Whlie your suggestion to make the lottery more equal for all teams, I believe that i against the anti-trust laws. I am not sure under what statute, but I believe that in order for a draft to be allowed in competitve bargaining is that a draft enhances a more equal and competitive play. If the draft had a team that finished not in the bottom, the team would definitely do better, but it is not neccesarily true that the worse teams will do better in the draft, which would loose there ability to collectively bargain.
Kenny

 Anonymous -- 4/05/2007 8:07 PM  

not if the players agree to it.

 Anonymous -- 4/05/2007 8:45 PM  

no there are some rules that are nonbinding even with a collective bargaining agreement. This is one of them. Kenny is right

 Anonymous -- 4/05/2007 9:13 PM  

Just a small correction: I went to that game after which Doc Rivers said that he wasnt tanking the game. It was against the Charlotte bobcats not the atlanta hawks.
I think the current kind of draft order, like in the nfl, discourages good sportsmanship and def needs to be changed!

 Andrew -- 4/05/2007 9:56 PM  

Andrew,

Thanks for the correction and sorry that you had to witness that game! :)

Kenny and the other two commentators,

Thanks for your comments, they raise an interesting issue on the legality of a non-weighted lottery, as detailed in option #1.

But I'm not sure that it would violate antitrust laws for a draft lottery to provide equal chance to the worst 14 teams to obtain picks 1 through 14, while the order for the remaining 16 teams would continue to be based on record. And I think that is true even if the players' wouldn't consent.

For one, most of the first round (16 out of the 30 picks) would still be based strictly on re-distributive grounds (i.e., records of the playoff teams). Plus, presumably all 30 picks in the second round would remain based on those same re-distributive grounds. So 46 out of the 60 draft selections in a non-weighted lottery would remain based on re-distributive considerations, meaning that the weakest teams in those 46 selections would still have the first crack at the best available talent.

Having said that, I fully understand that the lottery features the best talent--especially among the top 5 selections--and that a non-weighted lottery would probably not re-distribute that talent to the weakest (or "most needy") teams, but courts have been very deferential (too deferential in my opinion) to leagues in how they operate drafts, and I suspect that courts would be sympathetic to leagues like the NBA that have teams deliberately trying to lose games. But if you find case-law that would support your point, I would be extremely interested reading it. It's a neat topic and sounds like a good area for an enterprising law student to research for a student note project.

Thanks to you all for commenting.

 Michael McCann -- 4/05/2007 11:13 PM  

The only problem with tanking games is that there are NO guarantees you get what you are trying to get!!! You mentioned the Celtics in 96-97, when they had two shots in the ping-pong ball lottery to land Tim Duncan and missed both times (they ended up with # 3 and # 10 picks if I remember right). More such evidence:

>> Just ask Denver Nuggets fans about tanking to get the #1 pick! Twice the Nuggets had the worst record in the NBA, and neither time did they get the #1 pick (ending up FOURTH both times).

>> Who said that either Odin &/or Durant are even coming out FOR SURE? It seems like no one has bothered to ask THEM about THEIR plans; both are freshmen, and remember Odin only played just over half the season due to work on his wrist. Seems to me another year for both would not be a bad idea, to see if they are not flashes-in-the-pan's. By the way, who would be the #1 pick if NEITHER Odin nor Durant come out?

P.S. This draft may also be a little better than thought, with four Florida starters coming out for this year's draft.

Melvin H.

 Anonymous -- 4/06/2007 4:35 AM  

I love the idea of naming all players to be free agents. Perhaps you could throw in some first rights of refusal to lower-placed teams (they have the right to match any price offered from a higher ranked team, so the higher ranked teams end up having to pay more to get rookies).

 greg oden -- 4/06/2007 8:57 AM  

I have sneaking admiration for the notion that the lottery team with the BEST record ought to get the most ping pong balls, because the assumption that bad teams will become competitive given enough high lotto picks is illusory. When has that ever happened since the introduction of the lottery system? ? Look at teams like the Clips and the Hawks, who have been awarded high picks year after year but are still lousy.

Unfortunately, I doubt if the "inverse order" approach would fly with the league. Instead, how about a simple system of escalating fines? These would be similar to the fines Stern imposes for criticizing the officials. If Stern thinks a team has tanked a game, it's a $100,000 fine for both the coach and the GM. The second offense costs $250,000 each, the third $500,000, and so on. A team could appeal these fines, but it would have the burder of proving that it was not trying to lose, including affidavits from the team physicians that allegedly injured players were, in fact, injured, and explanations for unusual substitution patterns.

My guess is that the tanking would stop in a hurry if Stern took this approach.

 Anonymous -- 4/06/2007 9:33 AM  

Pro sports drafts help to artificially lower a player's initial salary, particularly in situations where a "rookie cap" exists.

I like how Randolph Morris was able to go directly from the NCAA Tournament into the NBA (because of having passed through the draft once before), though obviously his situation was the exception and not the rule.

 Lou P. -- 4/06/2007 10:26 AM  

Glad to see a return to an issue near and dear to my heart. Why not institute a draft of the best law students from the firms around the country in reverse order of partner profitability. It will even the playing field. Students may lose their choice to work where and with whom they want but, hey, it will only be for the first four years of their career. For many athletes, their whole career is over in less time. Alan Milstein

 Alan Milstein -- 4/06/2007 10:35 AM  

What evidence is there that the draft "redistribute[s] talent in a way that benefits the league as a whole?"

Arguably, Mr. Milstein's point has nothing to do with the draft, but rather with the fact that leagues have been allowed to become monopolies. No one would argue that, once a law student joins a law firm, it can assign him to whatever practice of the firm it wants. So is the problem that a league can assign a player to a single team the real problem, or is that there's only one league?

 Anonymous -- 4/06/2007 11:02 AM  

While the NBA should adopt a more European Soccer view on how to develop their players (Having their own youth academies owning the rights to the players that they developed, being able to sell them/trade them when they want to or if the player wants out) would solve a myriad of problems in the league (including the whole NCAA profiting greatly off of what is basically uncompensated labor) but that is never going to happen.

Since that system will never be implemented the system that is in place now is as good as you can get. In any situation where you reward losing with a prize organizations will tank. They are motivated to tank and will keep as many necessary players out of the game to do so.

We are stuck with the best situation until the NBA truly embraces player development instead of letting other organizations do it for them.

 Gregg -- 4/06/2007 11:09 AM  

Certainly a difference between assigning a player to a position and giving him one and only one choice about where he will work. The league is not the employer; the individual teams are. The point is really to dispel the myth, which fans have bought into, that the purpose of the draft is parity because, without it, all the players would gravitate to the good teams. Many players would choose to work in their home or college towns as evidenced by players like Randy Wolf who left the Phillies to go play for the Dodgers.

 alan milstein -- 4/06/2007 11:19 AM  

This suggestion may be received as heresy in this forum, but, I suggest that the current system is actually pretty good for two reasons: (1) the probabilistic nature of the rankings makes the decision to lose on purpose a much riskier one; and, (2) losing on purpose, while wrong, is not as bad as people think.

(1) is self-evident, I trust. If you decide to tank in the hopes of getting #1, you may instead get burned and alienate fans in the meantime.

(2) what is the point of losing on purpose to get a high draft? It is to get better in the future. It's a strategic decision, a retreat, if you will, with the idea of regrouping and eventually winning. This is not the greatest sin. In fact, whatever is wrong with it can be cured by the market pressures noted above: you may lose your fan base, revenue, etc.

There is something to be said for always trying your best, never throwing in the towel, and so forth. Those are indeed admirable virtues. Yet, we admit their limits in other aspects of life: sometimes planning for the future means sacrificing now. Is there something about professional sports that makes them immune to such strategic decisions? Do we expect professional sports to exhibit the highest human virtues? Professional sports leagues are comprised of businesses that have sold their fans down the river countless times. Apply the same business pressures to sanction them and look elsewhere for your models of virtue.

 Bob-Wise Gansey -- 4/06/2007 11:28 AM  

imo the problem is that the step down from last to 2nd last to 3rd last is too large. this provides motivation for tanking... why not use a smaller step size, with all 14 non playoff teams having a chance at the #1 pick and all first 14 picks being drawn.

30th 11%
29th 11%
28th 11%
27th 11%
26th 10%
35th 9%
24th 8%
23rd 7%
22nd 6%
21st 5%
19th 4%
18th 3%
17th 2%

or something similar to that (as mine dont add up to 100%).. but you get the picture. This would stop teams from trying to move down a spot of two cos it makes very little difference to their chances..

 Michal -- 4/06/2007 11:45 AM  

Alan:

Your arguments seem to be question-begging or without evidentiary support.

"Certainly a difference between assigning a player to a position and giving him one and only one choice about where he will work."

This problem arises only because leagues are monopsonies. If there were multiple leagues, each having a draft, then a player would have an option about where to play. See the days of the AFL/NFL and ABA/NBA.

"The league is not the employer; the individual teams are."

You're begging the question. The point is that, for antitrust purposes, should the leagues be treated as a single entity?

"The point is really to dispel the myth, which fans have bought into, that the purpose of the draft is parity because, without it, all the players would gravitate to the good teams."

Undoubtedly drafts have the effect of cutting costs by creating a property right in a player's services. But the idea that a draft necessarily has only that purpose is silly, without further evidence.

"Many players would choose to work in their home or college towns as evidenced by players like Randy Wolf who left the Phillies to go play for the Dodgers."

Maybe yes, maybe no. One anecdote does not make a statement true.

 Anonymous -- 4/06/2007 2:34 PM  

The question is not one of legality. The league and the union have agreed in arms legnth negotiations to a term that effects primarily those in the union and concerns wages. So it is shielded by the labor exemption. End of story. What goads me is that the draft is sold as a parity issue and not a vehicle to control wages. And that fans and commentators--and even players--buy that rationale.

 alan milstein -- 4/06/2007 4:43 PM  

Humm what about a pick your poison lottery that would muck things up so good the fans could never figure it out?

The bottom 7 teams get three choices.
1. Compete for one of the first picks.
2. Compete for one of two $5 million league bonus payments that can only be used for player salaries and is exempt from the cap and the tax.
3. Compete for two bonus picks to be taken just before the championship series participants pick.

Each team sends a letter to the commissioner of their choice of pool.

Commissioner opens the 7 envelopes.
If only 1 or 2 pick option 2 they get it and go in the hopper for the first pick lottery. Same for option 3 with a drawing to determine the order of the bonus pick. If more teams pick option 2 or 3 than there are slots there is a drawing for each slot the winners are held out of the 1-7 lottery until the other slots are taken.

Totally crazy BUT, some teams might risk giving up a shot at the top pick for some immediate cap help that doesn't come out of the owner's pocket, while other teams might risk not being the top pick in order to have the added player of a bonus pick or by being able to take that pick and trade it.

Brings some game play to the process as well. If you go for the cap help or bonus pick and more teams pick that option than there are slots, those teams are guaranteed to be out of contention for the earliest picks, but if you choose one of those options and few other teams do, you are still in the unweighted competition for spot #1.

 Mark -- 4/06/2007 6:34 PM  

I've got an idea. Put the lottery teams in 3 tiers: Group A. teams that made the playoffs last season - let's say there are 5. They pick in random order 10-14. Group B. teams that missed the playoffs last season but made it the year before- let's say there are 5. They pick in random order 5-9. Group C. teams that missed the playoffs the last 2 seasons. They pick in random order 1-4. I can't find a single reason why a team would tank. This season a team like Memphis would be screwed since they were a playoff team. A team like the Warriors (if they miss out) would benefit for missing the playoffs annually.

 ACC -- 4/06/2007 6:51 PM  

Well, I have an idea. If a team cannot win 1/3 of games it plays (28 wins in a 82-game schedule), that team cannot participate in the upcoming lottery. Therefore at current pace, Memphis will not get a pick higher than 4, Boston 5, and Milwaukee 6 repectively.

 Dai Lung Liu -- 4/07/2007 4:46 AM  

The best solution is a European- style elimination system that relegates the worst teams to a minor league every season. If only there was a minor league basketball league . . .

 Anonymous -- 4/07/2007 11:12 AM  

rookie salaries are capped, right?

So, how about if they capped a player out of high school for one year at x amount of dollars.

someone out of high school for two years at x2 amount of dollars.

someone out of high school for three years at x3 amount of dollars.

someone out of high school for four years at x4 amount of dollars.

have the players agree to it, give them something else in return that they want and maybe you'll have players with longer collegiate careers.

 Anonymous -- 4/07/2007 11:25 AM  

Although all the major sports leagues have drafts, I think that the NBA is the only one that has a lottery/weighted system. In all the other leagues (NFL, MBL, NHL, and even MLS), the team with the worst record gets the 1st choice and so on. In the NBA, the team with the worst record only has a chance - a 31.5% chance - of getting the first pick. I would argue that the NBA's system does the most to discourage the tanking of games to gain draft position. In other leagues, the team will know for certain what draft pick they will have but under the NBA's system, there is only a chance that they will get any particular pick.

If teams tanking games to gain draft position is a problem, perhaps the solution is NOT to play around with the draft but to attempt alter/emphasize/highlight other incentives. For example, if a team is tanking, I would think that fans would be less likely to buy tickets, buy concessions, and watch the games on TV. Hopefully, this would be enough of a disincentive. But perhaps the NBA could increase the rewards for playing competitive games later in the season; for example, teams that play late season games on national TV (ESPN and ABC) could receive additional TV money.

 David -- 4/07/2007 3:02 PM  

How about we get rid of the lottery all together? Just adopt the NFL system, the worst record gets pick 1, second worst gets pick 2, etc. I think it's the best draft system around, and it certainly gives the best chance to redistribute the talent.

It may not solve the "tanking" issue. But there's no real way to do anything with the draft to defend against that. It's just so hard to believe that the coach could get an entire team of competitive athletes to lose on purpose.

John

 Anonymous -- 4/08/2007 2:29 PM  

I can see why the management and ownership would want to tank the games, but what incentive do the players have?

I'm not sure who the center of the boston celtics is, but I bet you he doesn't want boston to get the first pick in the draft

 Anonymous -- 4/09/2007 7:46 AM  

From Sekou Smith of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

"Hawks radio mouthpiece Steve Holman cooked up an interesting scenario before the game. His theory: have the league’s four worst teams play a lottery playoff with the winner snagging the top pick in the draft. The four-team tournament could take place on back-to-back nights in the days before the playoffs start. The fans of those four teams would eat it up. It would be like the Toilet Bowl division of the Gus Macker.

Holman’s idea is actually one of the better solutions I’ve heard of to this blatant tanking that some teams (Milwaukee should be ashamed for showing up to Atlanta Friday with that motley crew of players no one has ever heard of) pull this time of year."

 Jason -- 4/09/2007 8:15 AM  

The real solution is a completely random draft. All 30 teams have an equal chance at the top pick regardless of record. We would all be astounded at what little difference it makes in terms of competitiveness. Remember when the Clippers got the top pick every year and destroyed lots 'n lots of NBA careers? A pathetic organization can't be fixed with high draft picks and frankly doesn't deserve them.

 Anonymous -- 4/09/2007 3:04 PM  

The NBA is a business and any suggestion that the weighted lottery system should be done away with is a dangerous proposition in that sense. Part of the success of major sports leagues is predicated on the events of the off-season. A quick look at NBA and NFL draft websites can show us that a significant amount of free advertising for the leagues is generated during the off-season. Thus the silver lining for horrible regular-season teams is that, at the very least, the off-season will bring a high draft pick and much-needed exposure and excitement to their team's product. Consequently, even badly run teams can keep themselves afloat financially via ticket and merchandise sales by invigorating their fan base by promising new talent and energy and trumpeting the prospect of better results in the near future.

This process is crucial as any sports league is as successful as its most poorest club.

 Jason Chung -- 4/10/2007 11:08 PM  

I was just about to comment when I saw Michal and ACC's ideas. I think ACC's idea is excellent.

 henry -- 5/22/2007 5:26 PM  

Post a Comment