West wants the bad teams with an even bigger shot at the top pick? And what if the worst team still doesn't get it? I wish the real lottery worked that way. The poorest people get a better shot at winning than the middle class people... If you're going to do that, I say just do away with the lottery and line up the teams by record, like it used to be. If teams are going to tank, at least let there not be any doubt that they're tanking. I still think the NBA should offer an incentive program to the really bad teams. Any team that gets a top 5 pick has the option of trading that pick, and any players received in that trade will be luxury tax and salary cap exempt. Also, the trade will be exempt from any salary matching, so a pick can be traded for a player. That way, those teams can get a player that can help them out immediately, rather than a project that might or might not pan out. Take Atlanta, for example. They could trade the third pick to Phoenix, who's trying to avoid the luxury tax. #3 pick for Shawn Marion, straight up. Atlanta gets a good, athletic player that's still in his prime, and Phoenix avoids the luxury tax and could use that pick on a point guard for Steve Nash to groom. Both teams win, and the #3 pick wins, because he's going to be trained by the best point guard in the NBA today. There could also be other rules too. Teams picking 6-10 can trade their pick, and the players they get only count 25% against the cap. For teams picking 11-14, any players they get would count half against the cap.
It's pretty much the NBA's lot in life -- damned if you do, damned if you don't. Penalize Amare and Diaw for breaking a rule that's been in place for over a decade? You ruined the playoffs! It's a stupid rule! Make an exception for the first time since you established the rule? You cheated! There's bias against San Antonio! You just did it for TV ratings! The C's and Grizz lose games with injured superstars and sitting-out semi-stars? They're tanking! The whole system is flawed! That's not fair that other teams are trying to win while sucking and won't be rewarded! The C's and Grizz get the 5th and 4th picks? The system is flawed! Out with the lottery! How is that fair? Portland has the worst record in the NBA in 2005-06 and gets the fourth pick? Crickets.
the lottery is pretty much the best system in place. i think it's fairly well accepted that bad teams should get high picks, but the lottery at least doesn't just guarantee the best pick to the team that sucks the hardest. as there isn't much difference in the worst team and 3rd worst team or 5th worst team, neither should there be much difference in their chances of getting the top pick. make it better, but not too much better, and give all the crappy teams a chance (though with decreasing odds), not just the one that sucked the most. and as KD mentioned, only the NBA could get b****ed at while actually having the best system. damned if they do, damned if they don't. kind of like how everyone complains that the nba is taking all the toughness out of the game and talks about the "pussification" of the nba and then goes into hysterics about how much their sensibilities have been offended every time there's a skirmish as a result of rough play.
Out of curiousity, what was Houston chances of winning the lottery the year they got Yao? Was it like 5% or something? Or even worst then Portland's chances?
Carmelo Anthony gets in a slapfight, and cable news reacts as if he'd brought a machete onto the court and started swinging away. One writer from a major website wanted to suspend him for 30 games, to set an "example." But they don't want the league to put in the preventative rules in place to keep things from TRULY (Anthony running away from Jared Jeffries) getting out of hand. Stupid rule, but it's there. For years fans and media (rightfully) whined about the one and two-handed hand checking that was keeping games in the 80s. Then the NBA goes into 2004-05 and essentially says "don't touch guards. Just don't. You touch them, and it's a foul." Great rule. Scoring goes up. Then Dallas spends the entire 2006 Finals putting a forearm into D-Wade's chest every time he drove, and the fans/media go nuts. Guys, it's a foul. You're not allowed to touch him. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. NBA fans, by and large, don't really care whether or not Oden ends up in Boston or Portland. Yeah, it'd be cool to see him in Boston, but it's pretty cool to have this guy in the league wherever he goes. It's the media, one that gets bored with half the teams in the NBA, that only care about the "Boston/New York/Los Angeles/Chicago has to be good for the league to be great" stuff.
Kelly, I don't think people cared much about Portland getting 4th last year because it was not "the Oden/Durant" year... This year, the perception was that Oden and Durant are head and shoulders above everyone else.. and you got screwed if you don't get the top 2... Last season, nobody was getting too excited about whether you are getting Bargnani, Aldridge, Gay, Thomas, Morrison, etc... Not to say Oden and Durant will in fact be head and shoulders above everyone when all is said and done, but right now the perception is such...
I'm not so sure that in you'd ideally want the best rookies to go the very worst teams. If Oden goes to the Celtics or Grizzlies, they still probably won't be a very good team. But if he goes to a 35 win team, you've made them a legit playoff force. If what you want it is a different crop of contenders year to year, then that might be better achieved by improving the "middle-class" teams before you improve the really bad ones. I kind of like the idea of making it a pure lottery for all non-playoff teams.
All teams tank at one point or another. The Spurs tanked and got lucky with Duncan. In that respect, the lotto system is ridiculous because it still encourages tanking and it acknowledges that losing teams need help by giving the last 3 teams loaded odds.
I wouldn't call 25% "loaded" odds... and if teams do tank, its normally for a chance to get the #1 pick only. Its pretty rare when there are two picks (like there are this year) that are worthy of #1. Hell, its getting to be rare when even the #1 pick is worthy of #1 (Bogut!).
man i feel bad for celtic fans...all that tanking, wait a sec, something's not right......or yeah THEY WON 16 CHAMPIONSHIPS.
I was glad to see Memphis get hosed. They generated the bad karma by raping us in the draft day "trade" a year ago and then tanking the season. I feel more compassionate for the Celtics.
It encourages tanking a team's own peril. I said this in March, and it's pretty obvious now. Tank all you want, and at best you have a one in four shot at the top spot. As far as the Spurs go -- Robinson's foot was powder after that December game, there was a legitimate fear he wouldn't be around by November of 1997. And there was a time when we thought Sean Elliott wouldn't play another NBA game, and it didn't have to do with his kidneys -- remember, he missed the first half of 1997-98 with injuries, and wasn't that great when he came back.
I lived in San Antonio during their 1996-97 20-win season and trust me, they were tanking. Robinson's injuries were legit. So were Elliott's to a lesser extent. But everyone on that team was out with injuries. Literally everyone. No way a team gets THAT unlucky when it comes to health.
So what, teams work really hard end end up tanking in the first round (Mavs). Other teams work really hard at losing and they still don't get the top pick even if statistics are in their favor. C'mon, fairness is something we tell our kids because they aren't old enough to understand how unfair the world is.
I didn't live in San Antonio, but I was looking at those box scores. The team's two best players were out, but after that ... look: http://www.dougstats.com/96-97/SanAntonioSpurs.html Maxwell, Del Negro, Avery Johnson all played over 70 games. Dominique (63), Person (65), Perdue (65) all played at least 63 games. Charles Smith was done when he was traded to SAS in February of 1996, so it didn't matter that he missed a ton of games. This means your entire rotation is playing well over 75 percent of your games, save for Robinson and his shattered foot (six games) and Elliott missing half the season (and half the season afterwards). It was a team that lost its best player, and its second best for half a season. Both were legit injuries, and there were no significant injuries beyond that. Vernon, Vinnie and Avery missing six-to-ten games in a year doesn't scream "literally everyone" to me.
Sometimes one loss is the difference in getting Rudy Gay or Brandon Roy. A team might not want the #1, but they'd have more options with players who fit their positions' weaknesses. I called the odds loaded when the league tweaked the lotto again after Orlando hit the #1 twice. Right now, the worst 3 teams have a 60% chance of landing the top pick. Their odds increase with the chances of getting at least the top 3. With the weighted system, if my team was going to pick 4th with 10 games left, as a fan I wouldn't mind it if they lost some games to get that jump. Who knows what grief the coach would get for giving a spirited effort with that many games left... I realize the principle they have in place, but a team with a lost season has no incentive other than professional pride to give a 100% effort for the remaining games. I still think the Spurs tanked.
