Joshyjosh31
Starter
This is just more evidence for that fool to abolish the draft
Race to the Bottom thread
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
This is just more evidence for that fool to abolish the draft
Padrino
All-Star
Eh. Stan Van Gundy's got priors on this one. He suggested abolishing the draft years ago to curb tanking. I don't necessarily agree with such a proposal, but I understand the logic of it. Usually it comes from those who are connected to the NBA as a labor force rather than as an entertainment product that fans consume.
Abolishing the draft sounds great if what you care about is player empowerment, player choice, and player earning potential. Former coaches like Van Gundy are connected to these guys as professionals, and it makes sense that they would love to see them hit free agency as rookies, where the market will determine the value of their skill and ability.
However, abolishing the draft sounds decidedly not great if what you care about is competitive balance and survival of the small market franchise. Fans are connected to incoming rookie players as sources of hope, and it makes sense that the NBA has long been resistant to outright eliminating small market fans' hope of their teams ever having a competitive chance in a league whose scales are tilted heavily in favor of larger and more glamorous markets.
Yeah, the idea of making rookies free agents falls apart as soon as you really look at the potential impact.
The rich get richer. Large market teams (especially those in tax advantaged states) will have the inside track to landing the best players.
More than that, teams that gamble on the wrong rookie are going to have severe issues, especially if the aprons are kept as part of the CBA.
Drafting Marvin Bagley at #2 was a big enough mistake. Now imagine that the Kings SIGNED Bagley at $40 million for four years guaranteed. . .
The rich get richer. Large market teams (especially those in tax advantaged states) will have the inside track to landing the best players.
More than that, teams that gamble on the wrong rookie are going to have severe issues, especially if the aprons are kept as part of the CBA.
Drafting Marvin Bagley at #2 was a big enough mistake. Now imagine that the Kings SIGNED Bagley at $40 million for four years guaranteed. . .
Last edited:
Yeah that Iowa State game completely sold me on Flemings. Not that I was ever "out", but dude is legit and in most draft classes, he'd be getting buzz as a top 3 pick with a chance at 1.
The Kings need to leave the draft with one of those guys. I honestly don't care which at this point, but it'd put us SO far ahead in the rebuild to start the team off with a true blue-chip talent.
I consider that an attempt at a reverse jinx and appreciate Marc Stein's attempt to influence the basketball gods on our behalf!
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
Yeah...You tell him, Tetsu!!!
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
And this is the price paid when the next potential dynasty is located in.... Oklahoma.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
How the heck would that help the players? haha. Teams would just keep their caps artificially low or flexible and cap space would be their priority. Instead of having a few tank teams you'd have like half the league staying mediocre and cheap. Yeah, lets have an entire league of the Kings? I mean, I guess it's all relative but still.
David Stern deserves a lot of the blame for that. But there's a reason a street in downtown Sacramento is now named after Stern, so as a Kings fan I feel obligated to give him an infinite free pass on all matters of team-relocation.
Folsomkingsfan
Starter
All of the top 6 guys have franchise player potential imo. Keaton Wagler seems locked in at 6 and he'd be in the top 2 discussion a lot of years with how he's been shooting the 3 ball lately
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
It depends, he's everything the league hasn't been too keen on with guards lately. I can see the Fox comps, the only issue I see is physically Fox was able to push guys out of the way whereas Flemings kind of darts around defenses. To be a true superstar you have to draw contact and iso. Flemings free throw rate is a little low and his per 40's are below typical first option prospects. It likely explains why he has huge games, then not so huge games. If teams give him the middle or open shots, he's gold, when they force things up to him he can make plays and the potential is there but he's not dominating.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
Yeah, I’m not sure the players union goes for abolishing the draft when it comes down to it. To have any shot of preserving parity, you’d have to take measures that would squeeze the middle class/rank and file even further.
Mike
Bench
Abolishing the draft would be a mistake. Why would young talent sign with teams like the Kings when they could join fringe teams like the Heat or Clippers, or join established play off teams like the Knicks or Lakers? The only reasons I can think of prospects joining small market teams is being overpaid (eg we offer $30-40m while they only offer $20m) or they grew up supporting the team. Outside of that, I can’t see how abolishing the draft helps teams at the bottom or stops tanking.
For me, instead of abolishing the draft they should have a tournament instead for the non-play off teams. It can be straight up elimination or mirror the format of the play offs (eg best of 3, 5 or even 7). Get rid of the play in tournament and go back to the top eight from each conference qualifying for the play offs. The remaining teams play for draft position. The team that wins the tournament lands the first overall pick.
Now some might argue that would give fringe teams like the Bulls, Bucks and Clippers an advantage because they are ‘better’ than the teams at the bottom like the Kings, Wizards and Pelicans. However, what it does is incentivise the teams at the bottom to remain competitive and to play hard. They would be less likely to trade away good players to better their draft odds, as the draft would now be based on performance. Take the Wizards, they might decide to sit Trae Young and Anthony Davis to better their draft odds, but in this tournament scenario they would need to start them to give them the best chance of winning the top pick or earning a high draft pick.
The tournament also gives non-play off teams something to play for. They win the top prospect from the draft and let’s give them a pay day for doing it. It also makes the league money by having extra games to show on TV and for fans to attend, so it’s potentially a money maker too.
For me, instead of abolishing the draft they should have a tournament instead for the non-play off teams. It can be straight up elimination or mirror the format of the play offs (eg best of 3, 5 or even 7). Get rid of the play in tournament and go back to the top eight from each conference qualifying for the play offs. The remaining teams play for draft position. The team that wins the tournament lands the first overall pick.
Now some might argue that would give fringe teams like the Bulls, Bucks and Clippers an advantage because they are ‘better’ than the teams at the bottom like the Kings, Wizards and Pelicans. However, what it does is incentivise the teams at the bottom to remain competitive and to play hard. They would be less likely to trade away good players to better their draft odds, as the draft would now be based on performance. Take the Wizards, they might decide to sit Trae Young and Anthony Davis to better their draft odds, but in this tournament scenario they would need to start them to give them the best chance of winning the top pick or earning a high draft pick.
The tournament also gives non-play off teams something to play for. They win the top prospect from the draft and let’s give them a pay day for doing it. It also makes the league money by having extra games to show on TV and for fans to attend, so it’s potentially a money maker too.
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
No what your proposal will do is incentivize good teams like Houston to tank in a year like this year to be able to dip in the draft for a top player and complete with OKC. Your plan doesn’t end tanking it just shifts its location to an even more damaging spot.
In addition, it would kill teams that cannot sign free agents.
Mike
Bench
I would have to disagree. Could my proposal see teams like the Clippers and Trail Blazers give up on chasing 8th place to pursue top draft talent? Sure, but the current system does nothing to stop teams tanking. In many ways it rewards teams for tanking. And it certainly isn’t geared to be in favour of small market teams.
The league have tried to fix it by flattening the odds and fining teams, but that hasn’t worked because teams still sit players in the 4th quarter (eg Utah Jazz), hold players out on back-to-back games (eg Indiana Pacers), and trade away players for no real return. So if league truly wants to stop ‘tanking’, then they have to do something radical to make the teams change their ways.
The current system promotes losing, whereas my proposed system promotes winning. So teams that are out of the play off race will be less inclined to trade away players or sit players to help them tank; instead, they will look towards making moves to get better and/or make sure their best players suit up and actually play.
Another option could be that all lottery teams have their name put into a hat. Every team has a 1 in 14 chance to land the top pick, then the remaining teams a 1 in 13 chance to land the second pick, and so on. That would eliminate tanking overnight because no team would be able to manipulate their odds. It would force them to be as competitive as possible because they could no longer guarantee a return through the draft.
Most changes can hurt smaller teams if they don’t get lucky in the draft, can’t attract free agents or make trades to get better. However, the current system doesn’t really help on that front either. What good has the lottery done for us in the past two decades?
It hasn’t helped us and there’s other teams that have struggled too. Generally speaking the teams that make the jump are either really lucky (eg Nuggets finding Jokic) or are a combination of lucky and well constructed (eg Thunder).
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
Your proposal would promote losing in the beginning of the season by otherwise good teams to get in the draft play-offs and compete with their suddenly healthy roster for the top players on the cheap.I would have to disagree. Could my proposal see teams like the Clippers and Trail Blazers give up on chasing 8th place to pursue top draft talent? Sure, but the current system does nothing to stop teams tanking. In many ways it rewards teams for tanking. And it certainly isn’t geared to be in favour of small market teams.
The league have tried to fix it by flattening the odds and fining teams, but that hasn’t worked because teams still sit players in the 4th quarter (eg Utah Jazz), hold players out on back-to-back games (eg Indiana Pacers), and trade away players for no real return. So if league truly wants to stop ‘tanking’, then they have to do something radical to make the teams change their ways.
The current system promotes losing, whereas my proposed system promotes winning. So teams that are out of the play off race will be less inclined to trade away players or sit players to help them tank; instead, they will look towards making moves to get better and/or make sure their best players suit up and actually play.
Another option could be that all lottery teams have their name put into a hat. Every team has a 1 in 14 chance to land the top pick, then the remaining teams a 1 in 13 chance to land the second pick, and so on. That would eliminate tanking overnight because no team would be able to manipulate their odds. It would force them to be as competitive as possible because they could no longer guarantee a return through the draft.
Most changes can hurt smaller teams if they don’t get lucky in the draft, can’t attract free agents or make trades to get better. However, the current system doesn’t really help on that front either. What good has the lottery done for us in the past two decades?
At the end of the day it increases team control over the pick (which increases tanking) and it increases variability as any team in the bottom play-off can win it.
Both of those factors will increase not decrease tanking.
Last edited:
It would make the 6-8 seeds complete death while the 9th seed would have an excellent chance to win the 1st overall pick. Despite being close overall in talent level as teams. You'd essentially be making thr bottom half of the playoff squads worthless because being the 17th best team in the league and out of the playoffs gives you a huge advantage for a 1st overall
eleventy
G-League
I would have to disagree. Could my proposal see teams like the Clippers and Trail Blazers give up on chasing 8th place to pursue top draft talent? Sure, but the current system does nothing to stop teams tanking. In many ways it rewards teams for tanking. And it certainly isn’t geared to be in favour of small market teams.
The league have tried to fix it by flattening the odds and fining teams, but that hasn’t worked because teams still sit players in the 4th quarter (eg Utah Jazz), hold players out on back-to-back games (eg Indiana Pacers), and trade away players for no real return. So if league truly wants to stop ‘tanking’, then they have to do something radical to make the teams change their ways.
The current system promotes losing, whereas my proposed system promotes winning. So teams that are out of the play off race will be less inclined to trade away players or sit players to help them tank; instead, they will look towards making moves to get better and/or make sure their best players suit up and actually play.
Another option could be that all lottery teams have their name put into a hat. Every team has a 1 in 14 chance to land the top pick, then the remaining teams a 1 in 13 chance to land the second pick, and so on. That would eliminate tanking overnight because no team would be able to manipulate their odds. It would force them to be as competitive as possible because they could no longer guarantee a return through the draft.
Most changes can hurt smaller teams if they don’t get lucky in the draft, can’t attract free agents or make trades to get better. However, the current system doesn’t really help on that front either. What good has the lottery done for us in the past two decades?
these are thoughtful ideas, and everyone is going to ask themselves, "why would that NOT work?" (we ARE kings fans, after all).
but
in your scenario, let's say the Hornets come to the trade deadline a little under .500 but hot as a firecracker.
they have a choice to make - stay hot and try to make the play-in (or POSSIBLY EVEN getting the sixth seed - possible, but unlikely - not enough of the season left to move "that far up"), OR they will choose to forget the "long shot play-in" but instead "tank" into the bottom 16 and maybe make a trade (even they way overpay) for a temporarily injured "star" (currently out but expected back) in hopes (this year) of winning that "lottery tournament" and obtaining a SUPERstar draft pick.
they will tank and perhaps win that playoff scenario. their trade acquisition will return just before the end of the season (part of the tank) and help them win the "draft lottery playoffs"
now, that could be solved by requiring that teams only are allowed to use players who had participated in a certain number of games before participating in that "lottery playoffs". but that could be avoided by only trading for a player who had played 47 of the 50 games BEFORE the trade, then sitting him a lot ("tanking") before he returns when he approaches the number of games that must be played to participate on the "lottery playoffs"
you could actually have MORE teams tanking.
i think i like this idea of yours more - it's a lot simpler:
=================================================================================
Another option could be that all lottery teams have their name put into a hat. Every team has a 1 in 14 chance to land the top pick, then the remaining teams a 1 in 13 chance to land the second pick, and so on. That would eliminate tanking overnight because no team would be able to manipulate their odds. It would force them to be as competitive as possible because they could no longer guarantee a return through the draft.
=================================================================================
but let me make a whole different alternate suggestion:
i often work using what i call "linkage", by which i mean, "if you have two things to deal with, but you can use one to deal with the other, do it"
in this case, we have "expansion on the horizon"
why not use the "protection format"?
(this is not a fully formed idea, so don't hold me to anything)
at the end of each season, you have the equivalent of an "expansion draft".
each team can protect a certain amount of players and teams can select unprotected players (either in a "bottom up" order OR by lottery)
there would have to be a way to determine "who selects in what order?" AND "how many players does each team get to protect"?
possibly you determine "picking order" by "how many (non-injury) rest games has each team had?" and those that had the least pick early - those with the most pick near the end.
you would reward teams that had all their "available players" on the court for some percentage of the time (if they are actually "injured", that's ok, but no "injured one night and available the next") - if you are hurt enough to sit out one game for injury reasons, you have to instead sit out "five games".
lottery teams can protect, say, ten players but playoff teams only get to protect, say, seven players (perhaps "play-in" teams can protect eight or nine - don't hold me to these numbers).
then (in some way - a blind draw? or by "record") teams can select one (or two or even three) players from the unprotected pool. each team could lose only a certain number of players, but probably "more than just one" (as in the expansion draft)
and this would happen at the end of each season. and you'd have to see if that caused teams to stop tanking.
the "worst" teams would pick early and by the time you got to the "good" teams, there might not be many to choose from (and some good teams might not select anyone, because the pool had been shrunk because the bad teams have drafted the better available players).
that would certainly give fans one more thing to strategize about in the offseason
(this is NOT a fully formed idea)
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
Conceptually speaking, your idea sounds good.
But, as a fan, I would absolutely hate it. 100%.
Because we, as fans, tend to gravitate towards individual players, and we become invested in said player, at least enough to want to see that player flourish in our team's system (Keon Ellis). The thought of losing such a player for absolutely nothing in return wouldn't sit too well with me. Nor do I think that it would sit well with many others (especially on this here forum).
So, yeah, this would have to be a hard pass/no from me.
eleventy
G-League
yes, you would likely "lose" a keon, but approaching the trade deadline, i think we all know we were losing him anyway.
and yes, we got "something in return" (the ability to move schroder and hunter, who may or may not be worth anything).
but remember, you might lose keon (if he is "unprotected"), but A) you will get to pick up someone else's "keon" (in that draft) and (i just thought of this part), "since this would happen annually, you might get a chance to choose "keon" if the team that chose him didn't protect him in the next season's draft.
but you brought up keon.
let me ask you, "do you think ANYONE benefitted from that trade (other than the kings getting off denis)?
i don't - this was just teams exchanging guys before they lost them to free agency.
i don't see keon getting close to as much time with cleveland as he did with sac.
imho, keon is in a WORSE place now, stuck behind harden/porter jr/proctor/schroder and donovan mitchell (who plays 40 minutes a game)/merrill/tyson (unless he plays forward in a "small" lineup) - i don't see that he is better off on a "contending" team" - he would have more of a "chance to shine" on a bad team.
which calls into question the assumption that "all players would select the same five teams as destinations".
while that may be true, there isn't ROOM on those five teams for all those keons.
i submit that keon would be better off on a bad team where he would get minutes to prove that he deserves a bigger contract and NOT in cleveland (or boston or wherever)
although you say you would (as a fan) "hate it", i'll bet most fans would LOVE the idea of "another chance to improve your team" and there would be as much speculation on "who do we lose/who do we GET" as there is approaching the college draft. more offseason interest
Last edited:
eleventy
G-League
actually, in this scenario, i think you would NOT lose keon - if we could protect ten, we would certainly expose zach (take him, please) and (if we still had him) we would expose schroder and maybe even russ - keon would be among those "protected" (by the kings).
however, assuming that cleveland is a "good" team and can protect "less than ten" in "the next season's draft", keon would likely NOT be protected and he would have a chance to be chosen by a team that could really USE him (maybe even the kings).
(we could "off season argue" endlessly about which players to protect or expose)
this idea actually gives players more options (to get a bigger contract on a team that really wants him).
Dime Dropper
All-Star
A draft order based on cumulative winning % over a 3 year period would be much better than abolishing the draft altogether, which would be disastrous for smaller markets and would effectively end my NBA fandom. You could add stipulations to prevent consecutive top 3 picks or something of that nature.
I can't think of a worse solution than just letting prospects sign wherever they want. A higher salary is not going to entice a big time prospect to a small market team considering all of the other ways they can generate income, not to mention the backroom deals that owners get away with.
I can't think of a worse solution than just letting prospects sign wherever they want. A higher salary is not going to entice a big time prospect to a small market team considering all of the other ways they can generate income, not to mention the backroom deals that owners get away with.
Mike
Bench
Perhaps, but manipulating player availability is a current issue in the league where teams aren’t exactly transparent. For example, the Jazz and Pacers have been fined for breaches of player participation policy. So this needs addressing whether they change the existing system or keep it the same.
End of the day something needs to change because there’s less than thirty games left and at least half a dozen teams could throw the towel in because there’s nothing left to play for. The competitor in me would say pride, but realistically we’d be shooting ourselves in the foot if we went 14-12 to close out the season. Same goes for other teams in our situation. It really is a bad look for the league having almost a third of its teams with eyes on the top draft pick.
The team with the worst record in the NBA for (I believe) the last three seasons has picked fifth in the draft. Last year's big draft prize that teams were supposedly tanking for went to the Mavericks who were slotted to pick 10th (someone correct me if I'm off here) and the Spurs.
The last generational talent "worth" tanking for was Wemby and of 7 the teams with the worst records going into the lottery that year, only the Pacers are back in the bottom 7 by record this year, and only due to Haliburton's injury.
Why is tanking such a hot topic this year? In what way is the current system NOT working?
It's not like there's any way to prevent the league from having terrible teams.
What are the Kings actively doing to tank beyond having a terrible roster and a bunch of injuries?
And does anyone believe that LaVine and/or Sabonis would choose to play through their injuries in this lost season if there was a change to how draft picks were determined?
Changing the rules to discourage tanking likely wouldn't change much, if anything, about how this Kings season would have played out. It would just likely hamper their efforts to ever be good again.
The last generational talent "worth" tanking for was Wemby and of 7 the teams with the worst records going into the lottery that year, only the Pacers are back in the bottom 7 by record this year, and only due to Haliburton's injury.
Why is tanking such a hot topic this year? In what way is the current system NOT working?
It's not like there's any way to prevent the league from having terrible teams.
What are the Kings actively doing to tank beyond having a terrible roster and a bunch of injuries?
And does anyone believe that LaVine and/or Sabonis would choose to play through their injuries in this lost season if there was a change to how draft picks were determined?
Changing the rules to discourage tanking likely wouldn't change much, if anything, about how this Kings season would have played out. It would just likely hamper their efforts to ever be good again.
Mike
Bench
The current system has not helped teams like Charlotte and ourselves to field competitive teams over the last two decades. Both have consistently been in the draft lottery. Both arebuilt time and time again to no avail. So to play devil’s advocate, what have we to lose?
Charlotte have four winning seasons and three playoff off appearances since they came back into the league in around 2004/5. We have two winning seasons and play off appearances post-Adelman.
I’m not saying I’d be an advocate of scrapping the draft, but it’s not like the system has been kind to us.
Mike
Bench
There are currently teams in those positions that can find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. Some have the potential to become contenders with the right moves and/or player development, but others have hit their ceiling and don’t have the means to improve.
I’m sure if we went over to the Bulls or Hawks messages boards we would find fans wanting to make the play in and those wanting to tank to give themselves a chance in the lottery. So we have similar problems with the current system.
Cooper Flag is a generational talent totally worth tanking for. Dallas got lucky. The Kings did themselves no favors by not blowing it up before last season.