Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Change to draft order process

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    [QUOTE=Matt52;95909]They have picked players in the first round only to be traded[QUOTE]

    and like I said early, those picks are still assets that can be traded.

    Comment


    • #32
      [QUOTE=GarbageTime;95912][QUOTE=Matt52;95909]They have picked players in the first round only to be traded

      and like I said early, those picks are still assets that can be traded.
      As could 2 second round picks with them being traded for one late first round pick or for another player or to attach to a salary dump.

      Comment


      • #33
        The "Good Teams" don't even play their draft picks anyways. They get about 10 minutes a game in the preseason, and they would play a total of 5 minutes in the first week. Then it's off to the D-League for them where they stay for a heck of a long time without getting much of a chance. This change gives the draft players a chance to show what they can do on a "bad team" and it gives the team a higher chance of actually getting some young talent that would just go to waste on a team like the Lakers.

        For example, there have been talks of Alabi actually starting for the Raptors. If he were on the Lakers there's a 95% chance we wouldn't see the court all season. I'm all for this.

        Comment


        • #34
          Also it is not like playoff teams would have no shot at getting talent in the second round. Monta Ellis, Carlos Boozer, Manu Ginobilli, Gilbert Arenas, Okur, Mo Williams, Michael Redd all come to mind. Of course they are the exception and not the rule but most late first round draft picks are the exception as well.

          Comment


          • #35
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            As could 2 second round picks with them being traded for one late first round pick or for another player or to attach to a salary dump.
            Then why not give lottery teams 2 2nd rounders instead and everyone an opportunity in the first round?

            Comment


            • #36
              GarbageTime wrote: View Post
              Then why not give lottery teams 2 2nd rounders instead and everyone an opportunity in the first round?
              Because the odds do not favour that scenario and again 'good' teams are good for a reason. Why put even better prospects on the bench?

              Again, the issue is having better prospects wasting on the bench of a good team and decreasing the amount of time (and luck) required to rebuild in any reasonable time frame.

              I think this would create a more competitive league.

              Comment


              • #37
                Matt52 wrote: View Post
                Because the odds do not favour that scenario and again 'good' teams are good for a reason. Why put even better prospects on the bench?

                Again, the issue is having better prospects wasting on the bench of a good team and decreasing the amount of time (and luck) required to rebuild in any reasonable time frame.

                I think this would create a more competitive league.
                so is it fair to say then that 2 2nd round picks can't be easily (or regularily atleast) traded for 1 late first rounder then?

                To the 2nd part this isn't a developmental league and shouldn't be treated as such. This is the best of the best competing. If player X gets drafted they shouldn't deserve or have a right to get playing time. Secondly if all the prospects are on a handful of teams, there will still be prospects not getting enough playing time in order for the other prospects to get more. Is player X more likely to start with Ray Allen or Tyreke Evans on the team? Is player Y more likely to get 30 min a game playing behind John Wall or Chris Paul?

                There is still a finite amount of roster spots, positions and playing time. If a player is good enough they will get time no matter what team they play for, if they aren't they won't. If a team sees something in a player they will get that opportunity. Its just a matter of time and taking opportunities when they come. While one player may need more freedom to learn, others need less. One can make an argument that playing with greats and/or vets or being given time to develop away from the court has helped some players learn and develop faster. It may be exactly what some players are lacking to get them to that next level.

                Look I know this is stemming from fans wanting the Raps to be better and faster. Especially since the next draft is classified as the best in a decade and it would be a great opportunity for the team. But what about the Indiana's or Philly's of the world. Make the playoffs simply by a function of being the best of worst, lacking star power to make that contending team, and now they get stuck having to turn 2 2nd rounders into something special, remaining a middling team for a few years until it falls apart, or blowing it up and starting over. Its bad enough for a team like that right now, but with no first round picks it makes it that much harder. (Hell, that may in fact make the tanking even worse than I initially thought. How much better off are you being the 9th or 10th seed team than the 8th?)

                Now imagine the Raps in that situation. How would one feel if they barely made the playoffs with the current roster (or something similar), didn't get Jonas but 2 2nd rounders instead? I bet NO ONE would want this style draft.

                I really dislike the idea. You don't fix whats not broken and you aren't going to create parity by eliminating equality. Its just going to create extreme boom and bust cycles with teams (so to speak), and in any given year a team will be much better off as a bust team than a team on its way to a boom. That is not parity.

                The structure of the draft is ideal how it is.

                If its player development people want then they need to look for a way to improve the NBDL (for example, and just an example not necessarily a good idea, treat it more like a farm team and require every rookie to spend atleast one year there). If its parity people want, they league needs to deal with the disparity of resources (ie. money), finding way to ease the burden of out of control/albatross contracts (ie. waivers, partially guaranteed contracts?) and ways to intice the 'stars' to stick around (franchise tag and hard-ish cap).
                Last edited by GarbageTime; Tue Aug 23, 2011, 06:16 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                  so is it fair to say then that 2 2nd round picks can't be easily (or regularily atleast) traded for 1 late first rounder then?

                  To the 2nd part this isn't a developmental league and shouldn't be treated as such. This is the best of the best competing. If player X gets drafted they shouldn't deserve or have a right to get playing time. Secondly if all the prospects are on a handful of teams, there will still be prospects not getting enough playing time in order for the other prospects to get more. Is player X more likely to start with Ray Allen or Tyreke Evans on the team? Is player Y more likely to get 30 min a game playing behind John Wall or Chris Paul?
                  Teams would not be using their top draft picks to draft another PG if they have Paul or Wall. Washington, for example, has holes at SF and a lack of depth with their bigs. NOH lack wings - those would most likely be the positions they would focus on or look to trade picks. All the more highly touted prospects would be on lottery teams. Playoff teams are in the playoffs for a reason. How much of an impact John Wall and, after the trade, Jordan Crawford add to the Wizards. How many more games did the Wizards win? They actually lost 3 more games on the season. How many wins did Ibaka and Westbrook add to the Thunder in 2008-2009? 3 - from 20 to 23 wins. The Thunder (and Presit) benefitted from a team (the Suns) who did not want guaranteed contracts of rookie contracts and sent a large contract out with 2 draft picks as compensation for saving money - coincidently getting Rondo was also through PHX selling a draft pick when they were competing at the upper echelon of the league.


                  There is still a finite amount of roster spots, positions and playing time. If a player is good enough they will get time no matter what team they play for, if they aren't they won't. If a team sees something in a player they will get that opportunity. Its just a matter of time and taking opportunities when they come. While one player may need more freedom to learn, others need less. One can make an argument that playing with greats and/or vets or being given time to develop away from the court has helped some players learn and develop faster. It may be exactly what some players are lacking to get them to that next level.
                  Your previous paragraph and example says different. Look at Jordan Crawford with Atlanta compared to Washington. Look at Darren Collison when Paul was injured last year. All players learn differently but there is no other learning experience like actual playing time.

                  Look I know this is stemming from fans wanting the Raps to be better and faster. Especially since the next draft is classified as the best in a decade and it would be a great opportunity for the team. But what about the Indiana's or Philly's of the world. Make the playoffs simply by a function of being the best of worst, lacking star power to make that contending team, and now they get stuck having to turn 2 2nd rounders into something special, remaining a middling team for a few years until it falls apart, or blowing it up and starting over. Its bad enough for a team like that right now, but with no first round picks it makes it that much harder. (Hell, that may in fact make the tanking even worse than I initially thought. How much better off are you being the 9th or 10th seed team than the 8th?)
                  This is not stemming from being a Raptors fan. This is stemming from watching teams stuck in the lottery year in and year out. Indiana and Philadelphia are not going to win regardless of their situation. If you have not read the article, please read it. The 76ers and Pacers are built for mediocrity. The only hope they have of getting better is if a franchise player falls in to their lap in the middle of the first round which is possible but highly unlikely. With this system the owners/management might be willing to tear apart the team and build an actual contender rather than a first round playoff doormat. Look at Milwaukee or Charlotte from 2009-2010 to last season, that is what the Pacers and 76ers have to look forward to. The 76ers and Pacers are already stuck in purgatory in my opinion.

                  Now imagine the Raps in that situation. How would one feel if they barely made the playoffs with the current roster (or something similar), didn't get Jonas but 2 2nd rounders instead? I bet NO ONE would want this style draft.
                  If the Raptors made the playoffs it would mean the current players have developed and there would have been free agent signings to bolster the roster. Last year was the first year of a tear down, re-tooling, rebuilding, whatever you want to call it. Fielding the most competitive team possible is no longer the prerogative rather building a team to compete for the championship is. The rebuilding process just started. Raps fans should be expecting another 2 trips to the lottery before any playoff appearances (one trip would be phenomenal as it would mean a total rebuild was done in just 2 seasons and 2 drafts).

                  I really dislike the idea. You don't fix whats not broken and you aren't going to create parity by eliminating equality. Its just going to create extreme boom and bust cycles with teams (so to speak), and in any given year a team will be much better off as a bust team than a team on its way to a boom. That is not parity.
                  It might create a boom and bust for certain teams but overall it should allow teams to get a few decent players in 1-2 drafts versus 3-4 for even the so called successful rebuilds.

                  The structure of the draft is ideal how it is.
                  Your opinion. Ask a Kings fan or a Warriors fan.

                  If its player development people want then they need to look for a way to improve the NBDL (for example, and just an example not necessarily a good idea, treat it more like a farm team and require every rookie to spend atleast one year there). If its parity people want, they league needs to deal with the disparity of resources (ie. money), finding way to ease the burden of out of control/albatross contracts (ie. waivers, partially guaranteed contracts?) and ways to intice the 'stars' to stick around (franchise tag and hard-ish cap).
                  All good suggestions as is this idea - in my opinion of course.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I have a fundamental problem with the idea. I think it's way too generous to the lottery teams and creates an uneven playing field for the teams that make the playoffs, and yes, even the elite franchises.

                    I think the system is fine as it is. Teams that make good use of their high draft picks probably won't stay in the lottery for long but if you make a mess every June then you're probably going to finish near the bottom of the standings, and that's the way it should be. Bottoming out as a franchise shouldn't automatically entitle you to to be back in the playoffs in 2-3 seasons - your front office still needs to make some solid decisions when it comes to the draft.

                    Minnesota is a great example. On the surface, they're exactly the type of team that would be aided by these proposed rule changes. They've been in the lottery seven straight years and haven't won more than 33 games for six seasons and running. But they've had 14 first rounders during that span of losing seasons and they've had a staggering seven top 7 draft picks during the same time. The system didn't let the T Wolves down, David Khan did by drafting guys like Corey Brewer, Jonny Flynn and Wesley Johnson when there was better players on the board, drafting two points guards in the top six in 2008, trading Brandon Roy on draft night for Randy Foye, or any of the other boneheaded things he's done in his tenure there. They've had ample opportunities to vastly improve their team through the draft but they've shot themselves in the foot time and time again. I don't see why the solution to this is to give them more draft picks and punish competent franchises in the process.
                    Last edited by Fully; Tue Aug 23, 2011, 09:51 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Fully wrote: View Post
                      I have a fundamental problem with the idea. I think it's way too generous to the lottery teams and creates an uneven playing field for the teams that make the playoffs, and yes, even the elite franchises.

                      I think the system is fine as it is. Teams that make good use of their high draft picks probably won't stay in the lottery for long but if you make a mess every June then you're probably going to finish near the bottom of the standings, and that's the way it should be. Bottoming out as a franchise shouldn't automatically entitle you to to be back in the playoffs in 2-3 seasons - your front office still needs to make some solid decisions when it comes to the draft.

                      Minnesota is a great example. On the surface, they're a great example of the type of team that would be aided by these proposed rule changes. They've been in the lottery seven straight years and haven't won more than 33 games for six seasons and running. But they've had 14 first rounders during that span of losing seasons and they've had a staggering seven top 7 draft picks during the same time. The system didn't let the T Wolves down, David Khan did by drafting guys like Corey Brewer, Jonny Flynn and Wesley Johnson when there was better players on the board, drafting two points guards in the top six in 2008, trading Brandon Roy on draft night for Randy Foye, or any of the other boneheaded things he's done in his tenure there. They've had ample opportunities to vastly improve their team through the draft but they've shot themselves in the foot time and time again. I don't see why the solution to this is to give them more draft picks and punish competent franchises in the process.
                      Solid points.

                      The Minnesota example shows, in my opinion, that regardless of the draft process, poor decision and/or bad luck through injuries or players not performing to potential will trump all else. Getting 2 first round draft picks will not ensure teams make it back to the playoffs every 2-3 years but it most certainly would increase the likelihood. Picks still have to be made in real time. The current discussion is like buying a stock in hindsight - imagine picking up AAPL today at 1990's prices. Or, back to basketball, picking Boozer in the 2nd round of 2002 knowing what we know today.

                      As the original article stated, this is pretty much a moot point as this is probably at the bottom of the negotiation priority list.

                      The discussion has, however, helped me kill day 53 of the lockout!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        Solid points.

                        The Minnesota example shows, in my opinion, that regardless of the draft process, poor decision and/or bad luck through injuries or players not performing to potential will trump all else. Getting 2 first round draft picks will not ensure teams make it back to the playoffs every 2-3 years but it most certainly would increase the likelihood. Picks still have to be made in real time. The current discussion is like buying a stock in hindsight - imagine picking up AAPL today at 1990's prices. Or, back to basketball, picking Boozer in the 2nd round of 2002 knowing what we know today.

                        As the original article stated, this is pretty much a moot point as this is probably at the bottom of the negotiation priority list.

                        The discussion has, however, helped me kill day 53 of the lockout!
                        I guess my point is that teams can go from bottom feeders back to the playoffs in 3 seasons now under the current system but you have to make the right decisions. Oklahoma went from bottom 5 team in the league to a top 5 team in the league in that time frame, and they did it with great drafting and intelligent management. Portland has built successfully through the draft. Chicago capitalized on their two high picks in 2007 and 2008 and walked away with Rose and Noah. It can be done.

                        I have no sympathy for teams like Golden State who draft miserably and can't break into the playoffs because of it. They wasted two #9 picks on Ike Diogu and Patrick O'Bryant in successive years, and have another potential bust looming in Ekpe Udoh who they used a sixth overall pick on. Plus let's not forget them trading away one of their best players in Jason Richardson straight up for the eighth overall pick in 2007, all so they could waste in on Brandan Wright's corpse. Three seasons later and Wright is probably done in the NBA. Like I said, these teams are getting the opportunities but they're just not making good decisions. In my opinion, they shouldn't be rewarded for this.
                        Last edited by Fully; Tue Aug 23, 2011, 09:50 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          This will probably (but no guarantees) be the last I say on this. Its just turned into a longer conversation than I planned on having but:

                          Teams would not be using their top draft picks to draft another PG if they have Paul or Wall
                          are you sure? There are just as many teams/GMs who will always take the best player available over drafting for need. Its a big assumption to think teams will consistently draft for need. (and honestly I think thats probably the biggest draft day fau paux there is). Regardless those were just examples and the point was that if all the prospects end up on a few teams, they will just be competing with each other for minutes instead of competing with vets for minutes. Either way there is no guarantee said player(s) will get the minutes the 'need'.

                          All the more highly touted prospects would be on lottery teams
                          they already are. This would just prevent the 'good' teams from making good or smart decisions with their picks (or atleast make it harder for them to do so by making their first available pick worse) and making it more affordable for the 'bad' teams to make poor decisions.

                          (Phoenix) who did not want guaranteed contracts of rookie contracts
                          but thats a function of economics (Sarver trying to use team profits to pay for his losing investments elsewhere) and the cap system (having limited funds/taxes etc), not because a team just didn't feel like having a player or because they felt the players weren't worth paying. Regardless one example of a team not using their late first round pick does not mean teams do not want or do not try to use those picks to improve their team.


                          Your previous paragraph and example says different. Look at Jordan Crawford with Atlanta compared to Washington. Look at Darren Collison when Paul was injured last year. All players learn differently but there is no other learning experience like actual playing time.
                          They don't say different. That was just a referrence to your statement that players would just waste on the bench on a good team. For some players being on a 'good' team is better for them.

                          And actually Collison is a great example of what I was getting at. He played fantastic in NO even if it was in limited and injury minutes. But he still got playing time in NO because he proved he deserved it. When an opportunity came up he made use of it and (more or less) forced NOH to either make use of him as a player or as an asset, and in the end he earned himself a starting job. One could argue Crawford showed enough potential for Washington to want him on their team. Players who are good enough will always get an opportunity. Some one will want them. The problem with players not 'turning out' is never a function of them not getting a chance, its them not being good enough.

                          This is stemming from watching teams stuck in the lottery year in and year out
                          fine if you say so, but is the reason they are stuck in the lottery year in and year out because they didn't have enough picks? Or was it because they choose players poorly, made poor decisions along the way and/or lost their quality players? I can't think of one team that has been bad "year in and year out" that hasn't had a crap load of lottery picks. Thats not the draft systems fault, thats the teams fault (and on occasion simple bad luck).

                          The 76ers and Pacers are built for mediocrity. The only hope they have of getting better is if a franchise player falls in to their lap in the middle of the first round which is possible but highly unlikely.
                          I see no reason to think that the 76ers or Pacers have shown an unwillingness to build a contender. They have each done it in the past decade or so already... and both have a good NBA history. Both have shown a willingness to spend and have made sound decisions. They weren't ready to yet be playoff teams, BUT were (as I said before) the best of the worst. They are where they are by a function of everyone around them getting worse, not them getting better. This new system will now punish them (even more) for not being bad enough. The solution then? Intentionally tank to make sure you don't make the playoffs? Blow it up and start over? Yet Indiana has a young team. Philly has a young team. But now they would have to start all over because they were too good (and I use that term loosely) to quick? They are nothing like Charlotte in structure, but would end up with Charlotte's results regardless.

                          Ask a Kings fan or a Warriors fan
                          why? did they not get a fair opportunity to draft? Was their problem they needed more first round picks and yet OKC, Portland, Chicago, Utah didn't? Do Kings fans or warriors fans complain about the draft process or do they complain about what their organization did along the way? Did the league force the Kings to draft Jason Thompson instead of McGee, Ibaka, Batum or Hibbert? Did the league force GSW to draft Udoh over Greg Monroe, Paul George or Ed Davis? (in fairness to Udoh it is just a rookie season) Were they forced to take O'Bryant instead of Rondo, Milsap or even Sefolosha?


                          We need to get beyond this idea there is a problem with the draft system. That somehow it isn't fair enough to teams who already get the best opportunity. Yes sometimes teams get unlucky with their timing or an injury. This system still won't change luck. Yes sometimes teams consistently make bad choices. This new system won't change that either. What this will do however is take away an already limited opportunity from a team that has made good use of their resources to become successful and give that to a team that already has a better opportunity to draft a better player but hasn't made good use of their resources.

                          A new draft system won't create parity because the cause of disparity is NOT due to the draft. What it will do is create an even bigger division between the very good and very bad teams every year (although the change over will be quicker) No one will want to be stuck in the middle because thats where you get punished the most. Yet the more teams in the middle the greater the parity is.

                          There are more than a few things that need to be done to change the NBA, whether its for fairness, equal opportunity, parity, whatever. But the draft is not one of them. It is an already fair and equitable system.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Fully wrote: View Post
                            I guess my point is that teams can go from bottom feeders back to the playoffs in 3 seasons now under the current system but you have to make the right decisions. Oklahoma went from bottom 5 team in the league to a top 5 team in the league in that time frame, and they did it with great drafting and intelligent management. Portland has built successfully through the draft. Chicago capitalized on their two high picks in 2007 and 2008 and walked away with Rose and Noah. It can be done.

                            I have no sympathy for teams like Golden State who draft miserably and can't break into the playoffs because of it. They wasted two #9 picks on Ike Diogu and Patrick O'Bryant in successive years, and have another potential bust looming in Ekpe Udoh who they used a sixth overall pick on. Plus let's not forget them trading away one of their best players in Jason Richardson straight up for the eighth overall pick in 2007, all so they could waste in on Brandan Wright's corpse. Three seasons later and Wright is probably done in the NBA. Like I said, these teams are getting the opportunities but they're just not making good decisions. In my opinion, they shouldn't be rewarded for this.
                            I recognize the counter arguments and they definitely have merit. Regardless of what is done someone will feel shafted and rightly so.

                            I don't mean to be anal but just to clarify a couple of points as the examples used in the current system are the exceptions and not the norm (much like Tony Parker as a late 1st round pick or Monta Ellis as a 2nd round pick):

                            OKC went 5 years between playoff appearances and had a little luck along the way along with very solid management decisions but still needed 5 first round draft picks of #2, #5, #4, #21, and #3 over 3 drafts to get where they are.

                            POR had the number 1 pick a year after having the number 2 and 6 picks - again a little luck in positioning, not so much luck with the injuries (Roy and Oden) - and had an owner willing to buy draft picks like beers on tap.

                            CHI missed the playoffs for 6 years after MJ and Co. left town, made 3 years with 47,41,49 wins then missed in 2008 with 33 wins and the 9th seed only to capture #1 overall and Derrick Rose.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Matt52 wrote: View Post
                              1) it could help create a very competitive league (16-18 really good teams versus current 10-12 really good teams),
                              2) fans of losing teams can have an extra prayer or hope.

                              Regardless of the draft system, poorly managed teams are not going to be very good regardless of draft system and well managed teams will do well.
                              Both of these would be very good for the league. If more teams were more competitive then it would be easier to sell out seats to more games. This is also the case with fans of losing teams having an extra prayer or hope. As Raptors fans we can appreciate supporting a young team because we hope that they will improve and grow together to be a strong team. if you double that hope by allowing two picks in the first round then fans will not shy away from their teams as much during those rebuilding years because they're willing to support the young team.

                              I really like those two points.

                              All teams should be given the opportunity to stay highly competitive for the long term and that should be a function of good decision making. Changing the draft so that 'worse' teams get better quicker, and better teams get worse quicker
                              This is a poor assessment in my opinion of what changing the draft would do to NBA teams. There aren't that many big names that have pushed teams over the edge when their drafted in the 2nd half of hte first round. in 2010 the names would be bledsoe and jordan crawford. neither of those teams did anything (before anyone says "landry fields", he was drafted in the 2nd round). 2009 - darren collison,omri casppi, rodrigue beaubois, taj gibson 2008- jj hickson, courtney lee, serge ibaka,nicolas batum, roy hibbert, 2007 - rodney stuckey, nick young, marco belinelli, rudy fernandez, aaron brooks.

                              before i go any further, we can all agree that there is no one here that really has stood out. all of them have shown sparks of brilliance but none of them have really shown that they are super star material. they may do one or two things good but that's all.

                              the point is that giving lottery teams two first round picks will not make playoff teams worse faster (unless by that you mean that they lose more games because the league is more competitive, then I would be excited) but the statement itlself is flawed.

                              All in all I think changing the draft is a good idea. there is no other sport that relies so heavily on having one or two really good players than in basketball. doesn't happen as much in hockey (no one plays near the minutes an all-star basketball player does) and both football and baseball and so team oriented that one player can't change the entire pace of a game. Basketball runs differently and the draft needs to reflect that.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Matt52 wrote: View Post
                                I recognize the counter arguments and they definitely have merit. Regardless of what is done someone will feel shafted and rightly so.

                                I don't mean to be anal but just to clarify a couple of points as the examples used in the current system are the exceptions and not the norm (much like Tony Parker as a late 1st round pick or Monta Ellis as a 2nd round pick):

                                OKC went 5 years between playoff appearances and had a little luck along the way along with very solid management decisions but still needed 5 first round draft picks of #2, #5, #4, #21, and #3 over 3 drafts to get where they are.

                                POR had the number 1 pick a year after having the number 2 and 6 picks - again a little luck in positioning, not so much luck with the injuries (Roy and Oden) - and had an owner willing to buy draft picks like beers on tap.

                                CHI missed the playoffs for 6 years after MJ and Co. left town, made 3 years with 47,41,49 wins then missed in 2008 with 33 wins and the 9th seed only to capture #1 overall and Derrick Rose.
                                The reason Chicago didn't make the playoffs for six seasons after MJ left is because they butchered their draft picks during that time. Marcus Fizer fourth overall. Eddy Curry fourth overall. Trading Elton Brand, who was a 20/10 guy in his early 20's, for the number two pick so they could take the crappy version of Tyson Chandler.

                                They had 10 first rounders in those six years including the #1 overall pick, the #2 pick, the #3 pick , two #4 overall picks, the #6 overall and two #7 overalls. Eight top seven picks in six years! I hate to keep saying the same thing but the system did not let the Bulls down during this time - the front office did. When they started drafting better in 2003-04 (they got Hinrich, Gordon and Deng over two drafts), the outlook of the franchise improved and they made it back to the playoffs. This is not a coincidence.

                                Portland and OKC (who missed the playoffs for four straight seasons by the way - we were both off by a year) are both examples of teams that took their lumps and dedicated themselves to their youth movements. They put themselves in a position to draft high in multiple drafts consecutively, and then made the right moves when it happened. Once again, I don't think it's a coincidence that they were back in the playoffs relatively shortly after this happened.

                                The teams associated with long playoff droughts can almost always attribute it to a string of poor personel decisions, especially with the draft.
                                Last edited by Fully; Wed Aug 24, 2011, 08:53 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X