I dont remember Boston being popular at all for several years before they traded for Garnett and Allen.
Aren't those 2 examples contradictory to your point? In both cases based on your perception the Lakers benefited from the fix. If that was evidence then a much easier fix to the lottery would be a team with the 6th best odds an adding but effective superstar and boat loads of cap space would make a whole lot more sense than trying to build a Lebron rivalry with the city of Cleveland.
Shit, several years? I don't think they had been popular for over a decade. Nobody gave a shit about the Walker/Pierce teams.
This year's lottery was rigged to give Cleveland the number one pick so we could watch them shoot themselves in the foot again, and laugh our asses off. That Adam Silver, what a sense of humor!
Funny thing about those crappy Celtics teams they continued to be in the top group of merchandise movers. They also never lost money despite being so bad.
Those Walker Pierce teams sold a lot of merchandise. Walker had a line of Adidas shoes. Amazing for what a fat crappy player he was.
Blazers must win every year for it not to be fixed... wait the blazers weren't in the lotto this year? shit.. well they should have won anyways. Paul Allen has deep pockets.
I don't believe it's rigged. If it was, I don't think it would be that obvious. Secondly, if it was rigged it would be rigged more to the LA's and such. Thirdly, why would Cleveland of all markets be a priority?
There might need to be a rule in place that says you can't so many times in a five or ten year period. Or no more than two years in a row.
The system is fine. The lottery is reserved for crap teams and the Cavs are definitely that. Perhaps they'll pick a player with more impact this time around.
I don't like it at all. The luck factor is stupid. Go to the wheel so there is zero incentive to lose. Or just make all rookies free agents so only teams under the cap can sign them. If you have cap space and can't attract vets you can snag stud rookie prospects.
This could be interesting, but do we really want see rookies getting $100M deals? I like what someone suggested about using a 3-year record to determine draft order. I also liked the idea of a 4-day, 16 team post-season one-and-done tournament with the bottom 8 teams in each conference, with the winners of each bracket getting both the 8 seeds, and the overall winner getting the #1 pick.
