Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Change to draft order process

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

  • #46
    Fully wrote: View Post
    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.
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/

    Depending if you count the season they made the playoffs as a year or not you'd get five. Seattle made an appearance in 2004-2005 then OKC did not make it until 2009-2010 - by my count that is five years but I can see how one could say 4.

    My only point with Chicago was they were a first round playoff exit or second round at best those 3 years under Skiles. They are where they are today due to extreme luck in getting Derrick Rose at #1 when they should have picked at 9. Unless a team gets a bonafide franchise player the odds are likely they will not be more than a second round playoff team (Detroit would be the exception to this rule).

    Comment


    • #47
      Why would you count a season they made the playoffs in a tally of seasons that they didn't make the playoffs? Lol.

      I don't mean to diminish the importance of luck in all of this, because it does play a role in every draft and in different ways. Chicago got lucky that they moved up to number one and they were lucky that a franchise player like Rose was available - but they still made the right decision at the end of the day. If you remember in 2008, Beasley and Rose were considered a toss up for the first overall pick and there was a large camp of people who thought the Bulls should have taken Beasley because they already had Hinrich and had a void in the frontcourt. Chicago ended up making the right move and they benefitted greatly from it, which is basically my entire point. If you draft well in the current system, you will be rewarded. There's plenty of examples of this. Same as there are plenty of examples of teams that burn through high picks and stay in the basement.
      Last edited by Fully; Wed Aug 24th, 2011, 09:41 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Fully wrote: View Post
        Why would you count a season they made the playoffs in a tally of seasons that they didn't make the playoffs? Lol.

        I don't mean to diminish the importance of luck in all of this, because it does play a role in every draft and in different ways. Chicago got lucky that they moved up to number one and they were lucky that a franchise player like Rose was available - but they still made the right decision at the end of the day. If you remember in 2008, Beasley and Rose were considered a toss up for the first overall pick and there was a large camp of people who thought the Bulls should have taken Beasley because they already had Hinrich and had a void in the frontcourt. Chicago ended up making the right move and they benefitted greatly from it, which is basically my entire point. If you draft well in the current system, you will be rewarded. There's plenty of examples of this. Same as there are plenty of examples of teams that burn through high picks and stay in the basement.
        Because April 2005-April 2010 is 5 years - 5 drafts, 5 trade deadlines, and 5 off seasons to tinker with the roster.

        Comment


        • #49
          Matt52 wrote: View Post
          http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/

          Depending if you count the season they made the playoffs as a year or not you'd get five. Seattle made an appearance in 2004-2005 then OKC did not make it until 2009-2010 - by my count that is five years but I can see how one could say 4.

          My only point with Chicago was they were a first round playoff exit or second round at best those 3 years under Skiles. They are where they are today due to extreme luck in getting Derrick Rose at #1 when they should have picked at 9. Unless a team gets a bonafide franchise player the odds are likely they will not be more than a second round playoff team (Detroit would be the exception to this rule).
          But does giving every bad team a second first round pick really increase the likelihood that they'll get a franchise player? 19 times out of 20, superstars are drafted in the lottery anyway and that portion of the draft remains the same under the new proposed rules.

          Comment


          • #50
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            Because April 2005-April 2010 is 5 years - 5 drafts, 5 trade deadlines, and 5 off seasons to tinker with the roster.
            But it's four seasons, which is what we were counting.

            It's really not important to the discussion anyway. My point remains the same.
            Last edited by Fully; Wed Aug 24th, 2011, 09:56 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Fully wrote: View Post
              But it's four seasons, which is what we were counting.

              It's really not important to the discussion anyway. My point remains the same.
              lol - But it was the 5th completed season required to reach the playoffs again - which they made as an 8th seed.

              Comment


              • #52
                Sigh. Agree to disagree.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Fully wrote: View Post
                  Sigh. Agree to disagree.
                  Agreed.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    My main disagreement to this idea is that it removes the option of restocking through the draft as a tool for upper-echelon teams, and is particularly brutal for consistently competitive, small market teams that depend on the draft to stay at a high level. San Antonio is obviously the best example of this: they're one of the best teams in the NBA in terms of drafting, retaining talent, and managing the bottom line. Denver and Portland could arguably also fit into the same class (although both drop into the lottery from time to time). So why would we be the NBA be implementing a draft system that essentially punishes well-run teams?

                    The draft is in some ways a system to artificially manufacture parity (except that right now in the NBA it does not), but parity should come from allowing all teams an opportunity to become good teams, not from making it near impossible for currently good teams to stay at a high level. I have no problem with a system that allows a team to create a dynasty as long as they're doing it through good management, rather than through market size and appeal. In this way, a meaningful and loophole-free hard cap is where parity in the league should come from, not from redistribution of unproven talent.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X