Antonio Harvey's NBA Lottery Idea

Not unless they get rid of the rookie scale, though. It would be better to be paid right out of HS as a #11 pick if you're an elite player for two years and hit your max contract 2 years early than it would be to not be paid for 2 years and be the #1 or #2 player in the draft. That's under the current system, of course, but the money made up for two years of max contract would more than offset the difference between being the #11 pick for two year verus the #1 pick for 4 years.

This only applies to the LeBrons, Durants, healthy Odens/Bynums, and Howards, though.

 

Exactly, this idea is exactly backwards.

I think pre-freshman and freshman players should be able to declare, but with a catch: they have to prove themselves in a pre-draft workout, a five-game mini-season against NBA rookies (each team who wants to witness the season has to donate a rookie). The top 2 in each of these statistical categories (Points, Assists, Offensive Rebounds, Defensive Rebounds, Blocks, Steals) will qualify for this age exception can enter the draft early (a total of 12 players - PER acts as a tiebreaker for any category). Otherwise, they have to withdraw from the draft and go to college a year before trying again next summer.

 

I think non-guaranteed contracts for rookies would be the best way to improve the game but the union would never allow it

 

I think the best way to improve the NBA period is by going the way of the NFL. You can be cut anytime, anyplace, for any reason. Monetary loss may vary, but you have the right to pull the trigger as you wish.

 

That serves basically no one. The players union would never sign off on it, rookies already in the league would never want to be forced into such a situation where they could potentially get hurt for nothing and finally, a singular performance in a tryout setting doesn't guarantee that the best players get in and the lesser talents go to school because anybody can have an off day.

If I'm an NBA team I want the best talent that my scouts can identify and if I'm a prospect I want the best chance to earn a living and/or succeed in the league, if the balance between that is NBA teams requiring a year of college or some kind of higher level competition than AAU or high school ball then so be it, but making the process even more convoluted and arcane doesn't seem like an especially good idea.

 

I agree 100% with this. guaranteed salaries (even rookie scale guaranteed salaries) are a lousy way to go ... the flip side of this would mean the players would need some kind of concession, like teams being unable to trade them whenever they like or some other incentive to accept unguaranteed contracts (larger per year amounts with partial guarantees perhaps?).

 

Don't forget KG as well.

 

Yea I forgot to throw him in there. But he was one of the first guys I thought of.

The NBA has a ton of other players who came straight out of high school and ended up fine as well. I think if folks actually pulled up the numbers as to the number of successful players as opposed to number of knuckleheads, they would actually find out that the guys coming into the NBA at the age of 18 actually make it into the league at a much higher rate than the guys who go to school all 4 years. The facts are, it is talent that helps you make it in the league. Having a level head is just a bonus.

 

That would be too obvious . . . much easier to give some bad teams good lottery picks (very visable) and make sure the refs get the big market teams far into the playoffs.

 

Sure it does. You can televise the five game series as a reality TV show, write in the requirement into the rookies contracts that forces players to play those five games, and make oodles of money selling "win or go to college" tee-shirts.

 

Nice

 

Ugh. Roster instability = a lesser quality product on the court.

 

They should just require 2 years of college. Maybe 3.

 

Agreed; large rosters like football teams can get away with this because losing one guy out of 22 on the field (over a game) isn't nearly as bad as losing one guy out of 5 on the court.

 

How many ships does James have? Kobe was 10-15 pick...just sayin, where thye are drafted matters a lot less than how they develop.

 

I disagree, and there is a lot of information which backs what I am saying:

1. What team is going to cut a player that they actually want to keep? The Clippers might pull shit like that to cut players just for payroll sake, but I am not a Clipper fan, so for me it's win/win.

2. The NFL is one of the systems that has actually brought parity to the league. More teams are competitive and less teams stink. Unlike the current situation, there are always players available for the dregs of the league to pick up and improve their roster.

3. Show me anything that proves your point. Every team turns over players every year. Everybody knows what is important is what impact players get turned over. Role players are a dime a dozen. Most teams turn over at least 3 or 4 players a year. In the NFL, if they release a player or two due to salary or personnel reasons, that is a high number. In fact I would point out there have been several teams where there has been a lot of turnover, and they were quite successful. The key is upgrading your talent instead of downgrading.

How many positions did Miami Heat turn over the year they won the finals. 3 guys traded for Shaq. Payton and Walker and Jason Williams brought in. That's half the team right there and they won it all.

 

Agreed on all points. The Blazers turned over (virtually via injury) at least 7 players for at least 15 games, and managed to survive.

(the advantage of hypocricy is that I get to play for the winning team regardless!)