2014 Draft Discussion

[Rocky]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

They should tier lock the lottery. From 1-5, 6-10, 10-14 you have those teams that fall in those spots in the lottery only have a chance at the picks in their bracket.

So for example #9 Cleveland can only win a pick between 6 and 10. And the top 5 worse teams are the only ones capable of winning top 5 draft picks in the lottery.

Then you would have real tanking (not playing your best players, etc). Imagine if a team is two games away from the 5 slot...I abhor tanking and even I would say you have to think about going for it there.

[volstopfan14]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

I really like Doug McDermott, at least offensively, for what he could bring to the table for the Hornets. He can score from anywhere, has great post-game footwork, is incredibly efficient as well. Questions over whether or not he can become a passable defender loom large though.

I could see him coming in and being our 6th man off the bench. He's gonna be a real scorer.

The one concern I have is how does he fit? Him and MKG are both small forwards. Cliff doesn't like to play small and neither one of these are 2 guards. So while I like McDermott, I don't really want him coming at the expense of MKG. MKG is more valuable to our team than people realize. He just needs to improve his jumper and be more aggressive on offense.

[RocketTMac1]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

In no world is Jeff Taylor 10x better than MKG. That's crazy. MKG is one of the top wing defenders is basketball. Taylor has done little to nothing and is coming off of a devastating injury.

Nope. Taylor is a far better all around player than MKG. If it wasn't for his injury Taylor would have shown that this year and people would be talking about realistically trading MKG for another asset.

[wwharton]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

Yesterday's results have nothing to do with what I feel the system encourages losing. You think watching the C's purposely lose was fun as a fan?

My problem with yesterday's results is Cleveland landing back to back #1 picks. As I said in a previous post, a rule preventing that needs to be implemented.



The current system does absolutely nothing to discourage tanking. I don't believe that for a second. And neither do you since you mentioned the Celtics tanking for ping pong balls.

1. A rule isn't needed to change something that will happen once every 50 years. I admit, I don't know why anybody cares about a terrible team getting the 1st pick two years in a row, or even in this extreme situation. Usually teams end up getting better to not even be in a position to have this happen, and the ones that are eligible need to get extremely lucky... like the Cavs have. Be mad about it happening this year, but there's no reason to expect it to be a new trend or ever happen again. No new rule is needed.

2. The current system absolutely discourages tanking and it's clear as day. We all know three teams that tanked at some point this year and none of them were rewarded for it. The problem is teams are desperate bc the league benefits super power teams, so even though it discourages tanking, teams will take their chances and tank anyway bc their options are limited.

"Discourage" does not equal "prevent"... there is absolutely no way any league can "prevent" tanking.

I could see him coming in and being our 6th man off the bench. He's gonna be a real scorer.

The one concern I have is how does he fit? Him and MKG are both small forwards. Cliff doesn't like to play small and neither one of these are 2 guards. So while I like McDermott, I don't really want him coming at the expense of MKG. MKG is more valuable to our team than people realize. He just needs to improve his jumper and be more aggressive on offense.

In basketball I think you should pretty much always choose best available and figure the rest out later. Portland should've taken Jordan and Durant but didn't bc they didn't need that position. For years, shorter shooting guards were passed over bc they didn't fit the traditional blue print for positions. And on the other side of things, the Spurs had David Robinson when expected center, Tim Duncan was sitting there for them to take as the #1 pick. The rest is history.

Take the best player, figure out how to make them fit with what you have. If they don't, trade someone for good value in return.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

Truth. Furthermore, if a team is truly terrible and in desperate need of help, the chances of them winning a lottery tournament would be greatly diminished, as they'd likely eventually run into a fringe playoff team (like the Suns) who'd have a good chance of railroading them.

Then, if most games go as planned, we could be looking at an inverse lottery, where all fringe playoff teams are loading up with top picks while the ones who may really need talent infusion find themselves constantly on the outside looking in because they're not good enough to win the lottery tourney.

I believe even in this case, tanking would still exist. Only, it'd be squads looking to jump into the next tier. If you're the sixth or seventh worst team, for instance, it'd probably be in your best interest to try to fall a little further so you could jump into the #1 pick bracket.

My question through all of this, separate from kingkilla's idea, is how many teams do you guys feel are legitimately losing on purpose? And for how much of the season do you feel this is taking place for each team? Moreover, when a team like the Pistons battles all year and tries to win (but does a horrible and dysfunctional job of doing so), then opts to give their young bucks a run toward the end of the year with 4-5 games left (Peyton Siva), does that count as tanking?

That would be the beauty of the single-elimination, NCAA-style tournament. Anything can happen on a given day. It's not like they'd be playing series and the better teams would be winning.

And it doesn't matter how many are or aren't "tanking." It's the whole discussion/premise/nonsense of it. It needs to be killed because it very much harms the legitimacy of what we're watching. There shouldn't be even the slightest doubt about it.

I don't think the whole "players wouldn't play for the right to grab a guy who's gonna take their job" thing either. Rosters are always in flux. Players would be playing for the right to have a better shot at a guy they think will help them win or look good because winning and looking good = cash.

Either way, it incentivizes WINNING and good management. That's the most important thing. Nobody should ever be rewarded for losing.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

You're not going to get rid of the discussion of Tanking or the notion that it actually works and exists regardless of what changes you make. Even the god NFL still has yearly discussions of teams tanking popping up.

I don't think the whole "players wouldn't play for the right to grab a guy who's gonna take their job" thing either. Rosters are always in flux. Players would be playing for the right to have a better shot at a guy they think will help them win or look good because winning and looking good = cash.

Athletes, and rightfully so, are thinking about one person and that's themselves and THEIR financial future. You think they would care any more than they already do about some 18, 19 or 20y/o College possibly being on their team and helping them win? Some might think about it like that but I think the majority wouldn't necessarily agree with the notion of playing in a Tournament for the chance to grab a player who may possibly take their job.

[volstopfan14]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

In basketball I think you should pretty much always choose best available and figure the rest out later. Portland should've taken Jordan and Durant but didn't bc they didn't need that position. For years, shorter shooting guards were passed over bc they didn't fit the traditional blue print for positions. And on the other side of things, the Spurs had David Robinson when expected center, Tim Duncan was sitting there for them to take as the #1 pick. The rest is history.

Take the best player, figure out how to make them fit with what you have. If they don't, trade someone for good value in return.

I do agree with the take the best player and work out the roster later philosophy. But with McDermott, I'm not convinced he'd be the best player on the board at 9.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

You're not going to get rid of the discussion of Tanking or the notion that it actually works and exists regardless of what changes you make. Even the god NFL still has yearly discussions of teams tanking popping up.


Athletes, and rightfully so, are thinking about one person and that's themselves and THEIR financial future. You think they would care any more than they already do about some 18, 19 or 20y/o College possibly being on their team and helping them win? Some might think about it like that but I think the majority wouldn't necessarily agree with the notion of playing in a Tournament for the chance to grab a player who may possibly take their job.

So why aren't they all trying as hard as they can to avoid sucking so bad right now? Wouldn't they want to play their best at all times to avoid putting their teams in the best position to draft someone who can take their job?


I don't buy this reasoning. At all.

[VDusen04]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

That would be the beauty of the single-elimination, NCAA-style tournament. Anything can happen on a given day. It's not like they'd be playing series and the better teams would be winning.

And it doesn't matter how many are or aren't "tanking." It's the whole discussion/premise/nonsense of it. It needs to be killed because it very much harms the legitimacy of what we're watching. There shouldn't be even the slightest doubt about it.

I don't think the whole "players wouldn't play for the right to grab a guy who's gonna take their job" thing either. Rosters are always in flux. Players would be playing for the right to have a better shot at a guy they think will help them win or look good because winning and looking good = cash.

Either way, it incentivizes WINNING and good management. That's the most important thing. Nobody should ever be rewarded for losing.

Respectfully, I still believe a single elimination tournament would greatly favor the best non-playoff teams. So again, while there may be an upset here or there (leading to a truly bad team getting a high pick), that'd be nice, but it wouldn't seem very common which again, would lead to the best non-playoff teams cleaning up most of the top draft choices while the ones who need help most would be left out in the cold.

Like others have said, I am not sure the premise of tanking will ever be fully erased. Nor do I believe an end-of-season tournament would really dissuade a tank. And as PackMan said, I'm quite skeptical of the notion of players roughing it through a very difficult regular season, travelling across the United States and back countless times over, losing a lot more than winning, and experiencing everything that comes with not being successful, only for an organization to turn around and say, "Go win that loser's tournament so we can draft someone for your position next year!"

Shoot, even in high school, when we got a new recruit, my first instinct was to worry about whether they were going to take my position, then I'd wonder how much they may be able to help our team. Now to imagine my livelihood were at stake? That winning a loser's bracket may result in the drafting of my replacement? I must say, it's possible that I wouldn't be down for that.

So why aren't they all trying as hard as they can to avoid sucking so bad right now? Wouldn't they want to play their best at all times to avoid putting their teams in the best position to draft someone who can take their job?


I don't buy this reasoning. At all.

I think the question from here is: what is tanking and who do you think was doing it this year? Is tanking a team actively attempting to lose in order to improve its draft stock? And by team, do we mean players? Or is it more about a front office conveniently deciding to blow up an entire roster and insisting a coach play many of their worst players?

Secondly, is tanking the same as giving up or resting one's best players? That is, when the Pistons were clearly out of the playoff run in their last five games and opted to rest Brandon Jennings more, thus allowing an opportunity for young Peyton Siva to spread his wings, is that tanking? Or is that giving up? Or is that evaluating talent? Most of all, is it wrong?

Personally, from a team like Philadelphia, I didn't get the feeling that players were out there not caring. Instead, I felt the biggest possible tanking attribute came from the folks who put that D-League team together in the first place (and injuries did not help either). I thought those guys were playing hard, just a lot of them weren't great players.

[AC]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

Respectfully, I still believe a single elimination tournament would greatly favor the best non-playoff teams. So again, while there may be an upset here or there (leading to a truly bad team getting a high pick), that'd be nice, but it wouldn't seem very common which again, would lead to the best non-playoff teams cleaning up most of the top draft choices while the ones who need help most would be left out in the cold.

I think that's Matrix' point. You want to encourage every team to do well. The teams that are at the bottom are viewed as the worst rather the ones needing the most help and they have to earn a top pick. It's a viable route, although I'm not sure if I support it.

[wwharton]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

I do agree with the take the best player and work out the roster later philosophy. But with McDermott, I'm not convinced he'd be the best player on the board at 9.

Overall, he may not be. But they shouldn't pass him up because they have a SF already they expect to fill the starting roll. They should look at what the kid does well and decide if it'd help the team more than anyone else available. Work out the minutes later.

We can look at a guy like Mike Miller for example. Over his career he's spent time at the 2, 3, and 4. He's had a pretty good career too, and I think McDermott's baseline could be around his level (meaning he could, of course, crap out, or have a ceiling higher than that. But I think Miller's career would be a solid and acceptable mirror for him).

[VDusen04]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

I think that's Matrix' point. You want to encourage every team to do well. The teams that are at the bottom are viewed as the worst rather the ones needing the most help and they have to earn a top pick. It's a viable route, although I'm not sure if I support it.

Hmm, like you, I do not believe I support that route either. I still agree with the general notion of the teams most in need of help receiving it. And I think the current lottery does a fine job of providing that opportunity. There's something strangely counter-intuitive about making awful teams "earn" the top draft choice. If there were good enough to not be awful, they'd probably not be awful.

Further, with the greatly reduced likelihood of the worst team receiving the number one overall pick that comes with the current draft lottery, the direct "lose-offs" that used to occur in the early 80's and prior have been quite limited or eliminated. I still think some broad tanking takes place here or there, in a "maybe a little boost to our chances might not hurt" but I do not think it's on the same level as when the absolute worst squad was guaranteed a number one.

Semi-off topic, I remember Bill Simmons mentioning one of those lose-offs at the end of the '84 season. Simmons noted that 38 year old Elvin Hayes played every minute of a meaningless late-season overtime contest for Houston, as Simmons was seemingly illustrating how they were rolling out a corpse and keeping him on the floor. But I mean, looking at the box score now, he only shot 7 of 20 from the field, but he did drop a triple double. Simmons left that tidbit out. 16, 17, and 11 isn't too shabby. http://www.basketball-reference.com/...404130HOU.html

[AC]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

To be clear, it's not that I don't support it, it's that I'm not sure if I support it. There's a large distinction. I like that it would probably completely eliminate tanking, but it would probably cripple small market teams with an increased emphasis on free agent signings (bad teams won't have picks to get better with so they'll need to sign FAs, and if they're small market they can't), and I can't see how youth could be reliably and repeatably acquired for a rebuild. I like a lot about the plan, but I also dislike a lot about the plan.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

"Tanking" is losing games on purpose. Period. The obfuscation of the term in recent years is infuriating. Being bad is not "tanking." Accumulating assets is not "tanking."

I don't know who did or didn't "tank", all I know is that I'm sick of reporters and fans and everyone else under the sun even talking about it, or uggesting it does or should happen because, along with piss-poor and corrupted officiating, it severely delegitimizes the sport. This is coming from someone who roots for a team that everyone expected to lose on purpose going into the year and ended up winning 48 games and missing the playoffs by one game. I can't even put into words how proud that makes me feel, and a lot of that is due to shutting these idiotic, simple-minded, "tanking"-peddlers up.

The lottery is fine, but I'm all about fixing real problems. If you're going to fix something, fix it. If we hear about lottery problems, it's always about the "sketchiness" of it. Even though the lottery itself is not really that sketchy (especially compared to everything else the NBA does), the losing and encouragement for teams to be bad has become increasingly so. Those are my concerns, so my idea is geared toward eliminating that as much as possible.

[AC]

Re: 2014 Draft Discussion

Weird idea.

What about an NCAA style tourney, as Matrix suggested, but you were playing for the best odds to win the lottery?

So the winner of the tourney would get the 25%, second place would get second best odds, third/third, and so on, and they'd keep the lottery.

Just to give the worse off teams /some/ chance.