76ers fighting NBAs lottery changes

[MBunge]

I rather see GMs construct a team to suck for ONE year for a pick, then actively and aggressively trying to improve the roster by making trades and signing FA

I'd rather see GMs never construct a team to suck specifically for a pick.  I can accept teams constructing a team that sucks as a secondary effect of clearing out bad contracts or letting young players develop, but if you're going to tank for picks, I want the odds to make it so that you will have to be miserable for several years and wreck your fan base if you want to plan to suck for as long as you need to get a #1 pick.

You can adjust the rules so that tanking is a bad idea.  You can't adjust the rules so that GMs don't pursue bad ideas.

And yet Philadelphia is probably better positioned to win a title in the next 5 years than Boston is.  Philadelphia has the reigning rookie of the year, a top contender for rookie of the year this year in Noel, a top contender for rookie of the year next year in Embiid, a top contender for rookie of the year two years from now in Saric, some solid other young players like Wroten and Moultrie, and 30 million in cap space with the only "bad" contract being the easily movable Thad Young.  Philly will have another very high pick next year as well to add another potential rookie of the year candidate. 

Philly is much better positioned to win and win big than Boston is and it isn't close.

MWC was rookie of the year in one of the weakest rookie classes in NBA history.  Noel hasn't played a single minute and was seen as a project BEFORE he blew out his knee.  Embiid couldn't even make it through a college season without a serious injury and then suffered another injury between college and the draft, leading his agent to refuse to let teams see his medical records. And in Embiid's one season, he played just over 23 minutes a game and put up 11 pts, 8 boards and 2.6 blocks.  In addition, all the cap space in the world means nothing if your team and franchise suck so bad that no one wants to play for you.

Even in an optimistic scenario, Philly is going to be horrible for at least 2 more years, bad to mediocre for 1 to 2 more after that and then they're going to have to start worrying about how they're going to afford to keep all these high draft picks.

I suspect the kind of "fan" who doesn't care about how bad his team sucks will eventually cease to be a fan in any real sense of the world.

Mike

It may have been a weak rookie class, but MCW's numbers were quite good and compare favorably with most rookie of the year winners (at least guards). 

On that Sixer team, Thaddeus Young averaged 17.9 pts a game.  The only other ones who scored in double figures were James Anderson at 10.1 pts a game and Henry Sims at 11.8 pts a game.  No one except MCW and Young averaged more than 4 rebounds a game and only two other people than MCW averaged more than 2 assists.

By comparison, Boston last year had SEVEN players who averaged over 10 pts a game, SIX players who averaged over 4 rebounds a game and FIVE players who averaged over 2 assists per game.

Maybe MCW is going to be really good but I'm not sure a player has ever fit the concept of "stats inflated by playing on a terrible team" better than him.

Mike

[Moranis]

I rather see GMs construct a team to suck for ONE year for a pick, then actively and aggressively trying to improve the roster by making trades and signing FA

I'd rather see GMs never construct a team to suck specifically for a pick.  I can accept teams constructing a team that sucks as a secondary effect of clearing out bad contracts or letting young players develop, but if you're going to tank for picks, I want the odds to make it so that you will have to be miserable for several years and wreck your fan base if you want to plan to suck for as long as you need to get a #1 pick.

You can adjust the rules so that tanking is a bad idea.  You can't adjust the rules so that GMs don't pursue bad ideas.

And yet Philadelphia is probably better positioned to win a title in the next 5 years than Boston is.  Philadelphia has the reigning rookie of the year, a top contender for rookie of the year this year in Noel, a top contender for rookie of the year next year in Embiid, a top contender for rookie of the year two years from now in Saric, some solid other young players like Wroten and Moultrie, and 30 million in cap space with the only "bad" contract being the easily movable Thad Young.  Philly will have another very high pick next year as well to add another potential rookie of the year candidate. 

Philly is much better positioned to win and win big than Boston is and it isn't close.

MWC was rookie of the year in one of the weakest rookie classes in NBA history.  Noel hasn't played a single minute and was seen as a project BEFORE he blew out his knee.  Embiid couldn't even make it through a college season without a serious injury and then suffered another injury between college and the draft, leading his agent to refuse to let teams see his medical records. And in Embiid's one season, he played just over 23 minutes a game and put up 11 pts, 8 boards and 2.6 blocks.  In addition, all the cap space in the world means nothing if your team and franchise suck so bad that no one wants to play for you.

Even in an optimistic scenario, Philly is going to be horrible for at least 2 more years, bad to mediocre for 1 to 2 more after that and then they're going to have to start worrying about how they're going to afford to keep all these high draft picks.

I suspect the kind of "fan" who doesn't care about how bad his team sucks will eventually cease to be a fan in any real sense of the world.

Mike

It may have been a weak rookie class, but MCW's numbers were quite good and compare favorably with most rookie of the year winners (at least guards). 

On that Sixer team, Thaddeus Young averaged 17.9 pts a game.  The only other ones who scored in double figures were James Anderson at 10.1 pts a game and Henry Sims at 11.8 pts a game.  No one except MCW and Young averaged more than 4 rebounds a game and only two other people than MCW averaged more than 2 assists.

By comparison, Boston last year had SEVEN players who averaged over 10 pts a game, SIX players who averaged over 4 rebounds a game and FIVE players who averaged over 2 assists per game.

Maybe MCW is going to be really good but I'm not sure a player has ever fit the concept of "stats inflated by playing on a terrible team" better than him.

Mike

to be fair Philly Turner, Hawes, and Allen all played over 50 games for Philly last year (which is way more than Rondo, Crawford, and Bayless and in the range of Bradley's 60).  All three had your 4 rebounds a game and Turner and Hawes were both double digit scorers and had over 3 assists a game.  You also missed Tony Wroten who averaged 13 points, 3 assists, and 3.2 rebounds.  And for the record Sims was 7 boards a game (dedmon was also at 4.5 but he played just 11 games).

I mean if you are going to spout off numbers, you probably should make sure you are accurate (I mean you count Crawford who was traded but don't count Turner, Hawes, and Allen who were traded and played a lot more games for Philly than Crawford did for Boston)

[D.o.s.]

the best solution I've heard so far is putting the teams not in the playoffs in a tourney and have those teams battle for draft seeding.

I don't think this is a good idea. Actually, it's a really bad idea.

First of all the worst teams are at a disadvantage. Take the NBA this year. Phoenix was the best non-playoff team with 48 wins and they would have a huge advantage in such a "tourney". So the mediocre teams get to improve while the truly bad teams stay truly bad without good assets to improve themselves. That doesn't sound too good.

Secondly, it would encourage certain teams to tank out of the 7th and 8th playoff spot so they could enter this tourney as the favorites. If I'm Danny saddled with a marginal team fighting for the last playoff spot and I have a choice of getting swept by the #1 seed or entering the new-Lebron James sweepstakes as the odds-on favorite, I'm not trying to get that playoff spot. I'm tanking to get into this losers tourney. Tanking out of the playoffs is worse, IMO, than tanking for a top pick. Since the games will likely be played at home, the team will probably make as much revenue to boot than playing on the road in the playoffs.

Finally, you're asking the players on the court to decide the direct seeding. Think about that for a minute and the ramifications of that. I'm a decent SF in a draft where the #1 player is a C and the #2 is a SF and my team gets to the semifinal game. I'm bricking every shot to lose the game so my team doesn't draft my replacement.

In short, it doesn't discourage tanking - it just encourages tanking of a different sort - and opens up a host other problems.

But its more basketball, which is (usually) preferable to less basketball. You're not wrong, though.

[Ogaju]

this is all about control. The NBA wants to retain more control so they can 'fix' the lottery and give the #1 to whoever they want. So the more teams with a chance, the easier it is for the league to control the draft lottery.

Does that mean that the lottery hasn't been fixed since they last changed it?

the lottery is probably always fixed. If not, just do the draw in public.

[RyNye]

the lottery is probably always fixed. If not, just do the draw in public.

The draw is broadcast publicly. Anyone can watch it happen. Further, the draw is attended in person not only by various team and league representatives, but by independent lawyers.

The lottery isn't fixed. This has been proven time and time again.

Why is it that every time this comes up in conversation the conspiracy theorists disappear as soon as someone brings up the draw IS public and has been for several years? Oh, right, because conspiracy theorists are either outright liars or just don't know what they are talking about.

[Donoghus]

this is all about control. The NBA wants to retain more control so they can 'fix' the lottery and give the #1 to whoever they want. So the more teams with a chance, the easier it is for the league to control the draft lottery.

Does that mean that the lottery hasn't been fixed since they last changed it?

the lottery is probably always fixed. If not, just do the draw in public.

The argument has been beaten to death on the boards here over the years.  The drawing is done in a room with plenty of people (reps & independent auditors). It's just boring as heck to put on television. 

It would have to be one of the greatest conspiracies (and coverups) in the world if it actually was fixed. 

[MBunge]

I rather see GMs construct a team to suck for ONE year for a pick, then actively and aggressively trying to improve the roster by making trades and signing FA

I'd rather see GMs never construct a team to suck specifically for a pick.  I can accept teams constructing a team that sucks as a secondary effect of clearing out bad contracts or letting young players develop, but if you're going to tank for picks, I want the odds to make it so that you will have to be miserable for several years and wreck your fan base if you want to plan to suck for as long as you need to get a #1 pick.

You can adjust the rules so that tanking is a bad idea.  You can't adjust the rules so that GMs don't pursue bad ideas.

And yet Philadelphia is probably better positioned to win a title in the next 5 years than Boston is.  Philadelphia has the reigning rookie of the year, a top contender for rookie of the year this year in Noel, a top contender for rookie of the year next year in Embiid, a top contender for rookie of the year two years from now in Saric, some solid other young players like Wroten and Moultrie, and 30 million in cap space with the only "bad" contract being the easily movable Thad Young.  Philly will have another very high pick next year as well to add another potential rookie of the year candidate. 

Philly is much better positioned to win and win big than Boston is and it isn't close.

MWC was rookie of the year in one of the weakest rookie classes in NBA history.  Noel hasn't played a single minute and was seen as a project BEFORE he blew out his knee.  Embiid couldn't even make it through a college season without a serious injury and then suffered another injury between college and the draft, leading his agent to refuse to let teams see his medical records. And in Embiid's one season, he played just over 23 minutes a game and put up 11 pts, 8 boards and 2.6 blocks.  In addition, all the cap space in the world means nothing if your team and franchise suck so bad that no one wants to play for you.

Even in an optimistic scenario, Philly is going to be horrible for at least 2 more years, bad to mediocre for 1 to 2 more after that and then they're going to have to start worrying about how they're going to afford to keep all these high draft picks.

I suspect the kind of "fan" who doesn't care about how bad his team sucks will eventually cease to be a fan in any real sense of the world.

Mike

It may have been a weak rookie class, but MCW's numbers were quite good and compare favorably with most rookie of the year winners (at least guards). 

On that Sixer team, Thaddeus Young averaged 17.9 pts a game.  The only other ones who scored in double figures were James Anderson at 10.1 pts a game and Henry Sims at 11.8 pts a game.  No one except MCW and Young averaged more than 4 rebounds a game and only two other people than MCW averaged more than 2 assists.

By comparison, Boston last year had SEVEN players who averaged over 10 pts a game, SIX players who averaged over 4 rebounds a game and FIVE players who averaged over 2 assists per game.

Maybe MCW is going to be really good but I'm not sure a player has ever fit the concept of "stats inflated by playing on a terrible team" better than him.

Mike

to be fair Philly Turner, Hawes, and Allen all played over 50 games for Philly last year (which is way more than Rondo, Crawford, and Bayless and in the range of Bradley's 60).  All three had your 4 rebounds a game and Turner and Hawes were both double digit scorers and had over 3 assists a game.  You also missed Tony Wroten who averaged 13 points, 3 assists, and 3.2 rebounds.  And for the record Sims was 7 boards a game (dedmon was also at 4.5 but he played just 11 games).

I mean if you are going to spout off numbers, you probably should make sure you are accurate (I mean you count Crawford who was traded but don't count Turner, Hawes, and Allen who were traded and played a lot more games for Philly than Crawford did for Boston)

Well, let's try it another way.  Evan Turner averaged more points for Philly, shot better from the field and had almost as many rebounds per game.  He's also only 3 years older than MCW.  How excited should Boston be getting Turner, given he put up those numbers in Philly and is only beginning to enter his prime?

Or how about Jeff Green at the same age as MCW putting up 16.5 pts per game on a better shooting percentage, along with slightly more rebounds and a lot fewer assists?

ALL HAIL A BETTER PASSING JEFF GREEN 2.0!

Mike

[D.o.s.]

the lottery is probably always fixed. If not, just do the draw in public.

The draw is broadcast publicly. Anyone can watch it happen. Further, the draw is attended in person not only by various team and league representatives, but by independent lawyers.

The lottery isn't fixed. This has been proven time and time again.

Why is it that every time this comes up in conversation the conspiracy theorists disappear as soon as someone brings up the draw IS public and has been for several years? Oh, right, because conspiracy theorists are either outright liars or just don't know what they are talking about.

Nailed it.

[Vermont Green]

The easiest fix seems to be the ideas that center around only getting one chance at a top 3 pick.  Let the worst team have high odds of getting a top 3 pick but if you are in the bottom 3 two years in a row, tough luck, you get number 4 at best.  In bottom 3 three years in a row, no better than 5th pick, and so on.  And this continues until you are out of the bottom 3.  That way teams would know that they need to play hard to get out of the bottom 3 or risk getting worse and worse picks.

If you just get lucky like Cle, that is different.  They didn't tank this year, they tried to make the playoffs.  No need to punish them just for being lucky.

Some teams still might tank for a year and there is nothing you can do about that.  That is just something you would have to live with and I would be OK with that.  But no team would ever be able to pull a multi-year tank like Philly has been doing.

You could expand this to say that if you are in the bottom 3 for more than say 5 years, the owner has to sell the team or the GM and coach are automatically fired.  I know this is to harsh to be realistic but that would be the rules for a CEO or someone like that.

[hpantazo]

I rather see GMs construct a team to suck for ONE year for a pick, then actively and aggressively trying to improve the roster by making trades and signing FA

I'd rather see GMs never construct a team to suck specifically for a pick.  I can accept teams constructing a team that sucks as a secondary effect of clearing out bad contracts or letting young players develop, but if you're going to tank for picks, I want the odds to make it so that you will have to be miserable for several years and wreck your fan base if you want to plan to suck for as long as you need to get a #1 pick.

You can adjust the rules so that tanking is a bad idea.  You can't adjust the rules so that GMs don't pursue bad ideas.

And yet Philadelphia is probably better positioned to win a title in the next 5 years than Boston is.  Philadelphia has the reigning rookie of the year, a top contender for rookie of the year this year in Noel, a top contender for rookie of the year next year in Embiid, a top contender for rookie of the year two years from now in Saric, some solid other young players like Wroten and Moultrie, and 30 million in cap space with the only "bad" contract being the easily movable Thad Young.  Philly will have another very high pick next year as well to add another potential rookie of the year candidate. 

Philly is much better positioned to win and win big than Boston is and it isn't close.

MWC was rookie of the year in one of the weakest rookie classes in NBA history.  Noel hasn't played a single minute and was seen as a project BEFORE he blew out his knee.  Embiid couldn't even make it through a college season without a serious injury and then suffered another injury between college and the draft, leading his agent to refuse to let teams see his medical records. And in Embiid's one season, he played just over 23 minutes a game and put up 11 pts, 8 boards and 2.6 blocks.  In addition, all the cap space in the world means nothing if your team and franchise suck so bad that no one wants to play for you.

Even in an optimistic scenario, Philly is going to be horrible for at least 2 more years, bad to mediocre for 1 to 2 more after that and then they're going to have to start worrying about how they're going to afford to keep all these high draft picks.

I suspect the kind of "fan" who doesn't care about how bad his team sucks will eventually cease to be a fan in any real sense of the world.

Mike

It may have been a weak rookie class, but MCW's numbers were quite good and compare favorably with most rookie of the year winners (at least guards). 

On that Sixer team, Thaddeus Young averaged 17.9 pts a game.  The only other ones who scored in double figures were James Anderson at 10.1 pts a game and Henry Sims at 11.8 pts a game.  No one except MCW and Young averaged more than 4 rebounds a game and only two other people than MCW averaged more than 2 assists.

By comparison, Boston last year had SEVEN players who averaged over 10 pts a game, SIX players who averaged over 4 rebounds a game and FIVE players who averaged over 2 assists per game.

Maybe MCW is going to be really good but I'm not sure a player has ever fit the concept of "stats inflated by playing on a terrible team" better than him.

Mike

to be fair Philly Turner, Hawes, and Allen all played over 50 games for Philly last year (which is way more than Rondo, Crawford, and Bayless and in the range of Bradley's 60).  All three had your 4 rebounds a game and Turner and Hawes were both double digit scorers and had over 3 assists a game.  You also missed Tony Wroten who averaged 13 points, 3 assists, and 3.2 rebounds.  And for the record Sims was 7 boards a game (dedmon was also at 4.5 but he played just 11 games).

I mean if you are going to spout off numbers, you probably should make sure you are accurate (I mean you count Crawford who was traded but don't count Turner, Hawes, and Allen who were traded and played a lot more games for Philly than Crawford did for Boston)

To be fair, Phili tried to trade MCW after his rookie of the year season, and they ditched a guy who put up great stats for them in Turner, who we them signed for very low cost, and was also a highly touted #2 pick for them not long ago. Let's see how their players are doing in a couple of seasons before declaring them all-stars.

[footey]

Philly had the right to come up with a several year strategy of stockpiling high picks, including picking injured studs (Embiid, Noel) and overseas contract dudes (Saric).  It has worked out for them quite well.

But the NBA has the right to change the draft rules whenever it wants, so long as the requisite number of teams approve of the change.  That is the risk Philly takes by trying to tank an additional year.

The problem with the NBA is that the rules make it incredibly difficult to make trades, and to reward coaching over player talent.  As a result, so much is tied into who a team can draft.  Other professional leagues do not have this problem.  The NFL does not have a tanking issue.  Who complained when the Colts went 1-15 (or was it 2-14) to win the Andrew Luck sweepstakes?  No one.   Less attention needs to be made on the draft order, and more attention needs to be focused on making the NBA success more dependent on coaching schemes and team work, and less on individual talent.

[mgent]

The best solution is to create a panel of experts who will determine the draft order based on which teams deserve high picks the most and which teams should be punished with late picks.

And it should be comprised of Stephen A. Smith, Bill Simmons, Skip Bayless, and Michael Wilbon.

I was thinking the expert should be Tommy Heinsohn and nobody else.

[csfansince60s]

How about this: when a team like the sixers trades away their best players for essentially nothing, and actively loses.....take away their pick. I think there may be enough evidence that the sixers are deliberately losing, even with the players they have.

They actually played reasonably well in the beginning of the season.

I think that David Falk would agree with you too. Turner, one of his clients, got dumped by Philly in pursuit of their scorched earth policy. Hope Hinkie's soil is so barren with ash that none of his "seeds" take root. Would serve him right.


I like the way Falk bangs around Philly and in a roundabout way Hinkie's scorched earth policy:

Evan Turner's agent, David Falk, believes the Philadelphia 76ers didn't make an expecially strong trade in dealing his client to the Indiana Pacers.

?I don?t think it?s about expectations,? Falk said. ?I think he and Jrue Holiday were terrific together. And we had asked Philadelphia his entire fourth year, repeatedly, we urged him to please not trade [Turner]. He was really having fun. He was very productive playing for Brett Brown. and it?s not like they got a lot for the trade [to Indiana].

?They got a second-round pick for he and Lavoy Allen, and had to pay off many millions of dollars to Danny Granger to make the deal. I don?t think it was exactly a blockbuster deal for Philly. The situation could have been better.?



http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/234442/Falk-Trading-Turner-Wasnt-Blockbuster-For-76ers

I truly hope that shameless GM of Philly fails miserably in his strategy
.
Reply
 Quote
 Notify
 

[GreenWarrior]

i'm sick of these reactionary solutions to the draft because of the cavs winning it every yr. it happened, it sucks. but these solutions suck even worse.

the best solution I've heard so far is putting the teams not in the playoffs in a tourney and have those teams battle for draft seeding.

Seriously. It would beat the hell out of watching the draft lottery every year, and it would help punish teams like the 76ers who have little interest in fielding a competitive squad.

Scheduling would be the biggest concern there, though.

I've thought about this and I think they could schedule it during the playoffs. when they get to the 2nd rnd. and on, since in the 2nd rnd. there usually isn't a playoff game on every night.

or they could wait until the conference finals when the NBA likes to take 7 days between games and there's nothing else on.

I seriously don't see how this isn't a "win" all around for the NBA, they could have games on for a month straight every night.

[GreenWarrior]

I don't think this is a good idea. Actually, it's a really bad idea.

I didn't say it was the greatest solution. I said it was the best so far.

First of all the worst teams are at a disadvantage. Take the NBA this year. Phoenix was the best non-playoff team with 48 wins and they would have a huge advantage in such a "tourney". So the mediocre teams get to improve while the truly bad teams stay truly bad without good assets to improve themselves. That doesn't sound too good.

yes, I've acknowledged this flaw. you're essentially asking a team to do something they couldn't do all yr. and that is to win.

Secondly, it would encourage certain teams to tank out of the 7th and 8th playoff spot so they could enter this tourney as the favorites. If I'm Danny saddled with a marginal team fighting for the last playoff spot and I have a choice of getting swept by the #1 seed or entering the new-Lebron James sweepstakes as the odds-on favorite, I'm not trying to get that playoff spot. I'm tanking to get into this losers tourney. Tanking out of the playoffs is worse, IMO, than tanking for a top pick. Since the games will likely be played at home, the team will probably make as much revenue to boot than playing on the road in the playoffs.

Finally, you're asking the players on the court to decide the direct seeding. Think about that for a minute and the ramifications of that. I'm a decent SF in a draft where the #1 player is a C and the #2 is a SF and my team gets to the semifinal game. I'm bricking every shot to lose the game so my team doesn't draft my replacement.

In short, it doesn't discourage tanking - it just encourages tanking of a different sort - and opens up a host other problems.

in the 1st paragraph you say teams would "tank" to just miss the playoffs. then in the very next paragraph you say "players would brick shots" so they don't get replaced. going by that logic I love the idea even more.