OT: Eliminate NBA draft? | Syracusefan.com

OT: Eliminate NBA draft?

Eric15

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
29,227
Like
108,267
SVG's anti-tank proposal: Eliminate the draft

This is an interesting proposition. Stan Van Gundy says the league would be better off if the draft was eliminated all together, and the free market simply determined where rookies ended up. Teams would have to work under the cap.
 
Never going to happen. How will small market teams ever get great players? Who would ever sign with Milwaukee or Utah?
How many do they get, or maybe keep, today?
 
Never going to happen. How will small market teams ever get great players? Who would ever sign with Milwaukee or Utah?

Milwaukee will have the 7th highest payroll in the league next year, Utah's is 17th. Two huge markets (Chicago and Philly) will have the two smallest payrolls. New York and LA are middle of the pack.

NBA Contracts Summary | Basketball-Reference.com
 
It's an outside of the box idea that is worthy of discussion, but in the end it will just not work.
 
Just flip the lottery. The 1st 3 runners up get the 1st 3 picks.

Or, after initial 3 year rookie deal, everyone is on one year contracts.
 
George F. Will admits that the only thing that saved baseball was the common draft. He says it's his only admission that Socialism worked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cto
A hard salary cap is only a piece of what players make. Endorsement deals are worth a lot more if a player were in NY or LA.
 
A hard salary cap is only a piece of what players make. Endorsement deals are worth a lot more if a player were in NY or LA.

And salaries are so high in the NBA that a hard cap won't keep guys from taking less money to play in the 5-6 places viewed as most desirable. As you point out, this is particularly true when you add endorsement dollars to the mix.
 
Technically, this would indeed eliminate tanking (duh, there's nothing to tank for if there is no draft), but it would obviously create talent imbalance as well. Small market teams, especially those that are struggling, would have to give massive contracts to 19 year olds and pray that they develop. If they happen to get unlucky, then they'd be straddled with a huge contract while also continuing to rot in the cellar. This is already an issue with signing veterans, but at least you have some sort of sample size when signing those guys. Giving huge contracts to kids that have played 30ish college games would be a nightmare for small market teams.

The issue is that if we assume that tanking is something that absolutely must be fixed (I personally don't think it is), then the only real way to fix it is with something like what Stan is proposing, or making extreme changes to rookie contracts, and both of these options have negative impacts in the eyes of many NBA owners.

For example, if restricted free agency were eliminated so that teams can't lock talented rookies up for 8+ years before they have a chance to actually sign with someone else, this would deter tanking (probably only slightly if at all though). Take this a step further...let's say instead of rookie contracts being 2 years with a 2 year team option, it's 2 years with a player option. Would teams tank just to have a potential star for 2 seasons (during which they probably wouldn't actually make much of an impact on the team since most rookies take at least a few years before they're actually a net-positive player)? I'm not so sure. They'd at least have a chance to endear themselves to the prospect for 2 years before he can walk, so that for example, you might see a guy like Westbrook or Giannis that's grown attached to their small markets and choose to stay. But you'd probably have a ton of guys leave after their two years are up as well; not to mention if you get an absolute bust (for example, Anthony Bennett), you'd be saddled with paying his contract for 4 years instead of being able to get out after 2.

The issue is that NBA owners want to be able to control players while also eliminating tanking; this just isn't possible. To deter tanking, they must give up control.
 
Never going to happen. How will small market teams ever get great players? Who would ever sign with Milwaukee or Utah?

Theoretically, if you could make $20 million with Utah, or $2 million with NY or LA, you'd probably take Utah.

This would be extremely difficult to make work. I think it's a fascinating idea though.
 
Theoretically, if you could make $20 million with Utah, or $2 million with NY or LA, you'd probably take Utah.

This would be extremely difficult to make work. I think it's a fascinating idea though.
$20M in Utah goes a nice, long way too.

I think they're solving the wrong problem though. The objective shouldn't be to help the worst teams get better. The objective should be to help the middling teams trying to compete to get better.
 
Letting teams franchise a player would help - although small market teams would still have to acquire the star in the first place. But I think the NBA would reject this because it likes super teams with three or four stars. This isn't the NFL where people watch football all day and parity helps the league. NBA fans are more apt to follow one or a few teams.
 
This would destroy any parity in the league, imo. Right now, if you miss on a top prospect, you're out roughly $30M over 4 years, or something like that. If he sucks, you still have wiggle room under the cap to make things work, and he's still tradable to an extent. With the free market idea, you're going to have to pay a lot more for that top prospect. So, if you miss, you're out what? $50 or $60M over 4 or 5 years? With a hard cap, that would put a team firmly in the basement for half a decade. And top prospect misses are far from rare. I suppose one could argue that's the punishment for making a bad deal, but these teams are dealing with mostly unknown quantities. That's one heck of a punishment for not nailing down exactly how successful a 19 year old with only a year or two of usable game footage is going to be.

If you try to alleviate that problem by capping rookie salaries, then you're just funneling players to already talented teams, because more than a couple top 10 teams will be able to make room for a rookie with a capped salary next to one or two All-Stars. If you're offered the same 'rookie max' contract by a playoff team and a bottom feeder, you're probably choosing the playoff team.

Another consideration is where the cap will actually be set. If it stays at its current level or increases, then you still have the problem of some small market teams not being able to actually reach the cap because they don't have the money to do it or profit margins to justify it. And lowering the cap is not feasible because the players union would never allow it, rightfully so.
 
This would destroy any parity in the league, imo. Right now, if you miss on a top prospect, you're out roughly $30M over 4 years, or something like that. If he sucks, you still have wiggle room under the cap to make things work, and he's still tradable to an extent. With the free market idea, you're going to have to pay a lot more for that top prospect. So, if you miss, you're out what? $50 or $60M over 4 or 5 years? With a hard cap, that would put a team firmly in the basement for half a decade. And top prospect misses are far from rare. I suppose one could argue that's the punishment for making a bad deal, but these teams are dealing with mostly unknown quantities. That's one heck of a punishment for not nailing down exactly how successful a 19 year old with only a year or two of usable game footage is going to be.

If you try to alleviate that problem by capping rookie salaries, then you're just funneling players to already talented teams, because more than a couple top 10 teams will be able to make room for a rookie with a capped salary next to one or two All-Stars. If you're offered the same 'rookie max' contract by a playoff team and a bottom feeder, you're probably choosing the playoff team.

Another consideration is where the cap will actually be set. If it stays at its current level or increases, then you still have the problem of some small market teams not being able to actually reach the cap because they don't have the money to do it or profit margins to justify it. And lowering the cap is not feasible because the players union would never allow it, rightfully so.

It depends on how the contracts are structured; right now, if you completely whiff on a top pick, you really are only out for 2 years; you can decline the team options after that.

Probably the best way to make there be more "parity", for lack of a better term, is going to a hard cap and no max salary.
 
Also, not related to Stan's proposal, but god, the Wheel has to be the dumbest idea for a draft that I've ever seen. Imagine if the wheel were in place right now.

Golden State could have potentially added Malik Monk or Donovan Mitchell to their roster this year and then follow it up by adding Luka Doncic, Michael Porter, Marvin Bagley, etc. the following year and had these dudes locked up on the rookie salary scale.
 
Stan's brother Jeff was on the radio last week saying college players should be drafted too. Eliminate the choice and have them go where selected. His theory was it eliminates the shady recruiting dealings he also recognized it would never happen.
 
For example, if restricted free agency were eliminated so that teams can't lock talented rookies up for 8+ years before they have a chance to actually sign with someone else, this would deter tanking (probably only slightly if at all though).

I agree with everything in your post but think this actually greatly underestimates how much just eliminating rfa would solve the "tanking problem". Unlike in the NFL where the value of rookies is largely the value of rookie contracts, in the NBA what you are shooting for is a superstar. Nobody is tanking to get a slightly above average player at a low price. They're tanking for a lottery ticket because you need a couple superstars to compete for a championship. But as you point out even the best players aren't superstars st 19. If all you're guaranteed for your lottery ticket is a player through his year 22 season that lottery ticket really ain't worth much.

If the sixers could lose embiid this year and Simmons next year the process wouldn't be looking like even the very qualified success it appears now.

Of course as you say the owners have no interest in giving up their control. But the solution isn't particularly hard. And a lottery with rfa would still avoid the situation where a golden state adds a number one pick or whatever.
 
Stan's brother Jeff was on the radio last week saying college players should be drafted too. Eliminate the choice and have them go where selected. His theory was it eliminates the shady recruiting dealings he also recognized it would never happen.

This is awful on like 15 different levels.
 
This is the same thing as ncaa sports but scaled to 30 teams. Certain teams like alabama and UK can "pay" more for players (and many of the top guys go there) but there is still parity. Coaching matters, scouting matters, day to day operations matter, location matters, playing time matters. Intelligence can overcome money. You will see teams like the yankees who outspend everyone but dont make the playoffs.

I say take the training wheels off and let teams sign who they want and let players go where they want. The same teams fail in the draft and free agency now even with top picks and a salary cap. I don't think the results would be much different.

Also, the nature of the draft kind of makes the true level of parity impossible to know. Are teams truly as bad as the results or is it tanking?
 
I'm not sure the draft works. Philly has had a top 5 pick for the last decade and it hasn't made them any better.

Also eliminates the need for kids to leave college early. Either you get a guaranteed contract and you leave, or you stay in college until the offer is attractive.
 
Technically, this would indeed eliminate tanking (duh, there's nothing to tank for if there is no draft), but it would obviously create talent imbalance as well. Small market teams, especially those that are struggling, would have to give massive contracts to 19 year olds and pray that they develop. If they happen to get unlucky, then they'd be straddled with a huge contract while also continuing to rot in the cellar. This is already an issue with signing veterans, but at least you have some sort of sample size when signing those guys. Giving huge contracts to kids that have played 30ish college games would be a nightmare for small market teams.

The issue is that if we assume that tanking is something that absolutely must be fixed (I personally don't think it is), then the only real way to fix it is with something like what Stan is proposing, or making extreme changes to rookie contracts, and both of these options have negative impacts in the eyes of many NBA owners.

For example, if restricted free agency were eliminated so that teams can't lock talented rookies up for 8+ years before they have a chance to actually sign with someone else, this would deter tanking (probably only slightly if at all though). Take this a step further...let's say instead of rookie contracts being 2 years with a 2 year team option, it's 2 years with a player option. Would teams tank just to have a potential star for 2 seasons (during which they probably wouldn't actually make much of an impact on the team since most rookies take at least a few years before they're actually a net-positive player)? I'm not so sure. They'd at least have a chance to endear themselves to the prospect for 2 years before he can walk, so that for example, you might see a guy like Westbrook or Giannis that's grown attached to their small markets and choose to stay. But you'd probably have a ton of guys leave after their two years are up as well; not to mention if you get an absolute bust (for example, Anthony Bennett), you'd be saddled with paying his contract for 4 years instead of being able to get out after 2.

The issue is that NBA owners want to be able to control players while also eliminating tanking; this just isn't possible. To deter tanking, they must give up control.

Why would small teams neccesarily have to pay giant contracts to rookies? If there's no draft, the small teams can hunt for bargains and sign the equivalent of a late first rounder.

They may sacrifice choosing first, but they won't have to take the huge contracts if they choose not to.
 
Why would small teams neccesarily have to pay giant contracts to rookies? If there's no draft, the small teams can hunt for bargains and sign the equivalent of a late first rounder.

They may sacrifice choosing first, but they won't have to take the huge contracts if they choose not to.

Sure, if the small market teams are fine with letting all of the superstar-caliber prospects go to other teams, then you're right that they wouldn't have to give out huge contracts. Small market teams would essentially have to completely rely on getting lucky while larger markets and contenders would be able to sign all of the good prospects. Of course there might be an occasional star that slips through the cracks and gets scooped up by a small market team but your chances of landing a star are nowhere near as good picking at the end of the draft versus the front for example, which is essentially what the small market teams would be doing every year.
 

Similar threads

    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Basketball
Replies
4
Views
428
Replies
6
Views
1K

Forum statistics

Threads
167,128
Messages
4,681,616
Members
5,900
Latest member
DizzyNY

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
1,983
Total visitors
2,162


Top Bottom