Players Union wants to change draft rules

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
126,892
Likes
147,531
Points
115
During the meeting, owners made it clear that their focus was to increase profits rather than cut losses. They also expressed that changes need to be made in order to increase parity and level the playing field across the league. Issues such as contraction or implementing a franchise tag were not the focus of the meeting. Both sides were more engaged than in previous meetings and sources said that Mark Cuban led the way as the owner most active in talks.

While there wasn't much negotiating during the meeting and very little progress was made, one intriguing concept was proposed by the players. Rather than changing the salary structure to level the playing field for small market teams, an alternative was proposed that would involve making drastic changes to the draft process.

The union made the argument that the quickest way to turn around "crummy" teams is through the draft. Because first-round picks have become so valuable in today's NBA and many teams have had success building a roster with this model, the union feels that the best way to increase parity is to focus the draft around the underachieving teams.

The fourteen non-playoff teams that make up the lottery would not only receive the first fourteen picks, but the next fourteen as well. The team that wins the lottery would receive the first overall pick as well as the fifteenth overall pick. The second team on the clock would also own the sixteenth pick, the third picking team would also own the seventeenth pick and so on.

Each team would receive two first-round selections so that the top twenty-eight players go to the teams that are struggling and the playoff teams that need the least help receive second-round talent. Those playoff teams would follow the same structure in the second round with two late picks each. The union is willing to lower the number to the eight worst teams, but they feel this is a much better way for the league to level the playing field.


http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=18825
 
Interesting concept, but it would need some serious tweaking to take into consideration talent differences between conferences and to avoid marginal teams tanking to avoid making the playoffs if they know that they've got no shot at winning a series.
 
I like it.

It's interesting but I don't see how it even comes close to addressing what the owners want to accomplish during these negotiations. The Owners focus this year is all about the money, parity isn't a concern.
 
I like the idea as well, but I would give the 14th team, the 15th pick, and the 13th given the 16th, et cetera, so that the 1st pick gets the 28th. Maybe I've been playing too much settlers of catan...
 
It's interesting but I don't see how it even comes close to addressing what the owners want to accomplish during these negotiations. The Owners focus this year is all about the money, parity isn't a concern.

Yeah I didn't see anything like this coming, I assumed it would all be about money. Parity is a concern of mine, though.
 
I like the idea as well, but I would give the 14th team, the 15th pick, and the 13th given the 16th, et cetera, so that the 1st pick gets the 28th. Maybe I've been playing too much settlers of catan...

Yeah, that would make a little more sense than the winner of the lottery selecting 1st and 15th. That is some too much in a deep draft and with some luck.

I still don't like the whole idea though, I think fringe playoff teams (say a Charlotte) would have too much incentive to tank.
 
lame idea. i love the draft and if we weren't getting a first round pick, i'd skip it. Also teams will end up with a glut of players that are all pretty average. most of the difference makers are in the lottery.
 
lame idea. i love the draft and if we weren't getting a first round pick, i'd skip it. Also teams will end up with a glut of players that are all pretty average. most of the difference makers are in the lottery.

This. I hate the idea.
 
I don't really love the draft when the team isn't picking high in the lottery. "First rounder" is a bit of a misnomer. The basketball draft is basically a condensed version of other sports' drafts. A late first round pick in the NBA is more along the lines of a third- or fourth-round pick in the NFL draft, IMO. While those picks are far from valueless, they're not thrilling and start to get into the area of the draft where there are a lot of similarly so-so talents and it's hard to have a strong opinion on whom to take. Not having that would not be tragedy, IMO.

Of course, for major draftniks, I can see every pick being exciting and fun for them. The NFL and even MLB have fans who follow prospects down to the fringe draft prospects. I understand that, even if it's not me. For my part, I don't think this is a bad idea for giving teams a quicker route to rebuilding their talent base.
 
Parity is something fans care about, maybe some owners, but it is of zero concern to Stern and most owners.
 
BTW, just as a wild thought, how about this: hold the current draft, but limit it to college kids. Then hold a second draft for the NBA rights to players already under contract in Europe.

As for tanking, try this: teams that reach a certain thresh-hold for wins, are immune from paying the luxury tax. Teams that reach a certain thresh-hold for losses are ineligible to collect money from the league for being under the tax.
 
As for tanking, try this: teams that reach a certain thresh-hold for wins, are immune from paying the luxury tax.

This would basically negate the point of the luxury tax as a parity mechanic. It would hurt teams that spend a lot badly, but those aren't the teams that the luxury tax was put in for. It was to prevent certain teams from spending way more than others to contend every year. Of course, if the NBA institutes a hard cap, then the luxury tax becomes irrelevant.
 
I once heard an idea of having draft order determined by an average of the teams previous 4 season records. I really like that idea, I think it would eliminate most tanking and give high picks to the truly deserving teams instead of a team like San Antonio getting Duncan after a single fluke poor season.

The multiple draft picks for lotto teams is a neat idea. So instead of Portland getting the 14th and 28th pick if they just missed the playoffs they would get only the 30th pick? I'd still always want us to make the playoffs so I don't see that causing much tanking.
 
I once heard an idea of having draft order determined by an average of the teams previous 4 season records. I really like that idea, I think it would eliminate most tanking and give high picks to the truly deserving teams instead of a team like San Antonio getting Duncan after a single fluke poor season.

That's a pretty excellent idea, IMO. Pretty hard for a team to decide to tank for years, considering you'd have to be targeting a prospect four years out. Doesn't seem too likely. :)
 
lame idea. i love the draft and if we weren't getting a first round pick, i'd skip it. Also teams will end up with a glut of players that are all pretty average. most of the difference makers are in the lottery.
Well said. It's one of the all-around dumbest suggestions I've ever heard. Sounds like a smokescreen to get the owners and media distracted. Hell, the whole contractation disagreement is about whether there's enough talent to go around, and now they want to go and spread the incoming talent even thinner across half the league? Dumb.
 
Parity is something fans care about, maybe some owners, but it is of zero concern to Stern and most owners.

I disagree. As long as the L*kers, Celtics, Bulls and Knicks are all each winning 60 games, Stern is thrilled. That's parity in his mind.
 
not only will this not solve the problem, but it is very unfair to teams just out of the lottery and would absolutely promote tanking + there is no fair way to adjust for highly variable imbalance between conferences. seems more like a distractional ploy by the players than a serious proposal.

the perennially bad teams are where they are because of poor management decisions, poor scouting, and/or limited budget for FAs, not because they haven't had enough high draft picks. look at the T-wolves.
 
Stupid idea. It punishes good teams for being good.
 
lame idea. i love the draft and if we weren't getting a first round pick, i'd skip it. Also teams will end up with a glut of players that are all pretty average. most of the difference makers are in the lottery.

Agreed. It's an idiotic idea. Good teams have to build a team as well as one injury and your team is now very average.
 
I blame derek fisher and his over inflated ego

X
 
By "leveling the playing field," do owners mean in wins or dollars? This plan would do so only in wins.

Owners usually are more interested in dollars. If owners are telling players that parity in wins is the priority, I think it's a subterfuge to get more dollars. This players union plan won't get any more dollars, so owners will reject it.

The players union idealistically fell for owners' talk about leveling the field. Owners are thinking, that "leveling" propaganda went too far--we need a new angle to distract these fools.
 
Well, owners of unprofitable teams, and there are quite a few, would certainly prefer to extract even more dollars out of the few really good teams. Honestly, if I were the NBA, I think their best way to profitability would be to demote half the league to AAA status, raid the shit out of the colleges and threaten to destroy NCAA basketball. If they really want to seek new revenues, rather than minimizing cost, that's where there's a lot of revenue in basketball that they're not collecting.

On another note, since when does adding a couple of rookies generally help a team get very good? Out of the first thirty picks in the draft, it's usually a good draft if even 10 of them ever end up even being starting quality players. It's a pretty laughable proposal.
 
If they want to "level" the playing field, put in a hard cap, and max contracts/non guaranteed contracts.
 
How about this.

Every even-numbered year, only the worst 5 teams get to have a draft. Every odd-numbered year, it's the same draft as it is now.

That was too simple. How about this.

When the Oracle says the new King will be born tonight, all the newly-born males are slain. This requires a census in everyone's hometown, and don't forget to check mangers.

In this way, good teams would be denied any new talent.

How about this.

Why do teams which draft late still win? Because they have good coaches. How can we defeat this curse?

Once an NBA coach wins 100 games, he is banned from the NBA. This way, the best teams become bad again, and the losing teams move up. Now, instead of changing the draft to give the best draftees to teams with bad coaches, you just give worse coaches to good teams. Bingo, parity.
 
Dumbest idea ever.

If they want an equal playing field then get a hard cap
 
If they want to "level" the playing field, put in a hard cap, and max contracts/non guaranteed contracts.

Dumbest idea ever.

If they want an equal playing field then get a hard cap

A hard cap only creates "parity" in the sense that it creates a tyranny of the lowest common denominator. A hard cap is for people who think Donald Sterling is the epitome of a great owner.
 
BTW, Stern likes to yak about the league losing $400 million.

Math is not my strong suit, but $400 mil spread over 30 teams = $13.3 mil apiece.

$13.3 mil? You can fix that be giving teams a mechanism for getting out from under Roy type bad contracts.

$13.3 mil? PA spends that much on yacht fuel. Jerry Buss spends that much on hookers. Is this a fargin' joke? Stern expects us to believe the league is hurtling toward a lock-out over THAT?

<Rant over>
 
It's not a one-time loss, it's annual. If an average owner is worth $500M, he'll lose more than 1/4 of his worth every decade. (133 / 500 = 26.6%)

You have to think like us. Sure we can afford it for one year, but how long do you expect us to keep this up?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top