Derrick Williams would be playing a bigger role on the Lakers or Celtics than he does on the Wolves. Playing on those teams is better in every conceivable way than playing on the wolves. Oh yea, and he happens to be from LA as well. I think your point is completely invalid here.

For every position, there are at least a couple of good teams that need a guy at that position. You are saying that they would only play 10-15 minutes because it supports your point of view even though it's not true at all.

roundhouse wrote:
I don't pretend to know what Derrick Williams would or would not want; in any case his spot on our team is a product of the draft and not of a mutual decision or recruitment as it were.

There are more minutes and more shots at teams that are not the top teams. Again, look at free agency. You are basically suggesting that every player wants to play for the same handful of teams. If this were true, in the current system everyone would play their rookie scale out and then sign for one of the super teams. It doesn't happen. Your argument is invalid.

The point that players would want to come play with Love and Rubio is still valid.

wolfenstein wrote: I concur.

A lot of the NBA has been horribly unwatchable this year. Just terrible basketball.

wolfenstein wrote: Makes good sense to me. I still like the idea. "Good" teams wouldn't be able to load up on all the top prospects every year. Guys like Anthony Davis aren't going to go ride pine somewhere when they could be "The Man" on a dozen+ other teams...

BonK wrote: He is just talking about the draft, not anything with the CBA salary cap or whatever.

So the salary cap and stuff would all be the same. Right now, teams can go over the cap to sign their own picks, so this new draft system would probably have to be limited to like 1 player per year or something, for teams that are already over the cap.

wolfenstein wrote: I think a lot more NCAA studs would take this route, rather than going to a contender for a bunch less money and riding pine.

If I was a college stud SG or SF, I would absolutely love to come play with Rubio, Darko, Pekovic, and K-Lav... and for as much money as they could possibly throw at me. Why the hell not? And why would it matter what city they are in???

Players would come, for sure.

Way to many assumptions in this. Every single person is going to have different motives of what they are looking for. Good players from college are going to go to good teams. Hell they are doing that in college. Every good player is going to go to Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Michigan St., Ohio St, etc. If i'm anthony davis i'm not picking some crappy team where I have to deal with crappy management and crappy coach just so I can be "the man".

Most players do want to play for the same handful teams but because of salary cap reasons they cannot. If top players get to choose where they want to go, you mine as well eliminate half the teams in the league right now. You're telling me guys wouldn't go to Boston, LA, Miami, New York? They are going to go where they can promote their "brand" so they can make the most money. I don't necessarily agree with the draft, but without it there wouldn't be any parity in a league where there hardly is any parity.

Money is the biggest factor and not just from contracts, nowdays you here a lot of top players talking about their brand more than anything. You can't get much of a brand in Minnesota no matter how good you are. Look how long it took KG to get recognition here when he was probably the best player in the NBA for 4 years. Managers/Coaches/Market are huge huge factors that come into consideration. Guarantee if you gave the top 10 players drafted a chance to pick a team they are picking all the playoff teams.

Minnesota Polars wrote: Maybe for this year, maybe. But it wouldn't be like that every year. There is only so much playing time on every team. There is no way all the top guys would go into bench roles every year.

That's not the point. Of course not every single player will choose a playoff team or big market. But let's say that 4 out of the top 10 players choose teams that wouldn't normally be in the lottery. That's 4 less chances for bad teams to become good. After about 5 years of this system, the talent disparity between the good teams and the bad teams would be as wide as the Grand Canyon. This would singlehandedly destroy the NBA.

Again, I think the whole point here is that even the relatively poorly managed teams would have to step it up a notch if they had to plead their case to prospects instead of being gift-wrapped talent as a reward for utter sucktitude.

But take the Wolves. Adelman is a great coach, and Rubio and Love are legit and both are under 24 years old. Even with Kahn in the FO, isn't there a valid argument to be made to a rookie (say Beal, Rivers, or one of the Lambs) that playing SG for the Wolves would be a GREAT career move?

I mean, the notion that being the backup to Ray Allen is better for your "brand" than being the third star in the latest challengers to OKC's inevitable reign of terror over the WC? Insanity.

roundhouse wrote:
But the whole reason the bad teams are so bad is because they aren't trying and because they get rewarded for being bad!!!

Your argument is extremely circular because you keep reverting back to the awful poorly run teams and how they will get worse, when the reason they are so bad in the first place is because you need to be bad to get good talent through the draft.

wolfenstein wrote: I am pretty confidant that if this system was in place for this year, the TWolves could get some pretty sweet NCAA top prospects to join the team. At least, we could get better guys under this system than through a normal draft........ since we have no picks.

And it's not like we are the only example in the entire NBA. I find it hard to believe that the majority of top prospects are going to go sit on the bench for a run of the mill "playoff team", as their are only a handful of true contenders any given year. Not every player can join the very best teams.

And yes, teams are bad because they are currently rewarded for being bad. It's the only way to get better in the NBA (aka be a horrible team and get lucky with a top draft pick.) That's rewarding teams for ineptitude, and it's messed up.

The problem is that the NBA only has 5 guys per team playing at once, unlike the other pro sports with more players in a game. Maybe there is no way to solve this problem. Give every lottery team an equal chance at the lottery picks? I dunno. I guess that's probably the best (only?) way to truly stop tanking? Would really suck though if the best non-playoff teams are winning the lottery.

wolfenstein wrote:
But again, you all dismiss the fact that good teams also get a significantly better reward: wins, profit, marketability, buzz, division titles, conference titles, championships, money. This is their reward and it's a huge reward in an immensely competitive league where you are not only fighting against talent gaps, but market and climate, other sports, innate market size, etc. And Roundhouse touched on it earlier, but NBA owners are probably among the most competitive, cut throat people in the country. It's not like they like losing or tank but for any reason other than to get better down the line

I agree with most of you guys in principle that there is no way to categorize the motives and desires of top prospects. Some would go to winners, others would shoot for their own team/situation. And yes, plenty would want to play with Rubio/Love. For sure.

We also seem to be having this conversation as if every draftee is a superstar/stud in the making. In each draft there are usually only 2-3 guys you could make the case deserve a situation to lead their own team. The rest is a crap shoot and would lead to the same bust/success stories we normally see anyways.

But it just seems like we are taking a simple situation and making it more complicated: Most GM's are inept and not adapting to a new way of thinking and evaluating players and/or work practically part time. This is the problem.

To me, if you take away a guaranteed 4-years at a young player and make it a free agency bid, that would only perpetuate the problem and make the excuse machine shine even brighter in terms of owner/GM dynamic. How on earth would this increase accountability? I can hear Kahn's excuses now under this scenario, and Glen buying it, if he missed out on signing a top prospect who went to a different team. How can you justify firing a guy because Anthony Davis refused to sign there? You can't 'work harder' and magically make Anthony Davis sign in Minny. Catch the drift?

Here is the problem: Owners like Glen Taylor won't spend more than a million dollars annually on a quality General Manager. Yet that same owner approves 4-years and $20 for Darko Milicic....which costs him 27 TIMES the $$ to employ over 4 years than the clown who wanted to sign him. (Assuming Kahn makes $750k)

Creatively fixing how rookies enter the league is not going to fix issues like the above, just make them more complicated, and more difficult to justify firing guys.