U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Basketball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-05-2017, 10:45 AM
 
811 posts, read 564,594 times
Reputation: 778

Advertisements

An interesting idea I just thought of...what if teams could trade a top 3 pick (or top 2) without having to match salaries in return and can absorb salaries even if over the cap. Current rules are that salary has to match. we know that a top 3 pick is valuable to bad teams in that they HOPE to get the franchise star. NBA, more than any other league, needs a star to win. I think it would be a good way for bad teams to quickly reboot while middle of the road teams can start over without having to tank for years before getting a top pick. Cleveland could get another star easily with the Nets pick maybe as long as they are willing to pay the 20+ mil of the star they get.

Imagine Boston could have traded the top pick for butler or Paul George straight up without having to trade 2 or 3 key bench players to match salary. Imagine a young team with talent like Philly gets lucky and jumps to the top slot. They would now have the ability to create a dynasty quickly

the downside is that maybe you would not have midseason trades since teams would have to wait to see where their pick is. either way, it would make draft night interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2017, 11:57 AM
 
167 posts, read 75,984 times
Reputation: 207
I like the upsides in this but IMO the huge downside is that it makes high picks even more valuable, which means even more reasons to tank like Philly.

I think tanking should be prevented. Times have changed and there's a need for a big reform. Today clubs are profitable, have strong revenue sharing, get a lot of TV money so owners aren't afraid to lose local game revenue as much as in the past. Philly happened once, it will happen again. In the past, some owners might've been willing to tank a season, but not build a multi year plan around it like Philly.

I think instead the pick system should be revamped in a way that bad teams don't necessarily get a high pick. Maybe make it even odds to get a top 5 pick for all the lottery teams.

That would also help with the "middle of the road" problem that you are trying to solve as well, but it would be based on luck - a mediocre club could get lucky and get a very high pick and get over the hump. In this scenario, it would make sense for clubs to be mediocre rather than be miserably bad. Which I think would be better than what we have now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Basketball
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top