|Any system where you're better off trading your 3 best players and playing Sebastian|
Telfair big minutes than trying to win as many games as possible is broken.
Steve Kerr wrote a fantastic article this week on fixing the broken NBA lottery system.
In the last few seasons, the NBA has seen an influx of young, smart general managers who have looked at their respective rosters, studied their cap sheets, pondered their options and then boldly declared: "Let's stink for the next few years."
OK, so maybe GMs aren't using those exact words, but the point is clear: lose big and a team gets the best odds of winning the lottery and at least receives a very high, potentially franchise-changing Draft pick. I don't question the logic -- in fact, given the rules, it makes perfect sense. But I DO wonder -- is this what's best for the NBA? Should the league, in effect, reward teams for being lousy? (And in turn, punish teams for being average?)
Maybe it's time to revamp the lottery and create a system that actually encourages teams to win.
Kerr has some great ideas. Some that I've thought of myself. Kerr provides six suggestions and goes into detail on each. I like the idea of penalizing the bottom two teams in the NBA. That in and of itself would force teams to play to win. If you end up as a bottom two team, you'd be ineligible for a top 2 pick. In Europe,they drop you down a league, so this is being kind in comparison.
Kerr also mentions a rotating draft order, which has always been my idea. His suggestion is more extreme. My idea would be to simply rotate the top 3 picks in the draft. That way crappy teams still get to pick high, but everyone gets their shot at the transcendent stars.
Zach Lowe has a somewhat related article basically criticizing the Bobcats for signing Al Jefferson and trying to win more games this season. Luckily for Bobcats fans they still should be awful. See how ass backwards the system is? It's like "Phew we'll still suck. I was worried we might win a dozen more games this season."
Basically when it comes down to it, you're better off winning 15 games in a season than 35. Like this year's Celtics team. They have no shot to compete for a title. Brad Stevens could coach his ass off and the team could surprise everyone and match last season's win total. And the way the system is now, that would be a horrible outcome for Celtics fans. Basically if you want the Celtics to compete for Banner 18 sooner rather that later, then you watch the games, hoping to see the young players improve their individual games, but also hoping that the 3 pointer at the buzzer by your team doesn't go in. How messed up is that? What in the Milt Pilacio is going on here?
Isn't the point of going to professional sports games to root on your team? Already the Celtics had to trade legends Paul Pierce and KG to avoid being stuck in mediocrity. Now everyone is concerned that if Rajon Rondo plays for the team too many games this season we'll miss out on a high pick. I'm all for a system where we could root for Brad Stevens to win as many games as possible during his first season. I'm all for a system that would allow us to root for Rondo to try and lead us into the playoffs. I hate having these two outcomes being counterproductive to our future.
JR 8/14/2013 01:26:00 AM Tweet Edit