How the Grizzlies are impacted by 3-2-1 lottery proposal - and my anti-tanking idea
Is the "3-2-1" lottery reform proposal a good idea? How does it impact the Memphis Grizzlies? What are some other ideas to curb tanking?
ESPN’s Shams Charania reported a proposed lottery reform to curb tanking, earlier this week:
The “3-2-1 lottery” proposal, named to represent the number of lottery balls per team, would expand the lottery from 14 to 16 teams. Teams that do not qualify for the playoffs or play-in tournament but stay out of the relegation zone (spots four through 10) would receive three lottery balls each. Teams with a bottom-three record -- the relegation area -- would have only two lottery balls but have a floor of the No. 12 pick, and the rest of the 13 lottery teams could fall as far as the No. 16 pick.
The Nos. 9 and 10 play-in seeds in each conference receive two lottery balls each, and the losers of the 7-8 play-in games receive one lottery ball each. Previously, the league drew odds for only teams with the bottom four records in the league, while the other 10 lottery teams were ordered by inverse record. Under this proposal, all 16 teams would be in the drawing.
In addition, no team would be able to win the top pick in consecutive years or be able to win three consecutive top-five picks. Teams also would not be able to protect picks in the 12 to 15 slots going forward.
I feel like this reform may be more nuanced than the other ideas floated out there. It’s not a simple “love it” or “hate it,” as that notion applies to elements of it instead of the idea in totality.
First off, I love the relegation zone, and it prevents teams from totally bottoming out. Teams avoiding the relegation zone will make for a fun subplot after the All-Star Break.
However, I don’t want the NBA to lose sight of the objective of the draft: to help struggling teams acquire a franchise-changing talent. Free agency has become more of pre-agency. The aprons limit how far teams can really go all in, and it has limited trade flexibility. With the aprons too, a team could be punished for drafting too well and not be able to retain players beyond their rookie deals. To acquire star talent in today’s NBA, you either have to draft them or trade all your picks for one.
Within this, it seems a bit much for the bottom-three teams to have as many lottery balls as the teams that lost in the play-in. Could they alter it where 4-10 gets 4 balls, relegation gets 3, 11-14 gets 2, and then the 7/8 play-in loser gets 1? Seems modest, although it defeats the purpose of the name “3-2-1.” In addition, the floor should be higher for the bottom-three teams, maybe 10 instead of 12. It can be a franchise blow for a 22-60 team to get the 12th pick.
Drawing 16 spots will be chaotic and fun. Again, a 60-loss team getting a pick outside the top-10 is a crusher. Basketball operations aside, how does an organization sell hope to a fanbase after a hopeless year when their reward for a 60-loss season is the 12th pick? To paint a picture, there’s a difference for Jazz and Wizards fans selling hope with Ace Bailey and Tre Johnson — their consolation prizes for not getting drawn for the top-four in the lottery — than with Noa Essengue and Carter Bryant (the 12th and 14th picks in the 2025 NBA Draft). At that point, apathy can set in, as there’s a fanbase that simply feels hopeless because of the system. For some markets, it can be a blow that’s tough to come back from.
I like the last note on the protections and the stipulations. Teams shouldn’t be able to get the top pick in back-to-back years. I’d argue it should be more extreme — once a team wins the lottery, they shouldn’t be eligible to jump for a top-five pick until they make the playoffs. For teams like San Antonio or Dallas, they got their lottery prizes: Victor Wembanyama and Cooper Flagg. No top-five picks in three consecutive years is a good rule as well, as it can prevent multi-year “tanks.” The protections one is rock-solid, and it played a component in this year’s race to the bottom, as the Utah Jazz and Washington Wizards owed top-8 protected picks. It should honestly just be more simple: any protection in the top-four, lottery-protected, top-20 protected.
Overall, the idea is a fine temporary solution — perhaps a band-aid to the issue — but it’s still imperfect. Bad teams could simply stay bad longer. Teams may still manipulate their way into that 4-10 range. At the same time, there will be lots of fun watching teams dodge the relegation zone and watching the picks be drawn.
How it impacts the Memphis Grizzlies?
Obviously, you don’t want to hear about drastic changes to the lottery system when the team is entering a rebuild. At the same time, the Grizzlies positioning is a bit more advantageous than most rebuilding teams.
They own the most first-round picks in the league with as many as three in 2027, two in 2030, and two in 2031 — on top of all their own picks. Having as many bites at the apple is important. In most contexts, “bites at the apple” refers to as many darts at talent in the draft. In this lottery sense, “bites at the apple” can mean increased odds.
Take this year’s standings as an example: the Grizzlies would be in the 4-10 range with three lottery balls. They would also get an extra ball from the Orlando and Phoenix pick as well, since they both lost the play-in game. Granted, it could result in getting picks 15 and 16, but they could also nab two top-five picks. Nonetheless, they would have the most lottery balls in the lottery, since their odds are compounded with the extra pick.
Next year, the Grizzlies will receive the Lakers pick — as long as it’s not in the top four — and then the best pick between the Utah Jazz, Cleveland Cavaliers, and Minnesota Timberwolves.
When it comes to the relegation zone, I don’t think the Grizzlies will field a team that approaches it. Even in the lottery years in 2024 and 2026, they trended outside the bottom five, largely due to an abundance of injuries.
While there are concerns about the diminishing possibilities of getting a top-five pick, the Grizzlies’ draft record is promising. They know how to identify players throughout the draft:
Zach Edey (9)
Cedric Coward (11)
Brandon Clarke (21)
Desmond Bane (30)
Santi Aldama (30)
And that’s just the first round. They will need to find a way to get a star to build around, and the highest likelihood is in the draft — hopefully, this draft takes care of that. However, these lottery odds emphasize the importance of a good scouting department.
On the similar tangent, Sam Vecenie had a good point about the increasing importance of pro personnel scouting:
I also wonder if we’ll start to see teams get more aggressive in trying to acquire buy-low candidates whom they like on other NBA teams. If this type of lottery reform had been in place five years ago, could a team have decided to try to pluck, say, Jalen Brunson away from the Dallas Mavericks to find out if he was a star? Would someone have been more forceful than the Portland Trail Blazers in trying to acquire Deni Avdija? Would someone look at the Boston Celtics’ Payton Pritchard as a potential starter and overpay to find out?
If your team needs a star and you can’t rely on the draft or free agency to go and get one, you’re going to have to do it by making stronger, more informed bets via trade. In that vein, this kind of lottery reform may create more excitement in the offseason and before the trade deadline.
I wonder if we’ll see teams start investing more of their front-office resources into pro personnel scouting. Even as someone whose job it is to evaluate draft prospects, get intel and slot them onto a board, I’m always surprised by how much manpower front offices put into that part of the equation as opposed to the pro personnel side. One team that has invested substantially in scouting current pros is the Indiana Pacers. They reaped the benefits by acquiring Tyrese Haliburton, Pascal Siakam, Aaron Nesmith and Obi Toppin and nearly won the NBA title last year.
With the Grizzlies’ surplus of first-round picks — just like what the Utah Jazz did with Jaren Jackson Jr. and what the Orlando Magic did with Desmond Bane — they can strike in the trade market. Or they can even throw a first-round pick or two to go get a guy who may have another gear if his role was bigger.
While the reform doesn’t seem optimal for a rebuilding team, the Grizzlies have the flexibility to maneuver around it — as long as this format is in play.
Is there another idea that’s better?
The NBA could deploy ideas that could demote tanking while ensuring the bad teams have a way to escape the bottom.
Are there any ideas? Let’s start with what the NBA is used to.
I wouldn’t be opposed to the previous drawing from 1994-2018. The enhanced odds for the bottom teams may lead to fewer teams bottoming out. I didn’t think there was anything totally wrong with the current odds either. They should just look for more restrictions. Like aforementioned, no team that wins the lottery should be eligible for a jump until after their next playoff trip, then no top-5 picks in three consecutive drafts. Within these restrictions, a stronger example has to be set for anti-tanking efforts. Fines are okay for first offenses, but an organization may not be fully deterred until draft picks are stripped. Those rules would help disperse the talent and help the bad teams escape the bottom better, while protecting the integrity of the game.
NHL and MLB have great lottery systems in play.
The first draw of ping pong balls determines the No. 1 pick, based on the assigned combinations. However, since a set of rule changes in 2021, a team can move up a maximum of 10 spots in the order; therefore, if a team in spot Nos. 12-16 wins the first draw, they move up accordingly, and the team lowest in the standings (in this year’s case, the Sharks) slots in at No. 1.
There is then a second draw to determine the next spot, using similar rules as the first. Similarly, a team in spot Nos. 13-16 can still move up only 10 slots, so they would move up accordingly and the next lowest available team in the standings would get pick No. 2.
They also have a rule where a team cannot win the lottery twice in five years.
For MLB:
In addition, “teams that receive revenue-sharing payouts can’t receive a lottery pick for more than two years in a row and those that don’t can’t get a top-six choice in consecutive Drafts. Furthermore, a club that’s ineligible for the lottery can’t select higher than 10th overall.” So in a NBA sense, maybe teams that receive luxury tax payments can’t pick in the top-six in consecutive drafts.
An often-floated idea would be just to tie the revenue-sharing by wins and losses. If each win was a dollar amount towards revenue-sharing, fewer owners would be less inclined to tank for a top pick.
My idea: a Shark Tank-like setting to determine the top five picks.
So imagine, an NBA team representative pitches to a panel on… why their organization deserves the top pick in the NBA Draft. No wins and losses, no lottery balls tied to it… it’s simply every non-playoff team making their case for a top NBA pick.
An organization could go in any direction — player development track record, in-season team improvement, the economic impact of landing a game-changing talent, etc. A team can go with whatever pitch they want when it comes to building a convincing case for a top pick. Now, a flaw could be “well, wouldn’t Charlotte have a better case than Brooklyn for wins and losses?” When the panel decides, surely wins and losses would be accounted for, as they essentially decide who needs it more.
The panel could involve a former player, former front office executive, former head coach, and obviously Mark Cuban. They would honestly need to build a cast of members where any bias wouldn’t show, and they can use the same accounting firm from the lottery to ensure it’s ethical. Once the pitches are made, the panel chooses the five best cases, then 6-14 is from team record.
Other rules I’d implement:
Once a team wins the lottery, they cannot jump into top-five until they reach the playoffs.
A team cannot jump into the top-five in three consecutive years.
If a team is in the lottery from another team’s pick, the pick stays in its pre-lottery slot. So in this year’s example, the Hawks and Thunder would own the 7th and 12th picks, respectively.
Why did I land on this idea? First, there’s no lottery manipulation. No team has the edge over the other because of how many losses they have. Teams may promote their young players down the stretch, but it’s in the name of development and live-game reps rather than lottery positioning. Secondly, it can make for a fun television event, although it may need to spread out into a multi-night series with a final reveal. Finally, it promotes organizational stability — proving they have the infrastructure to support a young face of the franchise, not to be saved by one.
It’s imperfect and would need tweaking. It will likely never happen. However, if the league cares about curbing tanking, building a roadmap for teams to escape the bottom without incentivizing losing, providing an easy explanation for the casual fan, and sparking an innovative idea… it’s time to enter this version of Shark Tank.
Overall, this new reform is fine. Frankly, one thing that gets twisted is how tanking and rebuilding can get confused. Sure, there are efforts where it feels obvious that a team is gunning for draft positioning. However, rebuilding is a part of the ecosystem for sports. Teams shouldn’t be punished for choosing a direction that can yield better high-end outcomes.
I’m sure an overreaction one way or another is destined whenever this “3-2-1” format is first run — especially when the 8 seed wins the lottery and a 60-loss team is the 11th pick. However, it’s a modest step in the right decision.
As the Grizzlies embark on a rebuild, it’ll be fascinating to see how it impacts them.
If you choose to support my Substack, SubTsakalidis — aka “SubTsak” — follow this link to my Allie’s Allies St. Jude fundraiser page. If you choose to subscribe, all proceeds will go towards St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.
Follow me on X and Bluesky. Subscribe to my YouTube channel, SubTsakalidis Scouting.