Stupid.

Exactly, this idea is exactly backwards.

I think pre-freshman and freshman players should be able to declare, but with a catch: they have to prove themselves in a pre-draft workout, a five-game mini-season against NBA rookies (each team who wants to witness the season has to donate a rookie). The top 2 in each of these statistical categories (Points, Assists, Offensive Rebounds, Defensive Rebounds, Blocks, Steals) will qualify for this age exception can enter the draft early (a total of 12 players - PER acts as a tiebreaker for any category). Otherwise, they have to withdraw from the draft and go to college a year before trying again next summer.

 

[bluefrog]

I think non-guaranteed contracts for rookies would be the best way to improve the game but the union would never allow it

 

[hasoos]

I think non-guaranteed contracts for rookies would be the best way to improve the game but the union would never allow it

I think the best way to improve the NBA period is by going the way of the NFL. You can be cut anytime, anyplace, for any reason. Monetary loss may vary, but you have the right to pull the trigger as you wish.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Exactly, this idea is exactly backwards.

I think pre-freshman and freshman players should be able to declare, but with a catch: they have to prove themselves in a pre-draft workout, a five-game mini-season against NBA rookies (each team who wants to witness the season has to donate a rookie). The top 2 in each of these statistical categories (Points, Assists, Offensive Rebounds, Defensive Rebounds, Blocks, Steals) will qualify for this age exception can enter the draft early (a total of 12 players - PER acts as a tiebreaker for any category). Otherwise, they have to withdraw from the draft and go to college a year before trying again next summer.

That serves basically no one. The players union would never sign off on it, rookies already in the league would never want to be forced into such a situation where they could potentially get hurt for nothing and finally, a singular performance in a tryout setting doesn't guarantee that the best players get in and the lesser talents go to school because anybody can have an off day.

If I'm an NBA team I want the best talent that my scouts can identify and if I'm a prospect I want the best chance to earn a living and/or succeed in the league, if the balance between that is NBA teams requiring a year of college or some kind of higher level competition than AAU or high school ball then so be it, but making the process even more convoluted and arcane doesn't seem like an especially good idea.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I think the best way to improve the NBA period is by going the way of the NFL. You can be cut anytime, anyplace, for any reason. Monetary loss may vary, but you have the right to pull the trigger as you wish.

I agree 100% with this. guaranteed salaries (even rookie scale guaranteed salaries) are a lousy way to go ... the flip side of this would mean the players would need some kind of concession, like teams being unable to trade them whenever they like or some other incentive to accept unguaranteed contracts (larger per year amounts with partial guarantees perhaps?).

 

[MrSelfDestruct]

That is utter bullshit. The NBA and it's age limit are pretty hypocritical at best IMO. Look at the finals over the last few years. Almost every team is lead by a guy who came into the league straight out of high school.

Cavs-Lebron.
Magic-Howard
Lakers-Kobe

I think if you actually looked at the numbers on players who went to school, and who didn't go to school, and how many of them turned out to fail in the NBA and or be knuckleheads, the percentages would be about the same. Some guys are ready earlier than others, that is reality. There is no reason to penalize them and make them risk injury.

If anything is the problem, it's the leagues management teams which continually make mistakes. Nobody is forcing them to sign these young players to fat contracts before they are proven. Nobody is forcing them to draft them. But they are. If they want to look for somebody to blame for their decisions, they should look in the mirror.

Don't forget KG as well.

 

[hasoos]

Don't forget KG as well.

Yea I forgot to throw him in there. But he was one of the first guys I thought of.

The NBA has a ton of other players who came straight out of high school and ended up fine as well. I think if folks actually pulled up the numbers as to the number of successful players as opposed to number of knuckleheads, they would actually find out that the guys coming into the NBA at the age of 18 actually make it into the league at a much higher rate than the guys who go to school all 4 years. The facts are, it is talent that helps you make it in the league. Having a level head is just a bonus.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

David Stern should just give the largest markets, the most lottery balls.

That would be too obvious . . . much easier to give some bad teams good lottery picks (very visable) and make sure the refs get the big market teams far into the playoffs.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

That serves basically no one. The players union would never sign off on it, rookies already in the league would never want to be forced into such a situation where they could potentially get hurt for nothing and finally, a singular performance in a tryout setting doesn't guarantee that the best players get in and the lesser talents go to school because anybody can have an off day.

If I'm an NBA team I want the best talent that my scouts can identify and if I'm a prospect I want the best chance to earn a living and/or succeed in the league, if the balance between that is NBA teams requiring a year of college or some kind of higher level competition than AAU or high school ball then so be it, but making the process even more convoluted and arcane doesn't seem like an especially good idea.

Sure it does. You can televise the five game series as a reality TV show, write in the requirement into the rookies contracts that forces players to play those five games, and make oodles of money selling "win or go to college" tee-shirts.