Siiiiigh Bill Simmons

[tuq]

Jack, very true but as has been mentioned elsewhere one player can make a much bigger impact in the NBA than in MLB or the NFL, thus the draft is a more important matter.

Pudge, I just hate to reward poor management, that's all. Which is precisely what the current draft system does. That's why although I am by default a Spurs hater I loved that they snuck in and stole Tim Duncan after a random down year, seeing as they are historically a very well-run franchise. Also, it must suck for these #1 overall picks to get stuck in Memphis or wherever.

Another point I liked in those articles (unrelated to the draft) was the contraction of Memphis, Atlanta, and Charlotte. Seriously, nobody in those cities cares and it's a black eye to the NBA to show games where 70% of the courtside seats are empty all game. Now I realize that barring a total collapse of the league contraction will NEVER happen, but the biggest issue I have with the league's size is the dilution of talent.

[Jack of Arcades]

Think of all the impact players in the game today. How many of them were taken in the top 5?

Not top 5: Dirk, Nash, Kobe, Arenas, Manu Ginobli, Amare, Zach Randolph, McGrady, Redd, Parker, Pierce, Billups, Shawn Marion, Josh Howard (Howard being the cutoff on "impact player.")

There are obviously a ton of impact players in the top 5, but smart teams have been able to build their teams using draft picks that weren't at the very top of the draft.

[ThaSaltCracka]

In the past 6 years, how many consensus #1 picks have we had?

[tuq]

Jack,

Given the choice I'm pretty sure a team would rather pick (e.g.) 2nd instead of 7th, the only negative impact being that they'll have to pay a higher draft pick more money. Although with the current rules in place that doesn't sting as much.

Your point is very good but I'm surprised that so many people, you included, ostensibly defend poor management by way of endorsing the current draft system.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I really like his column that is appearing in the magazine. I mentioned a week or so ago that the current lottery system is completely bogus and if anything makes it very hard for teams that aren't completely [censored], but still kind of [censored] to improve. It also benefits teams that have complete messes in the front office. I really like his contraction idea and his tourney idea as well. We have too many teams in all our major leagues and we might as well contract sooner than later IMO.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Jack,

Given the choice I'm pretty sure a team would rather pick (e.g.) 2nd instead of 7th, the only negative impact being that they'll have to pay a higher draft pick more money. Although with the current rules in place that doesn't sting as much.

Your point is very good but I'm surprised that so many people, you included, ostensibly defend poor management by way of endorsing the current draft system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously there's an advantage to be higher, and probably the highest it is in any sports, but it's still not an outrageous one.

There are other solutions to the draft system, but I'm not sure how they would work:

* Free Agency? Anyone can sign anywhere
* Every team gets assigned a random slot?

[Eagles]

The first article I linked is horrendous.The second I strongly disagree with it but its fine.

[ QUOTE ]
Since 1994, the Grizzlies have drafted in the top-four seven times (with their 2003 pick going to Detroit); the Clippers have done it six times; and the Bulls have done it six times since 1999 (once via a New York pick). Why do we keep rewarding poorly managed teams with elite rookies? Why? It makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's look at some of the elite rookies Simmons is talking about.

We have 17 players here

3 Ruined by injuries/Haven't played long enough (Aldridge, Williams, Livingston)

4 Busts (Miles, Fizer, Daniels, Stro Swift)

9 Very good solid productive players (Bibby, Francis, Abdur Rahim, curry, Gordon, Odom, Olowakandi, Mcdyess, chandler)

1 Elite Player (Elton Brand)

His entire argument that the bad teams are getting elite players who don't do well because they are with other bad players seems flawed. The guys teams drafted just weren't that good and there was really only one elite player in the group. Bad drafting leads to bad teams.

[ QUOTE ]

Since 1994, only three top-four picks won a title: Duncan three times with the Spurs (who drafted him), Wallace with the '04 Pistons (his fourth team) and Billups with the '04 Pistons (his fifth team).

Only two top-three picks played in a Finals with the teams that originally drafted them: Martin (the '02 and '03 Nets) and Iverson (the '00 Sixers). Only one top-three pick played in a conference finals with the team that originally drafted him: Robinson (the '00 Bucks).

Seven top-four picks played in either the NBA Finals or a conference finals with a different team than the team that drafted them: Kidd, Stackhouse, Wallace, Van Horn, Billups, Bibby and LaFrentz. All of those players were traded by their original teams within four years.


[/ QUOTE ]
It is incredibly difficult to turn a team from the worst in the league to a championship contender in a few years regardless of who they drafted. There just weren't that many great top 4 picks from 1994-2002
Kidd
Hill
Iverson
Duncan
Brand
Yao

That's 6 out of 32 picks are elite players. The reason why teams weren't improving that much was because even with their high picks there either was not elite talent available or they drafted poorly.

[ QUOTE ]

1. The lottery system was originally created to prevent teams from tanking for better draft picks ... which is exactly what's happening right now (as described in the magazine column). So they completely failed in that regard.


[/ QUOTE ]
He provides nothing to really support this. His argument is essentially teams are tanking because Bill Simmons said so.
[ QUOTE ]

2. The lottery system also hoped to turn the fortunes of struggling franchises. Well, as we just proved, it completely failed in that regard, too. If anything, top-four picks have a significantly better chance of struggling for a few seasons, then getting traded before finally landing on a contending team. It's much, much, MUCH less likely that they will turn around their first franchise themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm What?
Let me get this straight
Top 4 pick struggles
Top 4 pick traded to contender
Did he turn around the contender?
Is he still struggling?
Just because the player is traded to a contender does not make him good.

Lottery Failing != Teams drafting bad players in the top 4.

[ QUOTE ]

3. We've had one major lottery success story so far -- the Spurs winning three titles with Duncan -- which was actually a complete fluke because the Spurs averaged 59 wins from '94 to '96, then dropped to 20 wins because their best two players (David Robinson and Sean Elliott) played a combined 45 games in '97. In the past 20 years, only two No. 1 picks won titles for their original teams: Robinson ('87) and Duncan ('97).


[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong Iverson/Kidd/Hill(when healthy) turned there teams around and made them contenders. Not to mention Lebron, Bosh, Melo, Wade Yao etc.

[ThaSaltCracka]

your post is way to jarbled and too hard to follow.


I always thought of Abdur Rahim as a very good player.

[Eagles]

[ QUOTE ]
your post is way to jarbled and too hard to follow.


I always thought of Abdur Rahim as a very good player.

[/ QUOTE ]
I had a feeling that was the case. I'll make a shorter version

[ThaSaltCracka]

thank you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]