shrink wrote:Economically, there is a misperception that each owner is trying to out-compete each other financially, when more and more, they are making money jointly. That's Stern's #1 goal - to help the League, and hope that as the league prospers, it raises all boats. I don't put much stock in league reps being there, or Ernst and Young, because they could all be in on it together, making back-room deals. they can say, "Oh, you don't like the way we do things? You're welcome to open your mouth, and take your basketball team elsewhere, and not be in the NBA any more."
Yes, you might be correct that the team owner do not just think about their own team but it doesn't make sense whatsoever for each one to say "Hey, screw my team, let's think of the league". Nobody would agree to that at the detriment of his own team. Particularly if it doesn't seem to even out for some owner, like Taylor. If he had agreed to getting screwed over some ten years ago (or say in the Shaq draft which would be a perfect example) wouldn't it make sense to compensate him after he agreed to miss out on Shaq AND Alonzo? Or take any other draft. We're still waiting for any kind of compensation. If this scenario would have happened and I was Taylor I'd blackball the league, that's for sure.*
There's no logical reason for any team owner to agree to those shenanigans at the detriment of their own team.
*It just sprang to my mind that there are some owners, executives etc. who might have a huge grudge against the league, Stern, another owner etc. Don't you think they'd threaten to tell the media and all that? Do you think this is worth it?
If you don't put too much into Ernst & Young having representatives there I don't know what to tell you. They are among the most trusted accountant companies worldwide generating/being worth billions of dollars. They don't screw their reputation because they could be in a backroom deal that generated, what, probably not much more than 50 million dollars? Would you say that's enticing enough for a multi-billion dollar worth company?
shrink wrote:As for Griffin to the Thunder, I tend to believe they use these picks to help the teams that need it most. OKC was generating revenue because they were new, and they already had Durant. How much more money could Griffin have generated for the NBA if he had joined that team? However, if Griffin could legitimize the Clippers, that's an NBA gold mine.
I agree with you that getting the Clippers on the NBA map is a goldmine but it's not like the LA market hadn't a team with some global icons before. The Clippers could have used top picks every year until recently, anyway.
shrink wrote:Lastly, let me say that I feel ugly using "after the fact explaining" like it has value. This type of reasoning is the opposite of logic, and often leads to horrible conclusions. People use it to subjectively make their points. I bring it up here though because I can't get myself to believe 100% that the lottery is rigged -- or that the lottery is fair!
For example, if it's fair .. why do they insist on doing it privately? It would be one of the biggest nights in NBA television!
Anyway, I'm interested to hear others opinions on this .. I remain undecided.
Why they insist on doing it privately? Because the actual process is completely boring. I can't exactly remember how the actual drawing works but from what I read they start with the 1st pick and then go down to the 14th pick. Who actually cares about the picks beyond the 3rd or 4th pick? Pretty much everyone would turn off the TV after the top 3 picks are official.