PDA

View Full Version : Good players on bad teams/cities.



Cromedome
05-18-2009, 07:52 PM
http://www.thedreamshake.com/2009/5/15/876474/should-the-nba-draft-lottery


One of the topics adressed in that Bill Simmons - Malcom Gladwell exchange was the nature of the NBA Draft Lottery. I think both Simmons and Gladwell make a good point in that, beyond the moral hazard problem, the current lottery system just makes for bad basketball. Future franchise players typically don't go to quality teams where they could make a big impact and establish a dynasty; instead, they go to crap teams where they'll toil until their rookie contracts are up and then depart for better opportunities.
Think about it this way: Blake Griffin is probably going to be going #1 overall in the draft. If not him, it's going to be Rubio. What would be the best place for either team?

Imagine if, instead of Griffin going to Sacramento or the Clippers (or even to Washington, where he'll compete with Jamison for playing time), he goes to Oklahoma. Wouldn't that be something special? Never mind the hometown team angle: the combination of Durant-Westbrook-Griffin would simply be awesome. That would be a championship contender for a while, and it would make for good basketball. What if, instead of Rubio going to an awful team, he goes to Phoenix or New York, where he might do something in a few years?
What if, instead of giving the worst teams the best chances of winning the lottery, you go back to the straight lottery (as Simmons suggests)? Or you give the 14th worst team the best shot at the #1 pick?

So do you think the lottery should be changed? Should the draft even be abolished?

I feel it should be changed because good cities deserve winners.

Hawkeye15
05-18-2009, 07:56 PM
this is stupid. No. Remember when San Antonio, and Dallas, were the laughingstock in the early 90's? Or the Celtics 3 years ago? Everyone gets, and deserves a chance.

superkegger
05-18-2009, 07:56 PM
Big cities already have enough advantages with their market power and fan base. If you take away any advantage small market teams have in the draft, you're basically saying, we don't value you, and we don't care about you or your fans. You have to try and compete while also getting the shaft in the draft, because you're not as big.

That's just dumb. Some small market teams do great things with their picks, look at San Antonio. they're by no means a big market team, yet when they landed Tim Duncan, they got 4 titles out of it. Instead of trying to help big market teams, perhaps the NBA should be more diligent in who they allow to buy NBA franchises.

fins08
05-18-2009, 07:58 PM
Nah. Bad teams should make it competitive

Cromedome
05-18-2009, 07:58 PM
Sure..but San Antonio had D-Robinson for years and competed EVERY year. Once they got Tim..it was icing on the cake.

I don't think anything about this is "dumb" or "stupid".

Cromedome
05-18-2009, 08:00 PM
^ Dude..either you have something to say about the "TOPIC" or you don't .

ink
05-18-2009, 08:01 PM
Sure..but San Antonio had D-Robinson for years and competed EVERY year. Once they got Tim..it was icing on the cake.

I don't think anything about this is "dumb" or "stupid".

I agree. If someone wants to discuss a topic he shouldn't have to be told that his idea is stupid. Disagree fine, but the insults will get infractions.

I disagree with the premise, mainly because the NBA needs every team and every fanbase to have at least the hope of turning around their franchise. If they don't, the teams collapse and they can't sustain the salaries of the players or even a legitimate major league sport.

ink
05-18-2009, 08:02 PM
wtf u made the thread again? plz ban this guy lol.

There's nothing wrong with the topic. If you don't agree with it, make your case.

bahama0811
05-18-2009, 08:02 PM
So basically what you're saying is that bad teams don't deserve a shot at rebuilding through the draft. They suck now so no reason to let them try to get better.

Hawkeye15
05-18-2009, 08:04 PM
Big cities already have enough advantages with their market power and fan base. If you take away any advantage small market teams have in the draft, you're basically saying, we don't value you, and we don't care about you or your fans. You have to try and compete while also getting the shaft in the draft, because you're not as big.

That's just dumb. Some small market teams do great things with their picks, look at San Antonio. they're by no means a big market team, yet when they landed Tim Duncan, they got 4 titles out of it. Instead of trying to help big market teams, perhaps the NBA should be more diligent in who they allow to buy NBA franchises.

point is valid, but I still get disgusted that the Spurs tanked that season. Robinson was healthy with nearly 30 games to go, and they sat him. Ugh

ManRam
05-18-2009, 08:09 PM
I totally disagree too. Just look at teams like Cleveland, Orlando, New Orleans, Denver, Miami, Portland...etc. They all are good teams now mainly in part because of winning high draft picks (LBJ, Dwight, CP, Melo, Wade, Roy and Co.). Sure, some teams blow it, but parity is more important than anything for a successful league...and giving the top draft pick to the worst team is the only option.

Remember how bad those teams were? They were horrible. Kind of like Sacramento, Memphis, Washington etc. are now. The easiest way to get better is via the draft.

I couldn't disagree with this thread any more.

ink
05-18-2009, 08:11 PM
Portland is a great example of a team that improved through the draft. Restocking a team with good draft picks is also an important part of salary cap management.

loki34
05-18-2009, 08:31 PM
Portland is a great example of a team that improved through the draft. Restocking a team with good draft picks is also an important part of salary cap management.

seattle/okc doing the same thing

superkegger
05-18-2009, 08:38 PM
point is valid, but I still get disgusted that the Spurs tanked that season. Robinson was healthy with nearly 30 games to go, and they sat him. Ugh

Yeah, but it's not like no one else has ever done a little tanking of their own, big or small market.

Small market teams shouldn't be penalized for being small market teams. If this kind of thing went through, then the whole idea that the NBA was rigged would have a much stronger grasp, because then this part of the NBA would be rigged for big market and good teams.

Wake's Fastball
05-18-2009, 08:43 PM
Big cities already have enough advantages with their market power and fan base. If you take away any advantage small market teams have in the draft, you're basically saying, we don't value you, and we don't care about you or your fans. You have to try and compete while also getting the shaft in the draft, because you're not as big.

That's just dumb. Some small market teams do great things with their picks, look at San Antonio. they're by no means a big market team, yet when they landed Tim Duncan, they got 4 titles out of it. Instead of trying to help big market teams, perhaps the NBA should be more diligent in who they allow to buy NBA franchises.

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Couldn't have said it any better.

SuperMac5
05-18-2009, 08:50 PM
Kevin Durant

KB24PG16
05-18-2009, 08:57 PM
Portland is a great example of a team that improved through the draft. Restocking a team with good draft picks is also an important part of salary cap management.

and atlanta

NYMetros
05-18-2009, 09:14 PM
So, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Sounds like a terrible idea. Bad teams that can't go out and get big free agents need at least an opportunity to get a franchise player and not have to depend on other teams to mess up. I couldn't disagree with that idea anymore. And eliminating the draft entirely will still make it hard for small market teams to get bigger.

Ilir
05-18-2009, 09:33 PM
So basically what you're saying is that bad teams don't deserve a shot at rebuilding through the draft. They suck now so no reason to let them try to get better.

Couldn't agree with you more. If this was implemented before lebron was in the league the cavs wouldnt have him and the cavs would still be the one of the worst teams in the nba. With the new system, you guys are talkin about giving the teams who can currently win the better players in the draft. As a franchise owner of one of the worst teams in the nba why would you want to implement something like this. Or why would anyone want to start a new franchise? whats there incentive? I think its working pretty well the way it is. The balance of power shifts every so often and right now I think it's the most balanced i've seen the NBA in a while.

Hellcrooner
05-18-2009, 10:55 PM
i think the bottom 14 teams shoudl WIN in the pitch the right to their pick.

How?

the team that does not make the playoffs that has the best record against the other non playoff teams gets pick one .

This way NO TANKING they woudl fight until the very end.

Hellcrooner
05-18-2009, 10:57 PM
or make the bottom 8 play a Play-off to win the picks

superkegger
05-18-2009, 11:34 PM
Problem with that is HC, is that you're giving the teams that need the less help, the most help. The suns would probably have mopped up that tournament this year, and then they get the #1 pick. And then the Kings get the 14th? That just makes it harder for bad teams to get better.

The lottery discourages tanking, because even if you have the worst record, there's no guarantee you'll get the #1 pick. The draft and the draft lottery are just fine the way they are

ink
05-18-2009, 11:34 PM
I agree.

Catfish1314
05-18-2009, 11:42 PM
Not every team is good every single year. From 1999-2006, the Kings were a very competitive team. They made the postseason 8 consecutive years under Rick Adelman. Now, all of a sudden they hit a downspiral and they don't deserve Blake Griffin or Ricky Rubio.

Yet big-market pretty teams like New York, granted under very poor management, squandered money away on selfish players with plenty of talent but little to no desire (repeatedly), deserve Blake Griffin or Ricky Rubio.

The Kings are where they are because all the pieces they had that made them competitive wore out their value or just wore out. The Knicks are where they were up until this past season because a couple of idiots running the show ran them into the dirt. But they still deserve Blake Griffin or Ricky Rubio more than the Kings.

Yes that makes perfect sense.

Raps18-19 Champ
05-18-2009, 11:43 PM
They send good rookies to bad team to help them become a contender.

Kyle N.
05-19-2009, 12:13 AM
Ok let's just take LeBron from the Cavs, they don't deserve him and he's just sitting around like a bum because the market isn't huge.

29$JerZ
05-19-2009, 12:19 AM
A portion of teams have bad owners which contribute to what your saying.

Phoenix is notorious for trading away a lot of 1st rounder for money.
Clipper have Dunleavy running the show despite all that talent they are at the bottom.
Knicks had Isiah and Layden + Dolan to ruin a great franchise.
Warriors were an exciting teams and good for the NBA but Nelly went nuts.


If your a bad team you need help. No team is in a situation like Vancouver, where they were so bad the title of the team had to be moved to Memphis.

It's unfortunate but the burden of being a savior gets put on rookies and its not fair. That's how it works though.