Best Young Core of the Future

[Shade8780]

How do you leave Olynyk out of the Celtics?

[DMAVS41]

Btw, this is the proposal that the league submitted:



http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nb...orm-is-coming/

Hmmmmm....that will curb all out tanking out of the worst teams, but might encourage some tanking from other teams.

Don't really like it, better than the current system, but not going to prevent teams from adopting the sixers strategy.

[Jailblazers7]

Hmmmmm....that will curb all out tanking out of the worst teams, but might encourage some tanking from other teams.

Don't really like it.

The article does mention that The Wheel proposal suggested delaying the implementation of the Draft Wheel until all the picks that have been traded have run their course, which would delay implementation until 2019 or whatever. I hadn't considered pick trades but that could be a big reason reform gets delayed.

[DMAVS41]

The article does mention that The Wheel proposal suggested delaying the implementation of the Draft Wheel until all the picks that have been traded have run their course, which would delay implementation until 2019 or whatever. I hadn't considered pick trades but that could be a big reason reform gets delayed.

yea....i don't like the wheel at all though.

the problem with increasing the odds of better picks for teams is that teams squeaking into the playoffs are losing out on some real chances to get lucky.

I like stopping at 6 better than the other proposal I saw in this thread because it helps lessen that incentive if only the top 6 are picked and then it goes in order.

I still worry about teams having little incentive to fight for the 7th and 8th seed if the odds of them getting better picks is increased with the reforms.

[KG215]

Let's say .... 24 years old and under.
MIL:
Jabari Parker
Giannis Antetekounmpo
John Henson
Brandon Knight

CLE:
Andrew Wiggins
Kyrie Irving
Dion Waiters
Anthony Bennett

PHI:
Michael Carter-Williams
Nerlens Noel
Joel Embiid

WAS:
John Wall
Bradley Beal
Otto Porter

NOP:
Anthony Davis
Jrue Holiday
Tyreke Evans

TOR:
DeMar DeRozan
Terrence Ross
Jonas Valenciunas

UTAH:
Gordon Hayward
Dante Exum
Trey Burke
Derrick Favors

DET:
Andre Drummond
Greg Monroe
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope

CHA:
Lance Stephenson
Kemba Walker
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
Noah Vonleh
Cody Zeller

BOS:
Marcus Smart
James Young
Avery Bradley
Jared Sullinger

MIN:
Ricky Rubio
Zach LaVine
Gorgui Dieng
Shabazz Muhammad

Who you nighas think has the best core 5 years from now?

You could probably include this core for OKC and make a case they are comparable to most of the ones you're using:

Steven Adams
Reggie Jackson
Jeremy Lamb
Perry Jones
Mitch McGary

And that's without Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka who are all still 25 or younger.

[StephHamann]

Pelicans:

Future Hall of Famer Anthony Davis

[BrownEye007]

You could probably include this core for OKC and make a case they are comparable to most of the ones you're using:

Steven Adams
Reggie Jackson
Jeremy Lamb
Perry Jones
Mitch McGary

And that's without Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka who are all still 25 or younger.

Steven Adams might be good enough to start someday and Jackson could start on a bad team. Rest are role players at best.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Okc...

[kshutts1]

Yea, but with an increased chance of getting a top pick in the lottery...you'll have teams fighting to get into the lottery rather than making the playoffs.

That is the danger I don't like about your proposal. The minute you start giving teams in the 8 to 14 range legit chances to move way up in the draft....the minute you start seeing those teams choosing to go into the lottery rather than make the playoffs.

Why push for the playoffs just to get blown out in round 1 when you have a legit chance at a top 5 pick?

That is the fatal flaw there.

It should be almost fully randomized....that is even better than yours. Tanking is gone. And again, it's not like the current system is providing great results. The Cavs lost Lebron, Magic lost Howard, Nuggets lost Melo, Wolves lost KG and likely Love, Bucks lost Bogut...on and on and on we go.

The draft is already a total luck fest outside the top pick...and the top pick hardly guarantees you anything to begin with.

You can't have the 9th seed in a conference be in a far better position than the 8th seed. And your proposal creates just that. If you alter the odds and give the 9th seed in each conference a better chance to get move up...why would a team ever want to make the 8th seed so they can lose in 5 or so games and potentially miss out on a top 5 pick? Makes no sense...you'd see teams literally bailing out of the playoffs in a way you don't now.

I noted the potential for teams jockeying for moving up or down a tier in the final games. So that's clearly an issue.

That being said, I'll do my best to list the positives of my idea vs current:
1) All teams have a shot at the first overall pick. Even the title winners.
1a) This means that the 8/9 argument you offered, while valid, was not entirely true and (no offense) somewhat short-sighted. Yes, the 9th pick has a better shot at the first pick, but the 8th pick also has a shot (unlike current system) AND they get playoff money AND they have the chance to advance further into the playoffs. Just because an 8 seed is unlikely to win it all doesn't mean it won't happen. Keep in mind, with increased parity (as we're attempting) comes better 8 seeds, at least relative to 1 seeds.

2) Picking all choices, with tiered % chances, lessens the reason to tank amongst lottery-bound teams. The Bucks had the best odds this past year, and while they didn't get the first pick, they were GUARANTEED a top 4 pick. With my suggestion, considering choosing all selections and the leveled-out % chances, they're guaranteed nothing beyond a top 30 pick. It is most likely that they will get a top 15 pick, though.

3) Bad teams don't need to be "rewarded" but they do need to be "helped". It may appear as a reward, but honestly it's just semantics. That being said, making a fully randomized draft system does not help bad teams. The current system helps too much. I think my idea is a nice compromise between yours and the current system.

4) In direct comment to "why push for the playoffs ... when you have a legit chance at a top 5 pick"... Go back to point 1a. But again, the current system offers nothing but a monetary/fan happiness reward for barely squeaking into the playoffs. My system still offers a shot at the top pick. Perhaps the numbers could be worked on, so that each of the last sixteen teams has a declining shot at the top pick.. something like 1.25% for 8seeds, 1 for 7, .75 for 6, .35, .25, .2, .125, .075.
That still adds up to the proper amount.
4a) Doing the declining %s by seeding raises the obvious issue of conference strength. I supposed it would be easier/better to do that by record, again, and just group together the worst two, next two, etc.

I don't believe I know everything, or that my ideas are perfect. But I do think it's a good balance, and with some tweaking could be much better than the current system.