Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Cliff Clavin
- Start date
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Fair enough. Maybe a modified version. Run it every 10 years and group teams into 3s ie NYK, BKN and PHI in a group would get picks 1-3.
sporthenry
Footballguy
Well considering Parker/LeBron play the same position, it is a moot point. LeBron can play some 4 but I doubt they want him to play 20+ minutes there which is what it would require. Not sure how much Cleveland knew about LeBron but drafting Parker would have made little sense given what we know now.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Both of those guys could share the court just fine with LeBron. Wiggins makes a tad more sense because he can guard a SG.
They could've figured it out with Parker though, and his game translating faster might've made more sense for a 30 YO LeBron.
They'd pretty much be playing small ball with LeBron/Parker, but last I checked, the PF/C rotation is Tristan Thompson and a likely 40 games of Andy V. Small ball could be a necessity no matter what.
Last edited by a moderator:
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
sporthenry
Footballguy
Because no other league has the combination of needing a super star and immediate impact that the NBA does. In some ways, the NBA is the best scouted league because it is near impossible to draft the equivalent of Tom Brady in the 6th round.
Worm
slimy ninja
I'm guessing because of how impactful a single pick is in the NBA vs. other sports.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
I fully understand that a top pick in the NBA is more impactful, but that still doesn't answer the question...
If giving bad teams the best picks makes sense for other leagues, why not the NBA?
If there's a "better" way to do it, then other leagues should do that too, even if the impact might be less.
The #1 overall pick (especially now in the NFL) is no doubt better than the #15 pick. It's still "rewarding teams for failure", which is apparently a terrible phenomenon.
On a side note, we probably shouldn't also get carried away the notion that the #1 overall pick in the NFL isn't also a potential game changer. Suck for Luck should ring a bell.
Being the worst team in the league in the right year is just as likely to bring home a title in the NFL as it is in the NBA.
If giving bad teams the best picks makes sense for other leagues, why not the NBA?
If there's a "better" way to do it, then other leagues should do that too, even if the impact might be less.
The #1 overall pick (especially now in the NFL) is no doubt better than the #15 pick. It's still "rewarding teams for failure", which is apparently a terrible phenomenon.
On a side note, we probably shouldn't also get carried away the notion that the #1 overall pick in the NFL isn't also a potential game changer. Suck for Luck should ring a bell.
Being the worst team in the league in the right year is just as likely to bring home a title in the NFL as it is in the NBA.
Last edited by a moderator:
B-Deep
Footballguy
the #1 pick is not always better than the #15. And if he is, he may not be enough better to significantly increase your chances of winning. One time i recall there was TALK of tanking, for Luck. There was still no real sign of it. It is a reality in the NBA because it makes sense. If you can make 20% of your starting lineup elite with one pick it is tempting. IMO one team tanking is a huge issue for any sport.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
randall146
Footballguy
I disagree
1) It's nearly impossible to draft a Tom Brady equivalent in the 6th round in the NFL draft too; 2) Based on roster spots (14 vs. 53) the NBA second round is equivalent to the NFL sixth round; 3) Good and sometimes great players get drafted in the NBA late second round
Rather than focusing on late round lucky picks it'd be interesting to compare percentages of high round busts
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Over the last 30-35 years, the number of times a team took a guy #1 overall and had him lead them to a Championship:
NBA: Let's call it 3. Duncan, Hakeem, Magic (there's also Admiral and 15 other Lakers, but it's unlikely those guys do it without Duncan/Magic)
NFL: At least 2 (Peyton, Aikman). 4 if you want to count the goofy Elway/Eli situations. Then there's Orlando Pace and Russell Maryland being major contributors to SB campaigns for the teams that drafted them. You can go to 6, but it's probably safe to call it 4 however you want to slice it.
NBA: Let's call it 3. Duncan, Hakeem, Magic (there's also Admiral and 15 other Lakers, but it's unlikely those guys do it without Duncan/Magic)
NFL: At least 2 (Peyton, Aikman). 4 if you want to count the goofy Elway/Eli situations. Then there's Orlando Pace and Russell Maryland being major contributors to SB campaigns for the teams that drafted them. You can go to 6, but it's probably safe to call it 4 however you want to slice it.
Last edited by a moderator:
pollardsvision
Footballguy
While I realize there's some merit to that based on rookie salary issues that have since been fixed (so it's completely moot now), when you need to open with that line to grasp for a reason, then I think it's time to just concede that it's grasping at straws to say bad teams in the NFL should get top picks, but not the NBA.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
sporthenry
Footballguy
That is an interesting way to avoid LeBron. 11 of the last 16 champions have featured a #1 overall pick.
Last edited by a moderator:
B-Deep
Footballguy
Not at all, I think there is generally more concensus on the nba side.
A couple of questions...
How many NFL teams in your lifetime have been accused of tanking?
How many NBA?
Why do you think that is? It seems to me there is less often a concensus sure thing at the top of the NFL Draft. additionally, I do not see the vast difference in ratings of NBA rookie compared to NFL rookies.
If there is a concensus NFL #1 pick for it to have any chance of turning around a team it has to be a QB. If there is a concensus #1 QB and you put him on a ####ty team there is still a limit to how much he can do, being 1 of 22 starters
conversely, in the nba if you can make 20% of your starting lineup elite with one pick that's an immediate turn around
hxperson
Footballguy
Actually I believe that pick that they got back (originally sent to MIA in the Jermaine O'neal for Marion trade) was lottery protected until 2015 so effectively you should think of it as Bruno Caboclo rather than Jonas Valanciunas.
Completely mind blowing that Colangelo traded Roy Hibbert and TJ Ford to get Jermaine O'neal, and then had to give up a first rounder to get rid of him less than a year later (and acquire a fading Shawn Marion).
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
The pick used for JV was originally Toronto's pick. As you said, it was sent in the O'Neal trade. The other 1st they got was traded to the Bulls for James Johnson.
Colangelo sure did some dumb ####.
Last edited by a moderator:
pollardsvision
Footballguy
See, I avoided LeBron because we're talking about the draft.
But you do bring up a good point. In the NBA, when you strike gold with a top pick, there's a reasonable chance he could go spend his prime somewhere else. How often does that happen in the NFL? You get an all-time great QB in the NFL, good chance he's yours for 15+ years. That does affect the relative value of top picks when talking NFL/NBA.
But let's stop kidding ourselves. Top picks are better. #1 overall's in the right year are invaluable. In both leagues.
There's no reason to think one system makes sense for one league, but not another.
Last edited by a moderator:
B-Deep
Footballguy
hxperson
Footballguy
Yes that's all correct, but like I said, the Toronto 2011 pick was lottery protected from the Heat until 2015, so the Heat would not have gotten that pick. The trade only turned out to be the 2011 Toronto pick because when they got it back, the lottery protection of course went away.
I think of it this way - Toronto has been in the lottery every year until 2014, so if the Raps never did the sign and trade with Bosh, this year's pick would have gone to the Heat, which was Bruno. The Lowry trade probably would not have happened either, when you think about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
sporthenry
Footballguy
Sure, if the NBA comes up with a better solution, it would make sense in the NFL. But the point is, the problem is much more prevalent in the NBA.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
The ultimate difference, though, and I think the only reason people view it so differently between leagues is that the NFL is overloaded with mediocrity. The NFL will get you to 9-7 come hell or high water. When you get in, the Playoffs are a single elimination crapshoot, you just might win the damn thing.
There's not a tanking problem in the NBA on the draft side. It's the other side (if there is a problem). It just lacks the perceived reward for being "pretty good" that the NFL has.
Hell, I've got the easiest "solution" of all, make it a single elimination tournament.
That's stupid of course, but it's probably the only real way to "solve this".
There's not a tanking problem in the NBA on the draft side. It's the other side (if there is a problem). It just lacks the perceived reward for being "pretty good" that the NFL has.
Hell, I've got the easiest "solution" of all, make it a single elimination tournament.
That's stupid of course, but it's probably the only real way to "solve this".
Bobcat10
Footballguy
pollardsvision
Footballguy
PHI and Utah were the only teams blatantly doing it. They got the #3 and #5 picks in the draft. Again, if we really think there's a problem here, I'd say that's a pretty big solution, only giving the #3 and $5 pick to the only two teams that might've wanted to be bad.
See, just like the NFL, the NBA has a lot of bad teams. Some are bad year after year after year. Just like the NFL, it's very rare that they are trying to be bad. Well, I assume JAX isn't doing this on purpose, but who knows?
Last edited by a moderator:
Why? Let them go to the teams that value them most highly. You'd have to take out the rookie salary scale obviously and probably go to a harder cap, but it would be a much bigger boon to well run franchises than the wheel idea. And you can stop ridiculousness of arbitrarily telling a kid where he has to work for the first 4-5 years of his career.
Village Idiot
Pokerguy
I don't think all of the Wolves fans are delusional.Frostillicus said:
Every team has some.
I think Flip is playing this right since we are not close to the trade deadline.
It will also give all the teams time to see if any of the rookies that might be included in a Love trade look good or not if this goes on far enough into the season.
I'd love to get Love in Cleveland but I also feel for Wolves fans because this situation with Love sucks.
Having a really good player wanting to move on like Garnett did is frustrating.
Just to respond to a couple of points - I would not mind if all leagues got rid of the draft. It really promotes mediocrity - which is the antithesis of the American way - reward those that deserve to be rewarded. Well run organizations will be more successful, and reap the rewards, than teams that are more poorly run. That will encourage the poorly run teams to improve - this is a classic win-win scenario that elevates the entire product.
Second, tanking does not occur because the #1 pick will necessarily elevate a team - it occurs because the perception is there that the #1 pick will elevate the team.
Given the current structure - NBA teams believe that losing on the court is good for the long-term success of the business. That is an odd way to look at any competitive sport - teams should not be "rewarded" for losing.
Second, tanking does not occur because the #1 pick will necessarily elevate a team - it occurs because the perception is there that the #1 pick will elevate the team.
Given the current structure - NBA teams believe that losing on the court is good for the long-term success of the business. That is an odd way to look at any competitive sport - teams should not be "rewarded" for losing.
Village Idiot
Pokerguy
This is the situation that scares me as a Cavs fan.Gopher State said:
We hold tight to the no Wiggins included stance, Love goes somewhere else and Wiggins turns out to be meh or even just an average player and the cavs never win a title.
Its making me lean more towards saying go for it and do a package that includes Wiggins now.
Then I'll be sick worrying about how the Cavs can't get enough good pieces to support Irving, Love, LeBron.
Gadzooks
Footballguy
It's assumed he would from his weekend "vacation" to Boston where he spent the weekend touring the city, posing for several pictures with fans, hung out with Patriot players and met up with Rondo at a Sox game. The Boston angle is also that his agent is tight with Ainge (pretty sure he's Paul Pierce's agent and was instrumental in the Pierce/KG deal to Brooklyn) and the agent feels Boston is best spot for Love because they immediately become a playoff team with Love and still have a ton of draft picks and will have a ton of cap space to add another free agent after this season and even more after 2016 when Geral Wallace's awful deal and Jeff Green's contract are up (unless Green opts out after 2015) According to Boston reports Love really likes the history and tradition of the Celtics and seeing how the city treats Pierce and KG like Gods, he would he would be the new "savior" of the team. Also, at the All-Star break a reporter asked him about Boston and Love himself talked about the great tradition and praised Stevens as a great young head coach and praised Rondo too. So technically Love hasn't come out and said he'd re-sign here, but there has been no reports that he would refuse.
sporthenry
Footballguy
2 months ago, you had a 96% chance of drafting 9th or worse. Kyrie Irving hadn't signed an extension and was probably legit thinking about not signing one. And nobody seemed to think LeBron was a legit possibility. Perspective is everything.This is the situation that scares me as a Cavs fan.Gopher State said:
We hold tight to the no Wiggins included stance, Love goes somewhere else and Wiggins turns out to be meh or even just an average player and the cavs never win a title.
Its making me lean more towards saying go for it and do a package that includes Wiggins now.
Then I'll be sick worrying about how the Cavs can't get enough good pieces to support Irving, Love, LeBron.
Bobcat10
Footballguy
This is different than just saying no draft. Makes more sense.
Still not sure the smaller market/non destination teams would go for it. You can run your team well and still get leftovers in this scenario.
Would Wiggins take $3m to play for a nearly capped out team in a big market, or $10m to play in Orlando?
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Small market teams would have to drastically over pay for star players and top rookies. Then they'd be crippled for years when these players don't pan out or get injured.
sporthenry
Footballguy
Not so much leftovers but it'd give the players more power. It'd be the same consequence but guys like Wiggins would probably start in the smaller markets but without something to keep them there like Bird rights or franchise tag, these guys would sign short contracts.
I do like the idea of no salary max as that in itself should help smaller market teams.
Gopher State
Footballguy
You make a good point, the Cavs by signing LeBron are in the mix to win a championship, with Love their the leader to win a championship, LeBron is on board for only two years as we speak, will Wiggins be as good as love over the next two years, I don't think so. LeBron is 30 now in his prime, seems like the time to go for it all, rather then spend time developing young players. Wiggin's for Love seems like a win win for both teams. happensThis is the situation that scares me as a Cavs fan.Gopher State said:
We hold tight to the no Wiggins included stance, Love goes somewhere else and Wiggins turns out to be meh or even just an average player and the cavs never win a title.
Its making me lean more towards saying go for it and do a package that includes Wiggins now.
Then I'll be sick worrying about how the Cavs can't get enough good pieces to support Irving, Love, LeBron.
Last edited by a moderator:
You say this like its a bad thing. How is the current system working out for the small-market teams? I would say that a team like the Spurs would still be successful based on their ability to find the right players for their system and coach them well.
The NBA would love for there to be 5-6 super teams that will draw ratings every game they are on. Parity is really bad for leagues overall - even the NFL which touts parity as a good thing likes that it has teams like the Patriots, Cowboys, Steelers, etc. who are loved/hated no matter the record.
Fans like dynasties.
But even so, with a fixed roster of 13 spaces (?), five starters, and a salary cap - teams like Milwaukee will still be able to attract good players, and if they do a good job scouting and coaching, they could be a contender. If they are a contender, they can attract better players to turn them into championship potential teams.
If the early 2000s Lakers had to pay Kobe and Shaq their true value to the team (we're talking maybe $50+ million), there's no way they can keep those two guys with a hard cap and they don't come close to winning 3 in a row.
Or, work with me here, they would have to do a better job of scouting and coaching. Injuries are part of the game - with a hard salary cap, those will affect all teams.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
The no draft, no max thing, hard cap thing is interesting. But ultimately, there's no way it presents a better scenario for the league.
The Association's doing just fine. It thrived in the late 80's and 90's with the current format. It's thriving now with the current format.
Go with "worst teams get best picks" like every other league, keep the lottery to cool off the tanking paranoia folk, and roll out the damn ball.
The Association's doing just fine. It thrived in the late 80's and 90's with the current format. It's thriving now with the current format.
Go with "worst teams get best picks" like every other league, keep the lottery to cool off the tanking paranoia folk, and roll out the damn ball.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
There are plenty of players praised by all scouts who end up being busts. Predicting the future for 18/19 year old kids is damn near impossible no matter how good your scouting is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Premier
Footballguy
There would always be one big sized team that cleared money for a guy like that.
Literally no free agent would go to Milwaukee, Indiana or Minnesota. May as well shut it down.
Abraham
Footballguy
Uh, isn't that kind of what we have already?
Small market teams already drastically over pay for star players. Letting them overpay for top rookies simply expands the pool of talent available to them.
But if there is a floor and a cap, why wouldn't the Bucks offer Carmelo $35 million to come play for Jason Kidd. Would he say "no?" Wouldn't the outsize salaries for the top players and rookies insure that every team had at least one player that was worth following or cheering for? There were teams last season that were so bad and so void of starpower that there was basically no reason to watch them.
Here is the box score for a February game between the Bucks and Sixers. http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400489714
Yuck.
Similar threads
