http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si..._playoffs/2007/05/lottery-needs-tweaking.html “The worst teams suffer the most, and they need the help. If you’re in a small market and you happen to happen to have a bad year, it’s a big problem.” Jerry West Cry me a freaking river. Grizz and Celts TANKED half the season. Mike Miller and Paul Pierce going down with Phantom injuries. Yeah... lets have a pity part for Jerry.. haha! You know what? let's go the JVG way and everybody have equal shot at lottery. It'll keep from "rewarding losers" like West and Ainge. Tanking ain't cool.
Some teams get high picks year after year and never got good (see Clippers, Hawks, GSW, etc.) Why? Incompetent mangagement, incompetent coaching, cancerous rosters. All this does is to put the most talented young players in the worst environment to develop them as players and as people. I say the only source of hope for fans is not high picks, but replacement from top down.
Funny thing is that the 3 teams you mentioned all got their best player in a trade (Elton Brand, Joe Johnson and Baron Davis). No wonder these teams suck in the draft.
Some of that is true... but then again, these teams aren't getting the #1 pick every year. They're merely getting "high" picks. Some years, the difference between #1 and #5 could be the difference between turning your franchise around... see the Celtics and Tim Duncan. If the Clippers actually got the #1 pick every year they were the worst team in the league (instead of the one time they screwed it up with Olowakandi), they'd have gotten better faster.
Well... Clips and GS are finally somewhere in mediocrity... Hawks are just wasting Joe Johnson's career and his life. I don't feel bad for Joe... he chose it... I can't help but wonder what Danny Manning could have become if he had played for a competent team in his prime. I even wonder what Olowokandi and Miles could have grown into had they been surrounded with good vets instead of mired in some cancerous squad and became cancers.
The team didn't let down Manning... it was his knees (tearing his ACL as a rookie). He was lucky that the Suns were loyal enough to still pay him decent money for his diminished services.
The teams that openly and shamelessly tanked end up with the 4, 5, 6, 7 picks. I think it's fantastic. It'll be interesting to see what the Hawks do with their two.
You can add Cleveland to SA, they sucked every year and then lucked into James. Now they can sleepwalk to the conference finals.
It's bittersweet for me: although I am happy that the Grizz didn't get rewarded for their painfully obvious tank job, I am also not too enthusiastic about the fact that TWO MORE western conference foes will have their franchise players come next season. The West is only getting richer, while the poor East is getting poorer. Seriously though, I think the Blazers seriously deserve their pick. Despite being a young team and having a great young leader in Roy, they played their arses off every single game, and tanking never even crossed their minds. Every time we played them, they competed to the end. That's how they played all year long. Well deserved, Portland, and Congrats on getting Greg Oden. Now you have that coveted "dynamic duo" in the making, both of whom seem to be great kids that your city can be proud of and get behind, not to mention that you have a lot of other good young talent to develop alongside Oden and Roy.
Actually, Congrats to Seattle. Getting a Durant or Oden might be the impetus necessary to get the legislature to build a new arena, knowing that this team will be damn good in the future. Especially if they can get Oden and then resign Reshard Lewis. I hope Seattle can stay there. Las Vegas doesn't deserve a team and OKC will eventually steal the Hornets away, the moment George Shinn can manage to pull it off. (although I seriously hope he doesnt)
I agree with JVG in that the NBA shouldn't reward losers. However, some system HAS to be in place to make sure that the crappiest teams are able to improve. Look at the teams that have been stuck in the mud the past few years. They're had opportunities to pick up good players. Seattle picked up Corey Maggette and Luke Ridnour. But who did they leave behind? Leandro Barbosa, Josh Howard, Tayshaun Prince, Carlos Boozer, Matt Barnes, Carlos Arroyo, Richard Jefferson, Zach Randolph, Tony Parker, Agent Zero, Mehmet Okur, Manu Ginobli, Ron Artest, andrei kirilenko, Raja Bell, Stephen Jackson, and Mr. and Mrs. DaDakota Spanoulis. The Sonics had ample opportunities to improve their team after the departure of Kemp and Payton. But they picked poorly and made bad trades. Fact is, the system works. It WILL improve crappy teams if they have patience. But does it reward losers? Yes. But the cost of teams constantly moving and folding due to never being competitive is much higher than the cost of a few teams tanking. Here's an alternate solution. Why not just have a commissioner with the stones to punish teams who tank? If Gerald Green and Paul Pierce are injured, why not have a Players Association doctor examine them? Not only this would stop teams tanking, this would also stop teams from lying. Was Bonzi REALLY injured? Probably not. Unless "MMM! DONUTS!" is an injury. It's not a GOOD solution, but it WOULD prevent teams from tanking.
Cry me a river, yes, but you have to admit, it would be better for fans who have the worst record to get the best talent, to level the playing field, ala the NFL... Will it happen, probably not, but something has to change...
It's pretty simple - invite competition. Look around the pro soccer leagues in the world, there are level A, B, C, or even D in some countries. 3 teams with worst record will be downgraded to a level lower, every single year, and 3 teams with the best record will be upgraded to a level higher. So, every game is important for every team, and you certainly don't tank. The money share you get from the league is certainly different at different level. If there is no consequence for being bad, especially intentional tanking, the quality of the league suffers. On the other hand, if there is that much at stake for every single team, officiating problem will be addressed more properly. It's about time to dump that socialism and try capitalism. As for the draft picks, just open it to every team, equal opportunity lottery.
The problem is that the NBA Draft is so top-heavy that getting someone good in the lower picks are much more rare compared to the NFL. Not to mention great "franchise" players have a bigger impact in terms of turning a team around in the NBA than the NFL.
I am shocked at all these media clowns berating the lottery results. Two months ago they were pissing and moaning about the tanking. The whole point of the lottery is to make tanking not worthwhile - it was setup specifically to combat it! That the big tankers got little reward is freeking perfect. I'm not pleased with the added firepower for the western conference, but jeez - too act like the east deserved it after hordes of management errors ultimately led these teams to straight out tank - the lottery did NOT reward them accordingly. Just like it was supposed to work!
I'm not sure if the very worst teams getting the very best picks would level the playing field. Bad managements manage to do very little with good talent (though it may also be the case that good talent sometimes makes management look good too). Everyone keeps talking about the Celtics missing out on Duncan. Certainly, they would have a better team with Duncan, but would they have had the success the Spurs have had with him? The C fans seem to assume so. But, the Celtics are not a well-run organization. Duncan in Boston could have been like Garnett in Minnesota. It is a little satisfying to see Durant and Oden go to Seattle and Portland because I have some confidence in those teams to build a contender. Can you imagine watching Oden trapped on a perpetually mediocre Hawks team for the next decade? Even if they managed to not screw up the pick, Atlanta would still squander the talent they picked up. Plus, there will be a nice little Pacific NW rivalry between the Blazers and Sonics for awhile (that is, until the Sonics move to OKC).
Frankly, what is the difference between the team with the worst record and the team with the 4th worst record when various teams were engaged in tanking? Is the 21 win team any worse than the 29 win team, given that some of the losses were manufactured through tanking? Do their fans "suffer" more? Memphis and Boston may have the worst records, but do they have the least talent? Would they still have the worst record had no team intentinally sat out their star and hire ass-clown scouts to coach?
If you ask me, justice was done because the Celtics and Grizz weren't rewarded for tanking. To make each game important, the NBA should have each team contribute an equal amount to a huge pool of money. Teams that finish .500 get back what they put in. For each game a team finishes above .500, they would get $100,000 more than they contributed. Teams below .500 would lose accordingly. Maybe this would make late season games meaningful for franchises. If necessary, maybe each game should be $200K or $300K instead. Tanking games is a major blot on the NBA and the league needs to do something about it.
