WOW! The West just got so much more difficult. Add Durant or Oden to Portland, and that team can make huge strides next season. Seattle Supersonics get the 2nd pick, which means they add the one that Portland passes up on. If Durant and Oden are the real deal, this means the Warriors get much more competition to face in the West next season. Also for a moment I thought perhaps the Suns would get the 3rd pick from Atlanta, which would make the West even more difficult (not necessarly for the Warriors, though they are divisional rivals). It must suck to be a Grizzlies or Celtics fan right now. This gives the Warriors a challenge to try to improve this offseason, and not make any bad moves while allowing Portland or Seattle to catch them.
It feels weird without seeing Warriors name in the lottory list. Talk about tanking paying off... Both Boston and Memphis slipped off to 4th and 5th place. At the same time, Oden, Aldbridge and Randolph are one heck of young front court. I guess Durant will sub Lewis, when he opts out from the contract. The situation keeps getting worse for Suns. Not only they get bounced off by Spurs for two suspensions, they now don't even have Atlanta pick...
Yeah, it is tougher, now. I hope we can all remember, though, that the Warriors are pretty damn good. I think we'll be okay for the time being.
Also, remember that top picks don't always mean top talent -- Boozer was picked in the second round, so was Monta Ellis -- the Warriors could very well get a player at #18 who is just as ready to contribute as anything up at the top
<div class="quote_poster">Gohn Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Ugh. The Warriors are doomed.</div> You're right, the Warriors are doomed!!! Nah, who am I kidding that trick doesn't work anymore. Unless... only the Utah Jazz are immune to that... I think the Warriors will be fine as long as they don't pick a useless player with questionable upside. Obviously, we want the (true) BAP and something that fills a need. I like a lot of the players in this draft (it seems pretty deep), but I'm worried about free throw shooting % and lack of a top flight defender, rebounder, and inside scorer. If we can't have that, I'd want a tall athletic shooter/playmaker that can make some power moves and is an ace at something like midrange shooting or perimeter D.
I was fairly certain the Clippers would get one of the top two spots, even though they had almost no chance. It would have been a fitting end to the Warriors' lottery woes if the team that the Warriors beat out on the last day to finally escape the lottery ended up getting the franchise-changing player.
AS i have always thought this farce known as the lottery is fixed... this threw a wrench in it.. If it were truly fixed i think the NBA would love to see Boston get that number one pick and bring back the storied times of old. But, that said, it was really interesting to me that when there was all the talk of tanking..... and other teams complaining of it.... a mild controversy towards the end of the year.... that the three teams with the worst records.... who were the biggest tankers..... all got bumped down..... sort of Stern saying that should teach teams to tank. I think Big Brother stern controls things a little more than we think.....
ESPN just did a poll on the lottery, and 69% of the votes say it should be draft order by record (no lottery). This just shows those voters don't get the fact that the reason for the weighted lottery is to discourage tanking -- if it were draft order by record, there would be a lot more tanking because, instead of being guaranteed mere pingpong balls (which didn't help Boston), you'd be guaranteed a sure pick! That would be horrible, yet nearly 70% of 45,000 votes chose that option, lol!? I just figured it out: it should be an equal chance lottery (i.e. drawing names out of a hat) but only for non-playoff teams. If you make the playoffs -- good for you! -- you're out of the top 14 picks, and it will be by record as usual. If you miss the playoffs, you have an equal chance at one of the top 14 picks. That way, you don't have teams trying to tank to get more pingpong balls, but at the same time you don't give a very good playoff team the chance to land #1. While there is still dispariy between the non-playoff teams, it's not much, and everyone gets a fair chance to get a good pick. This will also send a message to horrible teams that it's not okay to be terrible and just be able to rely on future drafts to turn the franchise around. Sure, you may get a high pick, but it's not guaranteed, and it's going to take trades, contract negotiations, good use of the NBDL and training camps, etc to be competitive. I mean, the Warriors were dilligent with their "farm system" and training camps, and it landed them Barnes and Azibuike. I think an equal lottery for non-PO teams makes terrific sense.
I agree with your solutin AlleyOop. The lottery teams should have an equal chance at the #1 pick. There's no guarantees in the draft anyways, so why not make it an even playing field in determining the order?
The lottery is a good anti-tanking method for teams, which is why the NBA has it in the first place. But the increased competition in the West is great for the league. Golden State is just going to have to rise to the occassion!
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I agree with your solutin AlleyOop. The lottery teams should have an equal chance at the #1 pick. There's no guarantees in the draft anyways, so why not make it an even playing field in determining the order?</div> I strongly disagree with both a non-lottery system like the NFL and one that gives all non-lottery teams an equal shot. Let's get the easy one out of the way first: I have the same problem with an NFL-type draft that everyone else has, it promotes tanking. As for a non-weighted lottery system (i.e. picking names out of a hat), it is just as much, if not more problematic. Think about it, it seems wrong that Memphis is picking #4 and Boston #5, right? Well, what if they didn't tank, still ended up with the worst two records, and ended up picking #13 and #14? There's just as likely to be picking there as they would #1 and #2. Meanwhile a team like the Clippers who just missed out on the playoffs could become an instant force in the league. If the NBA did want to make a major change to prevent tanking, then they'd be better off doing something like this: Separate the non-playoff teams into two groups: the teams with the five worst records in one group and the rest of the lottery teams in another group. Then have a non-weighted lottery for the teams in the bottom 5 and a straight ranking for each team in the 6-14 group. That way each of the worst teams have a 20% chance of getting the top pick, but can't fall lower than #5. That way, the only incentive to tank would be the teams trying to get/stay in the top 5. Teams that don't have a shot at the top #5 wouldn't feel pressured to tank to move up in the rankings, because, generally, the guys projected to go in the #6-#8 range aren't worth tanking for.
<div class="quote_poster">wtwalker77 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I was fairly certain the Clippers would get one of the top two spots, even though they had almost no chance. It would have been a fitting end to the Warriors' lottery woes if the team that the Warriors beat out on the last day to finally escape the lottery ended up getting the franchise-changing player.</div> That would have been disastrous for sure. I was pro-tanker, only because I thought anything in the top 8 would have been great for us to fill a need and we would probably get wiped out in the first round of the PO's anyway. Now, if we faced the Jazz in the first round, it'd be a different story possibly. I say "maybe"... since we didn't have stamina going into the 2nd round on the account of bench guys not giving starters any rest for the first round against Dallas. We probably got tired out in addition to being outmuscled and out-executed by Boozer and company. Oh and I figure top 8 consensus draft picks because somebody has to slip and we get either Jeff Green, Joakim Noah, Al Horford or Yi or some extra scoring playmaker. Even Spencer Hawes could be a decent pick if he gets physically stronger and isn't a stiff on defense at the nba level. He's got the offense and passing down. But, I think a first round win and a second round loss is a good test case for what we need and how we should be able to play to beat guys like the Jazz or the Rockets. We need size and we can't just resort to small ball all the time thinking it's going to bail us out when we're tired to run and we don't have enough bench depth to stretch those fast paced minutes throughout the entire game.
<div class="quote_poster">wtwalker77 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I strongly disagree with both a non-lottery system like the NFL and one that gives all non-lottery teams an equal shot. Let's get the easy one out of the way first: I have the same problem with an NFL-type draft that everyone else has, it promotes tanking. As for a non-weighted lottery system (i.e. picking names out of a hat), it is just as much, if not more problematic. Think about it, it seems wrong that Memphis is picking #4 and Boston #5, right? Well, what if they didn't tank, still ended up with the worst two records, and ended up picking #13 and #14? There's just as likely to be picking there as they would #1 and #2. Meanwhile a team like the Clippers who just missed out on the playoffs could become an instant force in the league. If the NBA did want to make a major change to prevent tanking, then they'd be better off doing something like this: Separate the non-playoff teams into two groups: the teams with the five worst records in one group and the rest of the lottery teams in another group. Then have a non-weighted lottery for the teams in the bottom 5 and a straight ranking for each team in the 6-14 group. That way each of the worst teams have a 20% chance of getting the top pick, but can't fall lower than #5. That way, the only incentive to tank would be the teams trying to get/stay in the top 5. Teams that don't have a shot at the top #5 wouldn't feel pressured to tank to move up in the rankings, because, generally, the guys projected to go in the #6-#8 range aren't worth tanking for.</div> This got me thinking, if we didn't have Baron Davis on the team we'd probably be screwed in terms of both making the playoffs and getting out alive in the first round even if by some chance we did make it. Is there any way to give teams that have sucked for years on end a chance to land an almost sure thing franchise player that's ready to play now? I look at what the Cavs had done with Lebron James and suddenly they look like they could win a championship some day, especially if they still had Boozer and got a younger Big Z Illgauskus. The Warriors were probably the one team that couldn't count on the draft to save them with the way the GM's picked things when they got a top 3. It was either a weak draft with no franchise players or they picked the wrong pony.
<div class="quote_poster">Kwan1031 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It feels weird without seeing Warriors name in the lottory list. Talk about tanking paying off... Both Boston and Memphis slipped off to 4th and 5th place. At the same time, Oden, Aldbridge and Randolph are one heck of young front court. I guess Durant will sub Lewis, when he opts out from the contract. The situation keeps getting worse for Suns. Not only they get bounced off by Spurs for two suspensions, they now don't even have Atlanta pick...</div> If you were Boston or Memphis, what would you do, Kwan? I'm just curious. And you can't say "sell the team". If I'm Boston, I'd try to find a playmaker that can shoot and play good on-ball defense. But if I'm not impressed with the BAP for that, might as well grab a big or a potential all-star at any position. I wouldn't mind playmaking coming from the 3 or 4 position, either. Maybe Jeff Green/Al Jefferson at the PF/C positions could work in a run n' gun lineup. The problem is the point guard needs to run the break well or he'll be the Boston Celtic version of Derek Fisher. If Jefferson stays at the 4, a quick center might be interesting. For Memphis, heck I'd take anything franchise worthy at any position. Probably Horford or Yi the most, though. Joakim Noah might be okay if we're not expecting this guy to be a superstar. I like Mike Miller. Rudy G has potential. I like Terrence Kinsey. Pau is great. I say either a center or point guard most definitely, but there are always few of those in every draft... the quickest or biggest positions on the floor at one time are so hard to find...
<div class="quote_poster">wtwalker77 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I strongly disagree with both a non-lottery system like the NFL and one that gives all non-lottery teams an equal shot. Let's get the easy one out of the way first: I have the same problem with an NFL-type draft that everyone else has, it promotes tanking. As for a non-weighted lottery system (i.e. picking names out of a hat), it is just as much, if not more problematic. Think about it, it seems wrong that Memphis is picking #4 and Boston #5, right? Well, what if they didn't tank, still ended up with the worst two records, and ended up picking #13 and #14? There's just as likely to be picking there as they would #1 and #2. Meanwhile a team like the Clippers who just missed out on the playoffs could become an instant force in the league. If the NBA did want to make a major change to prevent tanking, then they'd be better off doing something like this: Separate the non-playoff teams into two groups: the teams with the five worst records in one group and the rest of the lottery teams in another group. Then have a non-weighted lottery for the teams in the bottom 5 and a straight ranking for each team in the 6-14 group. That way each of the worst teams have a 20% chance of getting the top pick, but can't fall lower than #5. That way, the only incentive to tank would be the teams trying to get/stay in the top 5. Teams that don't have a shot at the top #5 wouldn't feel pressured to tank to move up in the rankings, because, generally, the guys projected to go in the #6-#8 range aren't worth tanking for.</div> I'd actually like to see all the teams have an equal opportunity at the #1 pick in the draft. The original concept of the draft was to allow for the weaker teams to draft immediate help. Unfortunately, teams have gone away from this notion and they draft for "upside" and "potential" instead of drafting for immediate need and help. This compounds the problem two fold. 1) The bad teams stay bad until one of their "prospects" pans out. 2) These young kids don't get the proper development to reach their potential Of course every draft is different and sometimes there are can't miss prospects (LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, Yao Ming), but those are rare players. In my opinion it would make the league more competitive if teams drafted for need instead of potential. A player like Kwame Brown would have been better served if he was selected by a team who didn't really need to play him right away and spend a couple of years developing him. If the Clippers got the #1 pick this year, it's good for the league. It immediately puts the Clippers in a position to get back in the playoffs and make a run at it. Oden wouldn't have the pressure to step in and carry this franchise, because they have Brand and Kaman already. Instead Oden, could develop at his own rate and learn Dunleavy's system.
Well, you could hold the draft only once every three years. You average a team's record over the 3 years, and order them accordingly. A team with the lowest total win % over three yeasr would get #1, etc. But that won't happen. Weighting it at all -- be it top 14, or top 5 -- will encourage tanking. There's no way around it. But I guess there's no perfect solution. How do you get teams to not tank? How do you encourage teams to not intentionally lose? Well, by the inverse, you must encourage them to intentionally win. Perhaps Stern can institute some other incentive for winning, besides a playoff birth. How about individual monetary bonuses to each player. That's it. Restructure the payroll situation. Contracts are now based on performance -- AND NOT STATS! You don't get bonuses for putting up good stats (that will just encourage ball-hogging), but instead team wins. You get a portion of your salary for being on the team... Then, for each WIN the team earns, you get a small additional chunk. That's it. These players now adays are ALL ABOUT THE MONEY -- THE BLING! Make it so they have to try to EARN the darn money! Even if you're on a crappy team, you can go out and try to get the win to make some dough. I guess the only problem is players will go where they think they can win (and thus get the money). But it will encourage the bottom feeders to become winners, so FAs will want to come there. Bottom line, at the end of the year, two horrible teams will still be battling it out tooth and nail to scratch out that final win. It will increase competition and give the fans something to root for. Otherwise, who wants to see Boston vs. Memphis in game 82? Perhaps the only way to avoid tanking is to encourage the players to actually want to win. Imagine that...
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'd actually like to see all the teams have an equal opportunity at the #1 pick in the draft. The original concept of the draft was to allow for the weaker teams to draft immediate help. Unfortunately, teams have gone away from this notion and they draft for "upside" and "potential" instead of drafting for immediate need and help. This compounds the problem two fold. 1) The bad teams stay bad until one of their "prospects" pans out. 2) These young kids don't get the proper development to reach their potential Of course every draft is different and sometimes there are can't miss prospects (LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, Yao Ming), but those are rare players. In my opinion it would make the league more competitive if teams drafted for need instead of potential. A player like Kwame Brown would have been better served if he was selected by a team who didn't really need to play him right away and spend a couple of years developing him. If the Clippers got the #1 pick this year, it's good for the league. It immediately puts the Clippers in a position to get back in the playoffs and make a run at it. Oden wouldn't have the pressure to step in and carry this franchise, because they have Brand and Kaman already. Instead Oden, could develop at his own rate and learn Dunleavy's system.</div> Good points, Shape. Further, remember that the lotter isn't always so cut and dry. Of course everyone WANTS the top pick, but that doesn't always turn out to be the top player. If you get one of the top 14 picks, you're going to have a chance to draft an impact player. Bottom line. An equal shot also makes the league more unpredictable, and exciting. No longer will Boston be able to camp and just stake their hopes on the draft. It will help them, but it won't be "the answer." Also, keep in mind that teams won't end up getting the top superstar every year. If you really truly get a superstar, then theoretically that player should at least get you into the 8th seed of the playoffs (especially in the west) and therefore you won't have a shot at the top pick the following off-season. If you don't make the playoffs, then your team is obviously STILL not good enough to compete in the conference, and therefore you get another chance at a good pick. I think equal shot for the non-playoff teams makes this league a lot more interesting and exciting.
I completely disagree with you Shape and agree with alley oop. I think giving all the lotto teams the same chance would make the NBA less competitive. Terrible teams would have an extremely low chance of getting a top 3, franchise changing pick, therefore oppressing them and basically giving them no escape from their situation. They have to just keep on going to the lotto until they luck out on their 1-14 chance and get a legit player. Teams who barely missed the POs get a top 3 pick and they are all of a sudden favorites for the championship. It could cause a more uneven distribution of talent throughout the league, keeping bad teams horrible for extended periods of time while decent teams are acquiring top notch talent. I was thinking about something similar to Alley Oop's proposal. Make the worst 5 teams in the league have a lotto where they all have an even chance of getting the top pick. That way the worst 5 teams are assured the top 5 picks Alley Oops idea of a separate lotto for the remaining lotto teams is a good idea as well IMO. That way the tanking is minimal and limited to the 5/6 worst teams and the worst 5 teams get the top 5 picks.
<div class="quote_poster">Run BJM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I completely disagree with you Shape and agree with alley oop. I think giving all the lotto teams the same chance would make the NBA less competitive. Terrible teams would have an extremely low chance of getting a top 3, franchise changing pick, therefore oppressing them and basically giving them no escape from their situation. They have to just keep on going to the lotto until they luck out on their 1-14 chance and get a legit player. Teams who barely missed the POs get a top 3 pick and they are all of a sudden favorites for the championship. It could cause a more uneven distribution of talent throughout the league, keeping bad teams horrible for extended periods of time while decent teams are acquiring top notch talent. I was thinking about something similar to Alley Oop's proposal. Make the worst 5 teams in the league have a lotto where they all have an even chance of getting the top pick. That way the worst 5 teams are assured the top 5 picks Alley Oops idea of a separate lotto for the remaining lotto teams is a good idea as well IMO. That way the tanking is minimal and limited to the 5/6 worst teams and the worst 5 teams get the top 5 picks.</div> The problem is assuming the bad teams are going top always pick the best players. How many years did the Warriors go through the lottery? How about the Hawks? How many times did either of them pick the right player? Through poor cap management, taking high risks, and drafting redundant players, these teams continue to have losing seasons. They are constantly trying to find a new franchise player instead of piecing a team together. Drafting on potential instead of need, sets these franchises back when they guess wrong. There's a laundry list of teams who have been in the lottery over and over, but don't seem to get anywhere except back in the lottery. The current system is flawed. Seperating the lottery teams in two groups doesn't stop teams from tanking. Those teams who are going to miss the playoffs will try to tank just get into that bottom 5. I don't see how this solves the problem, because you're still rewarding teams for tanking. How does a team who barely made the playoffs and then gets a top 3 pick, all of sudden become a championship contender? There's very few players entering the draft (especially underclassmen) who could have that type of impact. Look at the remaining teams in the playoffs now. A lot of key players were drafted late. Carlos Boozer 2nd rounder Mehmet Okur 2nd rounder Tony Parker 2nd rounder Manu Ginobili 2nd rounder Anderson Varejao 2nd rounder There's a lot of productive players drafted in the late 1st round or in the 2nd round. An All-American like Carlos Boozer shouldn't end up in the 2nd round of any draft. All-ACC player of the year Josh Howard shouldn't fall to the bottom of Round 1 in a draft. These type of collegiate standouts should be going to the bottom teams, because they can make an immediate impact in the win/loss column. I'd rather see a player who's raw, but has a lot of talent end up with a veteran team who's already winning. It allows them to develop into an impact player instead of putting unrealistic expectations on them and watching their confidence disappear. There's just too, many players who have gone to the wrong situation and they end being a disappointment, plus they handicap a franchise for 4 to 5 years.
