2013-14 NBA Offseason/Draft Thread

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I'm actually wondering who I'd rather have at C - Asik, or Dwight Howard. Asik is a year younger, no attitude problems, still improving. Dwight looks to be breaking down physically and continues to paint himself as a lockerroom cancer douche.

plus Asik earns half of what Howard earns. I said it here before i think, keeping Asik and using the FA money to sign 2 quality guys instead of Howard would make more sense ... Maybe Millsapp + Korver/Dunleavy/Redick/Tony Allen. Or Igoudala + Landry/Hansbrough/Splitter.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

The lottery was put in to stop tanking but, now of course, there's every motivation to tank. The only difference is it's possible that you go through all this but have nothing to show for it. If you want the teams that are most successful at tanking to have the best players for some reason, then why have a lottery? The middle ground accomplishes neither goal

I don't really consider the lottery a middle ground. The lottery stops just short of being a reverse-order draft because it prevents teams from going 0-82 to lock up the rights to a no-brainer, franchise-changing superstar. That's more than good enough.

The team with the worst record hasn't gotten the number 1 pick since 2004, and is actually more likely to be drafting 3rd or 4th than 1st or 2nd. This article (http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm) provides some historical data on the type of player you can expect at a certain draft position. It shows why it's good to not gift-wrap the number 1-2 pick to the team that tanks the most, but also why sticking the truly hapless teams with a late lottery pick isn't going to help them at all.

That last part is important when it comes to the two "goals" you're referring to. The draft NEEDS to be biased towards putting the best available players on the worst teams because free agency is biased towards putting the best available players on the already good teams. You can't logically be against how the draft lottery works and also be against big-market "superteams."

A good example of this is the Thunder. In Kevin Durant's rookie season (the last season in Seattle), they had the 2nd-worst record in the league but only ended up with the 4th pick. They picked Westbrook, and obviously a lot of the credit goes to the organization with how they scouted (he wasn't the safe pick by any stretch of the imagination) and developed him. Therefore, OKC is the model of how to tank "the right way" and create a winning culture and all that good stuff.

Now, imagine OKC getting a tough break with the ping pong balls in an unweighted lottery that year. No matter how brilliant your GM may be, he's not making Westbrook last until the late lottery. No matter how great your coaching staff or culture may be, they're not making someone like Jerryd Bayless (the 12th pick that year) into an All-NBA caliber player. No matter how humble and upstanding a superstar Durant may be, you've got a hard sell convincing him to stay in Oklahoma City if he's struggling to carry the team to 35-40 wins on his own, and he's probably off to a bigger market to form a superteam with someone else. Eventually, you're left with around 10 stacked teams and about 20 iterations of the Washington Generals, and you'd do much better than chance at guessing which franchises would fall into which category.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

It leads me to think that they must consider Howard a damn good chance to sign in Houston.

I get that. But I don't understand why you don't send out feelers, wait until July 10th, and pull the trigger when Dwight says he's going to come to you. The difference between what Houston gets today versus what Houston gets July 10th when they "have to make a deal" isn't all that different. But you did just give away Thomas Robinson for nothing, which is silly if you're left at the altar because he's the type of guy they need to develop at the 4: cheap, can board, can defend, and has a rough offensive game.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by whomario

plus Asik earns half of what Howard earns. I said it here before i think, keeping Asik and using the FA money to sign 2 quality guys instead of Howard would make more sense ... Maybe Millsapp + Korver/Dunleavy/Redick/Tony Allen. Or Igoudala + Landry/Hansbrough/Splitter.

I think Dwight is Morey's white whale. Really, what Houston really needs is a really good 4 but LMA or Love aren't going anywhere for at least another year. They would be the perfect fits and I'm sure Morey has called Portland and Minnesota repeatedly to no avail as I can't see anything he could offer that wouldn't either gut the Rockets or make it worth the while for either of those two teams.

SI

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by whomario

plus Asik earns half of what Howard earns. I said it here before i think, keeping Asik and using the FA money to sign 2 quality guys instead of Howard would make more sense ... Maybe Millsapp + Korver/Dunleavy/Redick/Tony Allen. Or Igoudala + Landry/Hansbrough/Splitter.

Agree 100%. Millsapp and Redick seem like great fits in particular.

[Groundhog]

Funniest thing about Dwight on the Rockets would be how similar it would be to the Orlando teams he apparently hated playing on - big guy surrounded by 4 perimeter players who (in Dwight's opinion) did not pass him the ball enough.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

It leads me to think that they must consider Howard a damn good chance to sign in Houston.

Fwiw, I have a friend who works as a sports agent in Los Angeles who thinks Houston is a done deal.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Maybe do something where the bottom 10 teams all have an equal shot at the 1st pick?

Give the #1 pick to the best of the non-playoff teams and then count up to the worst team.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I'm actually wondering who I'd rather have at C - Asik, or Dwight Howard. Asik is a year younger, no attitude problems, still improving. Dwight looks to be breaking down physically and continues to paint himself as a lockerroom cancer douche.

I LOVE Asik, and I would hate to see us move him. My dream is that we sign Dwight and have him play PF next to Omer, but I know there's zero chance of that actually happening.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Give the #1 pick to the best of the non-playoff teams and then count up to the worst team.

So the horrible teams will always stay horrible. Yeah, that will be good for the league.

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

Now, imagine OKC getting a tough break with the ping pong balls in an unweighted lottery that year. No matter how brilliant your GM may be, he's not making Westbrook last until the late lottery. No matter how great your coaching staff or culture may be, they're not making someone like Jerryd Bayless (the 12th pick that year) into an All-NBA caliber player. No matter how humble and upstanding a superstar Durant may be, you've got a hard sell convincing him to stay in Oklahoma City if he's struggling to carry the team to 35-40 wins on his own, and he's probably off to a bigger market to form a superteam with someone else. Eventually, you're left with around 10 stacked teams and about 20 iterations of the Washington Generals, and you'd do much better than chance at guessing which franchises would fall into which category.

Why did it have to be Oklahoma city? Would the NBA die in a flaming trash pile if the Westbrook helped revitalize another bad team that actually tried that year? People talk about how the lottery is so great for Charlotte. It wasn't that year. They committed the worst of NBA franchise sins that year - they won 32 games. So the system considered them "in less need of help" - just not bad enough to deserve a good draft spot. So they got D. J. Augustin.

Wins and losses is not the be-all end-all when it comes to how bad a team is, or how much the NBA would benefit from that team getting high draft pick. As we've seen, having fewer wins often just means that you made a conscious choice to have fewer wins. The difference between a 20-win team and a 30-win team is often just how bad you decide to be, and how much the players cooperate with your plans. It's kind of ironic because in this setup, the 30-win team is considered in "less need of help", when in reality, we all know, those are the teams are totally screwed, that's the absolute worst place to finish in the standings.

Edit: For the most part, only the big market teams have the ability to go quickly from terrible to great. They can tank, get a great draft pick, sign some huge free agents, make a blockbuster trade that superstar players give their OK for. Charlotte can't do that - they have to get to OK before they have a chance to get to great. But once they're OK, and get to that 30 win range, they slide back down because the influx of talent stops. This happens all the time to smaller market teams. They hit 30-40 wins and then crash and have to rebuild and tank all over again. Throw in a 50/50 chance at a top-half of the lottery pick, and bad teams might have a lot more hope to get over that hump.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by molson

Why did it have to be Oklahoma city? Would the NBA die in a flaming trash pile if the Westbrook helped revitalize another bad team that actually tried that year? People talk about how the lottery is so great for Charlotte. It wasn't that year. They committed the worst of NBA franchise sins that year - they won 32 games. So the system considered them "in less need of help" - just not bad enough to deserve a good draft spot. So they got D. J. Augustin.

Wins and losses is not the be-all end-all when it comes to how bad a team is, or how much the NBA would benefit from that team getting high draft pick. As we've seen, having fewer wins often just means that you made a conscious choice to have fewer wins. The difference between a 20-win team and a 30-win team is often just how bad you decide to be, and how much the players cooperate with your plans. It's kind of ironic because in this setup, the 30-win team is considered in "less need of help", when in reality, we all know, those are the teams are totally screwed, that's the absolute worst place to finish in the standings.

Edit: For the most part, only the big market teams have the ability to go quickly from terrible to great. They can tank, get a great draft pick, sign some huge free agents, make a blockbuster trade that superstar players give their OK for. Charlotte can't do that - they have to get to OK before they have a chance to get to great. But once they're OK, and get to that 30 win range, they slide back down because the influx of talent stops. This happens all the time to smaller market teams. They hit 30-40 wins and then crash and have to rebuild and tank all over again. Throw in a 50/50 chance at a top-half of the lottery pick, and bad teams might have a lot more hope to get over that hump.

The difference between Charlotte and Oklahoma City is management. The lottery gives bad teams an equal shot at landing a stud player, but it is the strength of the organization which is determinative of ultimate success (a la Cleveland, LeBron and the LeBronettes).

Sorry, Jordan would not have nearly the success he had without Pippen, Grant, Rodman, etc.

[Swaggs]

I think this has been mentioned on FOFC in the past, but I always find it fascinating (I was doing a wikipedia franchise-moving search and came across it):Spirits of St. Louis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Spirits of St. Louis were one of two teams still in existence at the end of the American Basketball Association that did not survive the ABA-NBA merger. They were a member of the ABA in its last two seasons, 1974–75 and 1975–76, while playing their home games at the St. Louis Arena.

In the summer of 1976, with the ABA at the point of financial collapse after nine years, the six surviving franchises (the Virginia Squires went bankrupt immediately after the final season) began negotiating a merger with the NBA. But the senior circuit decided to accept only four teams from the rival league: the Nets (the last ABA champion), Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers and San Antonio Spurs.

The NBA placated John Y. Brown, owner of the Kentucky Colonels, by giving him a $3.3 million settlement in exchange for shutting his team down. (Brown later used much of that money to buy the Buffalo Braves of the NBA.) But the owners of the Spirits, the brothers Ozzie and Dan Silna, struck a prescient deal to acquire future television money from the teams that joined the NBA, a one-seventh share from each franchise, in perpetuity. With network TV deals becoming more and more lucrative, the deal has made the Silnas wealthy, earning them $186 million as of 2008, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and $255 million as of 2012 according to the New York Times. The NBA nearly succeeded in buying out the Silnas in 1982 by offering $5 million over eight years, but negotiations stalled when the siblings demanded $8 million over five. On June 27, 2007, it was extended for another eight years, ensuring another $100 million-plus windfall for the Silnas. Presently, the Silnas receive $14.57 million a year, despite being owners of a team that hasn't played one minute of basketball in 35 years.

That deal must drive Stern and the owners absolutely nuts. How awesome would it be to generate that kind of income, probably in perpetuity, as long as the NBA exists?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

The difference between Charlotte and Oklahoma City is management. The lottery gives bad teams an equal shot at landing a stud player, but it is the strength of the organization which is determinative of ultimate success (a la Cleveland, LeBron and the LeBronettes).

I agree that management/mismanagement is a good part of it. Also, a good part of it is sheer dumb luck as to your lottery position.

2004 - The Bobcats got #2 instead of #1. That meant missing Dwight Howard. Looking at the top 10, there was no other stud that year.

2005 - The Bobcats were tied for the 2nd worst record in '04, but got the 5th lottery position. They missed out on Bogut, Deron Williams and Chris Paul. They got Raymond Felton with #5, but there was no one worth a damn after Paul @ #4 for the rest of the top 10.

2006 - 3rd worst record, 3rd draft spot. Aldridge was taken #2. They got Adam Morrison at 3, but only Roy (8th) and Rudy Gay (10th) really produced from the rest of the top 10.

2007 - Tied for the 7th worst record in 2006 and got the 8th pick. That meant missing out on Durant, Hortford and Jeff Green. Their pick of Brandan Wright sucked, but then again so do most anyone out of the top 5.

2008 - 7th(t) record, 9th on the lottery. Bad year to be mediocre but still miss the playoffs as Rose, Mayo, Westbrook, Love and Eric Gordon were top 7 selections. The Bobcats missed with DJ Augustin but only Brook Lopez from the next few picks turned out to be decent (he was the very next selection).

2009 - 12th record, 12th lottery. Another bad year to be mediocre. Griffin, Hardin, Evans, Rubio, Curry, DeRozan and Jennings all go in the top 10. The Bobcats selection of Gerald Henderson is actually the best pick from 11-16.

2010 - The Bobcats made the playoffs and were bounced in the first round. The franchise heads severely downhill after that.

Now this doesn't excuse the numerous bad trades or general mismanagement of the franchise. Jordan is simply horrible in the front office. But it is a study of how luck works - the Bobcats barely missed out on a number of good players simply due to their lottery luck. Furthermore, it shows why outright driving to the bottom (like the Celtics appear to be doing) is better than mediocrity. The Bobcats have had numerous lottery picks, but they've mostly been out of the top 5 and that's killed them. They've rarely passed up a good talent in the lottery who was slated to go in that range. There's just been a dearth of talented guys around the positions they've been selecting.

Note that I'm looking at the draft and taking into account the scouting at that time while not trying to second guess with knowledge years later. For example, you could say that the Bobcats could have had Rajon Rondo in the '06 draft, but that would be absurd. No one had Rondo in the top 10. There's a reason the Celtics got him at 21 for $3m in cash to Phoenix. Same goes for a guy like Roy Hibbert in '09. No one had him as a top 10 selection.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

The difference between Charlotte and Oklahoma City is management. The lottery gives bad teams an equal shot at landing a stud player, but it is the strength of the organization which is determinative of ultimate success (a la Cleveland, LeBron and the LeBronettes).

Sorry, Jordan would not have nearly the success he had without Pippen, Grant, Rodman, etc.

Or in the past, the difference between the St Louis Hawks and the Boston Celtics.

Bill Russell

April 30, 1956: Drafted by the St. Louis Hawks in the 1st round (2nd pick) of the 1956 NBA Draft.

April 30, 1956: Traded by the St. Louis Hawks to the Boston Celtics for Cliff Hagan and Ed Macauley.

St Louis ruined their history because their owner wanted all all-white team. I would say may have but let's be honest, the Hawks have had a horrible history.

Jordan, the GM, is the reason Charlotte has struggled. He pulled stunts like he did with Silas and let players revolt like like they did this year. His poor draft choices haven't helped either dating back to the Wizards.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So I guess the debate is really whether having a bunch of mediocre teams is better/worse than having a handful of truly abysmal teams?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So I guess the debate is really whether having a bunch of mediocre teams is better/worse than having a handful of truly abysmal teams?

Either sink or swim, but don't struggle on the surface.

[molson]

I think it's whether it's better to have some mediocre teams and some truly abysmal teams, or to have some mediocre teams and some teams that have chosen not to try for strategic reasons. Those latter teams have abysmal records by choice, but they might be in far better shape franchise-wise than the mediocre teams. They were just better at intentionally acquiring losses in that particular season - that's why they get higher picks, not because they were "worse", just because they succeeded in intentionally losing more games.

I could maybe see sentiment shift on this a little if there's just a huge number of teams tanking next year. Like 6 or 7. That's a substantial % of NBA season games with teams that would rather lose than win.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it's whether it's better to have some mediocre teams and some truly abysmal teams, or to have some mediocre teams and some teams that have chosen not to try for strategic reasons. Those latter teams have abysmal records by choice, but they might be in far better shape franchise-wise than the mediocre teams. They were just better at intentionally acquiring losses in that particular season - that's why they get higher picks, not because they were "worse", just because they succeeded in intentionally losing more games.

I could maybe see sentiment shift on this a little if there's just a huge number of teams tanking next year. Like 6 or 7. That's a substantial % of NBA season games with teams that would rather lose than win.

If? If? Boston, Philly, Orlando, Charlotte, Milwaukee...and that's just out of the Eastern Conference!

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

If? If? Boston, Philly, Orlando, Charlotte, Milwaukee...and that's just out of the Eastern Conference!

Good lord. It would be awesome if we could just skip the regular season and start with the playoffs next season, since we'd probably have almost enough teams willing to volunteer to sit out any kind of playoff race anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Seems to me, in my vaguely educated (at best) opinion, the problem has as much or more to do with the nature of the league today as anything.

The more superstar oriented things are, the more vital "that one guy" becomes. Or now, I guess, "those two guys" become.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Seems to me, in my vaguely educated (at best) opinion, the problem has as much or more to do with the nature of the league today as anything.

The more superstar oriented things are, the more vital "that one guy" becomes. Or now, I guess, "those two guys" become.

Depends on what you mean by "the nature". It's always been a superstars league. I forget the track but I think you can make a list of 11 players and that covers every finals of the NBA all-time. (So Russell, Jordan, James, Jabber, ect).

It has always been a superstars league and teams have usually had at least 2 superstars on it if they won the title. When people talk about how the NBA use to be great they say Jordan, Bird, Magic... no one ever says Moncrief, Aguire, Dantley, Sikma, Davis (and by Davis I mean Walter Davis).

I think a major problem with today's NBA and what a lot of people refer to as the good NBA is that players stayed in school for 3 years usually to develop their game. I think the league would benefit from a rule like MLB has.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Depends on what you mean by "the nature". It's always been a superstars league. I forget the track but I think you can make a list of 11 players and that covers every finals of the NBA all-time. (So Russell, Jordan, James, Jabber, ect).

I might almost buy that with champions but if you're actually talking finals (which you said) then I'd be curious which player on that list of 11 covers
2009 Orlando
2005 Detroit
2003 New Jersey
2002 New Jersey
2001 Philadelphia

Among champions, the 2011 Mavericks seem to stick out quickly as an exception to that "11 players" rule. Dirk was the only big name I see. Likewise 2004 Pistons, unless we're actually counting Hamilton or Wallace.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I might almost buy that with champions but if you're actually talking finals (which you said) then I'd be curious which player on that list of 11 covers
2009 Orlando
2005 Detroit
2003 New Jersey
2002 New Jersey
2001 Philadelphia

Among champions, the 2011 Mavericks seem to stick out quickly as an exception to that "11 players" rule. Dirk was the only big name I see. Likewise 2004 Pistons, unless we're actually counting Hamilton or Wallace.

No just one of the two teams in the finals have been represented by those 11 players(I'll have to search but I think that was the list we came up with). 09 Orlando would be covered by a Laker (probably Kobe), 05 Detriot by a Spur (probably Duncan), etc.

I can't name another league that can get the number this low. It just shows how the league has always been a "superstar" league instead of this notion that it changed in the past few years. It makes me sick to hear people say they miss team basketball when the Lakers had 3 #1 picks, Magic, Jabber and Worthy on a team.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

No just one of the two teams in the finals have been represented by those 11 players

My bad, I definitely misunderstood what you meant there.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

No just one of the two teams in the finals have been represented by those 11 players(I'll have to search but I think that was the list we came up with). 09 Orlando would be covered by a Laker (probably Kobe), 05 Detriot by a Spur (probably Duncan), etc.

I can't name another league that can get the number this low. It just shows how the league has always been a "superstar" league instead of this notion that it changed in the past few years. It makes me sick to hear people say they miss team basketball when the Lakers had 3 #1 picks, Magic, Jabber and Worthy on a team.

Would be real curious to see that list - that'd be neat.

[sterlingice]

I think Hakeem gets on that list by virtue of the Knicks and Magic having nothing in common unless there's someone on the Knicks tied to previous history and Shaq being the Magic rep

SI

[murrayyyyy]

and I'm pretty sure DJ is the Celtic you want to take in this list because he was the finals MVP for Seattle when the Sonics won their title also.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think Hakeem gets on that list by virtue of the Knicks and Magic having nothing in common unless there's someone on the Knicks tied to previous history and Shaq being the Magic rep

SI

If you only need to cover those two Rockets teams you have more options than Hakeem. I say we throw on Vernon Maxwell.

[sterlingice]

Robert Horry has 7 rings but his overlap what must include Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

There's been a lot of posts here over the last few months arguing that every team in the East basically should stop trying until this Miami Heat window is over. I don't think the Heat are all that much better than your typical best team in the NBA in any given season, but I guess I can see where they're coming from if the only goal of a team is to win a championship, and if you don't win one, your season was basically a failure.

I wasn't trying to argue that. I'm saying that trading for Andrea Bargnani doesn't make the Knicks any better or more likely to win a title, and trading an unprotected #1 pick to do it is insane imo, without even going into the financial implications.

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Like the Thomas Robinson trade for Portland too. Very low risk at that price (2 2nd rounders? IIRC), and I'm not convinced he's a bust just yet. Horrible situation for him in Sacramento, and he's not the stretch 4 that the Rockets need for their style of play. Was hoping the Cavs would make a move at him, especially with Speights opting out.

This is what I'm talking about when we traded away multiple 2's to move up 3 spots. Admittedly I know nothing about the 2 Euro's who Houston acquired the rights to, so maybe they were the key to the deal, but I'd much rather have Thomas Robinson and Dennis Schroeder than just Kelly Olynyk. (But I think I value shot blocking and rebounding a lot more from bigs than Ainge does.)

[Logan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I wasn't trying to argue that. I'm saying that trading for Andrea Bargnani doesn't make the Knicks any better or more likely to win a title, and trading an unprotected #1 pick to do it is insane imo, without even going into the financial implications.

This is the part that really gets me. There is absolutely zero chance that the conversation went like this:

Knicks: "Okay, we want Bargnani and we agree on X, Y, and Z. But we won't give up our 1st in 2016."

Raptors: "No deal."

Knicks: "Okay, fine you can have it, but we want it lottery protected."

Raptors: "No deal."

Knicks: "Top 5 protected?"

Raptors: "No deal."

Knicks: "Top 3?"

Raptors: "No deal."

Knicks: "#1 overall protected? Come on, if I miss out on the next Ewing, I won't have a job to come back to."

Raptors: "No deal."

----

I mean, common sense tells me that a team wouldn't just give up an asset without a fight. But it's the Knicks, and we know how they treat first round picks. I also wouldn't be surprised if Ujiri had every indication to settle for a lottery protected 1st from the start but knew he could say no and the Knicks would eventually cave, after the Melo trade negotiations.

[nol]

The problem is that tanking has this connotation that allows people who have assembled a crappy team to say they're "tanking" after the fact. If a team with the 10th-worst record sits their veterans and tanks the last couple weeks to end up with the 6th-worst record, they've crapped all over their fans by rolling out the Fort Wayne Mad Ants for over 10 percent of their season just to go from a 1 percent chance to a 6 percent chance of getting the number one pick. When you consider what Indiana and Houston have been able to do without tanking, you see that the problem isn't the lottery system, it's that there are organizations incompetent/hopeless enough to take that gamble.

Too often, fans buy a tanking team's lame attempt at damage control. It's a win-win for a team. If they move up/get the top pick, fans will get pumped for the future, and the GM looks smarter for having successfully tanked (which obviously is completely beyond his control). If they get bumped back, fans will spend more time complaining about how unfair it is that teams can only get better by tanking, how the lottery is rigged and so on. Both of these cases provide more job security for the individuals at the root cause of the team's suckiness.

Again, coming up with a better solution than the lottery is easier said than done. If you did it by teams with the most wins after being eliminated from playoff contention, you just move all the phony injuries to the beginning of the season. If you gave the first pick to the non-playoff team with the best record, that just changes which teams tank. People already complain when the playoff teams try to lose some games at the end of the year to get a particular matchup; now imagine if the 7-10 teams in a conference are trying to lose every single game. What else can you do? Ban players for life if they don't give their all on every single play? Have Bill Simmons award draft picks and free agents to teams based on who has the most 'karma?'

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by nol

If you gave the first pick to the non-playoff team with the best record, that just changes which teams tank. People already complain when the playoff teams try to lose some games at the end of the year to get a particular matchup; now imagine if the 7-10 teams in a conference are trying to lose every single game.

More truth in this than some people are gonna want to admit. (Maybe not so much here, but in general).

Atlanta was a #6 seed, missed being a #5 by one game. But did anybody -- even Atlanta themselves -- actually think they were going to so much as sniff a title? Much less Milwaukee.

[sterlingice]

Chris Paul signed on to stick with the Clippers for 5/$107. Good for the league, right?

SI

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think this has been mentioned on FOFC in the past, but I always find it fascinating (I was doing a wikipedia franchise-moving search and came across it):Spirits of St. Louis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





That deal must drive Stern and the owners absolutely nuts. How awesome would it be to generate that kind of income, probably in perpetuity, as long as the NBA exists?

Chump change when you consider the alternative would be to expand by two teams.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Chris Paul signed on to stick with the Clippers for 5/$107. Good for the league, right?

I think the answer to your question depends on the "as opposed to what" question.

Better for the league than, say, him signing with Atlanta (and hypothetically taking Howard along). Having a potential winner in L.A. is worth more than having one in Atlanta.

Better than, say, him signing with the Lakers (who weren't in play anyway, yadda yadda), I'd say no. There's less work to be done building up the Lakers into a national/global brand than there is with the Clippers.

So ... maybe I'll say "good for the league among the likely outcomes".

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

So the horrible teams will always stay horrible. Yeah, that will be good for the league.

It would remove tanking and who says because you suck you deserve to get better? You think how it is now is good for the league? Come up with an idea rather than slamming one that's maybe a bit different, but actually provides an incentive to play hard.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Chris Paul signed on to stick with the Clippers for 5/$107. Good for the league, right?

SI

I think it's good for the league in that he is staying in LA and with a team that is drawing eyes from non-LA crowds, thanks to Lob City, etc.

The tricky part is will the Clips manage to fill out the rest of the roster around CP3 and Blake with the pieces needed to truly contend.

I think that's where the Doc Rivers part of this is so key. Not only is he a terrific defensive coach with a championship pedigree (both areas the Clippers need help in), but he has a definite approach and style he uses that will really help the Clippers focus on getting the right players in to support the stars.

[korme]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I agree that management/mismanagement is a good part of it. Also, a good part of it is sheer dumb luck as to your lottery position.

2004 - The Bobcats got #2 instead of #1. That meant missing Dwight Howard. Looking at the top 10, there was no other stud that year.

At that time, if the Bobcats got #1 they might have taken Okafor. Okafor/Howard was a very similar debate in line with Durant/Oden.

2007 - Tied for the 7th worst record in 2006 and got the 8th pick. That meant missing out on Durant, Hortford and Jeff Green. Their pick of Brandan Wright sucked, but then again so do most anyone out of the top 5.

FWIW, I know he has done very little so far in his career, but NBA statheads love Brendan Wright. He's an efficiency machine.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

It would remove tanking and who says because you suck you deserve to get better? You think how it is now is good for the league? Come up with an idea rather than slamming one that's maybe a bit different, but actually provides an incentive to play hard.

I don't like today's system, but I think that's a function of the game. Until the game is different and not so superstar driven, then the current system is probably the best one. That means calling the game evenly and not giving the Jordan Rules to superstars. As it is right now, you can't breathe on LeBron without him hitting the free throw line.

As has already been pointed out, you'd still have tanking going on with your idea, just among the 6-8 playoff teams to drop out of the playoffs and snag the #1 overall pick. Want to bet that the Celtics and a couple of other teams would have tanked to get that overall #1 rather than that 8th playoff spot? Doesn't that make the tanking even more of a mockery? In the meanwhile, the sucky teams continue to suck virtually forever because they'll never get a top 5 pick. You're not talking about a few lean years, you're talking about multiple teams with decades of horrible years until someone finally gets lucky with a #10 pick. Yeah, that will energize the fan base! I'm sorry Desnudo, but yours still has all the flaws of the current system and introduces a few more. It's a bad idea.

In other words, your solution doesn't prevent tanking and makes things worse for more teams. As I said before, I don't think there's a better solution than what's already out there until the game itself is fixed. So get ready for tankapoolza 2013-2014, because it's coming.

[Groundhog]

Dunleavy Jnr. to Bulls is a perfect fit, $6m/2.

Maynor multi-year deal to the Wiz. Good pickup for them. Underrated player, especially coming back from injury last season. I could see them playing smallball with Maynor-Wall-Beal at times.

NFI what the Horn...Pelicans are thinking with that offer to Tyreke Evans - $44m/4y IIRC. Crazy.

Earl Clark to Cavs looking like a possibility. I like it, but would still like to see Speights back if he's not too expensive as we really need his ability to score from the block.

[nol]

If Evans signs with the Pelicans, they'll look to unload Robin Lopez's contract. They'll be one of the more interesting teams to keep an eye on - every offseason move they've made so far (and they're probably just getting started on making moves) indicates that they think Anthony Davis will be ready to play the 5 for them and anchor their defense on his own.

[Groundhog]

Davis can be a 5 against most teams in the league with his help D, but he will struggle against (the few) teams that carry low-block guys - Indiana, Spurs, Jazz.

I can see what they are thinking with guys like Anderson and Gordon strecthing the D, Evans able to penetrate... but if they are playing a 4-out style of basketball, then they better hope Davis puts on some weight and can play with his back to the basket.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

NFI what the Horn...Pelicans are thinking with that offer to Tyreke Evans - $44m/4y IIRC. Crazy.

I remember seeing the efficiency guys picking up something with either Evans or Monta Ellis, where their shooting percentages were atrociously inefficient and they didn't have great assist to turnover ratios - but when they did get assists a really high percentage were easy lay-ins at the rim. So maybe there's something to that, (plus the thinking that Davis can cover for Evans defensive mistakes.)

[korme]

Here were Tom Ziller's thoughts on Tyreke Evans (from his NBA Free Agency preview)... note, he is a Kings fan:

Originally Posted by Tom Ziller

6. Tyreke Evans (restricted)

Hey, it's the smaller, more likely to shoot, defensively-inferior Andre Iguodala!

If you haven't checked in on Tyreke since his major fall from Rookie of the Year to small forward on an awful team, note that he's found his groove and is becoming a real solid NBA player. The 20-5-5 days may be gone (or not!), but his defense has improved mightily, he can actually shoot the ball now and he's still one of the better off-ball passers and two-guard rebounders in the game. He's also six years younger than Iguodala.

The Kings will likely match any reasonable offer sheet Evans signs, though, as he's quite possibly the team's best asset.

[whomario]

That Evans "can actually shoot the ball now" is a myth. For some reason it has been around for a while now, but fact is that he still shot 32% on all shots beyond 15 feet and 2/3 of his attempts come within 10 feet of the basket. Yeah, he raised his 3% from god-awfull to bad on limited attempts but come on now ...


aparently the Wolves were in talks of a S&T, getting Dunleavy and unloading Ridnour. Fell through now that the Bulls agreed with Dunleavy, but might be a good sign for the next few days as that would have been a very sensible deal ... Dunleavy likely leaves some money on the table there (Ridnour makes 4.3 mio, for a sign and trade Dunleavy would have gotten just that +- a bit)

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

So where will that waste of flesh Bynum end up next year?

Andrew Bynum not working out for teams during free*agency | SI Wire

Please let him stay with this stance!

[Logan]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Andrew Bynum not working out for teams during free*agency | SI Wire

Please let him stay with this stance!

Andrew Bynum will not work out for teams before signing, because Andrew Bynum will not work out for teams after signing.

— R.W. (@reesewaters) July 2, 2013

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

In the meanwhile, the sucky teams continue to suck virtually forever because they'll never get a top 5 pick. You're not talking about a few lean years, you're talking about multiple teams with decades of horrible years until someone finally gets lucky with a #10 pick. Yeah, that will energize the fan base! I'm sorry Desnudo, but yours still has all the flaws of the current system and introduces a few more. It's a bad idea.

Maybe it sucks for fans in those markets, but the NBA's always been a superstar-driven league that's better when there are a few elite teams at the top. There's probably a ton of kids who are Heat fans in the Charlotte area, which hurts Charlotte, but as far as the league is concerned are there any fewer actual NBA fans there? With a proper hard cap that prevents teams from stockpiling more than 2 max players (and I think they're pretty close now), I actually wouldn't mind shifting the entire paradigm and seeing a system that rewards the best teams with the top draft picks. Eventually the good players will trickle down (a la James Harden) as they seek out their own max contracts, and they'll be bigger media stars for having played in the playoffs and arguably better developed by those organizations.

Look at two of the biggest success stories of the past playoffs - Kawhi Leonard and Paul George. Does anyone think they would have developed into the same player on Sacramento or Charlotte? On the flip side, maybe Tyreke Evans, Derrick Favors or Derrick Williams would have struggled to reach their potential even on a San Antonio or Indiana, but I tend to doubt it.

Here's my proposal - have two separate, unweighted lotteries, one with all the playoff teams ordering them, and one with all the non-playoff teams, ordering them. Then go non-playoff team 1 gets #1, playoff team 1 gets #2, non-playoff team 2 gets #3, playoff team 2 gets #4, etc. Making the playoffs is a nice, concrete barrier that makes sense. Any additional stipulation past that just opens itself up to loopholes.