I'm glad we're 3-30 something

netsforever · Post #1 » by **netsforever** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:04 pm

because at least we're really rebuilding.

i'd rather start off trying to contend with a high lottery pick and development of our young guys rather than just try to get a big free agenct. and since us being so awful likely means we won't sign any key free agents, we're going to have to go that route.

Rockice_8 · Post #2 » by **Rockice_8** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:46 pm

I want Lebron and Wall.

Preludepunk27 · Post #3 » by **Preludepunk27** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:20 pm

I just want impact players to fit in with our young core at this point. A #1 scorer and a clue guy. Is that too much to ask lol?

Jersey Generals · Post #4 » by **Jersey Generals** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:57 pm

A clue guy might be too much to ask for, yes, since there aren't many of those. A glue guy, though, I think is more possible.

BigWil17 · Post #5 » by **BigWil17** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:39 am

Colonel Mustard might be a baller

boogydown · Post #6 » by **boogydown** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:29 am

3-35 is nothing to be proud of.

The worst team ever in the NBA is 9-73.

You could still be winning, and get a high lottery pick, even the 1st.

Revolutionistt · Post #7 » by **Revolutionistt** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:01 pm

You know what, Im glad to. Those bastardos in New York wanted to buy the Nets because they were jealous New Jersey had a team better than the Knicks. Now they can have a sub 10 win team to go along with the putrid Knicks. Stupid New Yorkers.....

NetsForce · Post #8 » by **NetsForce** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:34 pm

I'm sad we're 3-34.

vincecarter4pres · Post #9 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:23 pm

NetsForce wrote:I'm sad we're 3-34.

Yeah, this is no fun. Plus we are unlikely to get the top overall pick and especially not if history has taught us anything about the draft lottery...

iceman3699 · Post #10 » by **iceman3699** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:43 am

vincecarter4pres wrote:
NetsForce wrote:I'm sad we're 3-34.

Yeah, this is no fun. Plus we are unlikely to get the top overall pick and especially not if history has taught us anything about the draft lottery...

exactly!

Past Decade Lottery History:

2000 New Jersey Nets 31–52 (7th-worst) 4.40% Chance
2001 Washington Wizards 19–63 (3rd-worst) 15.70%
2002 Houston Rockets 28–54 (5th-worst) 8.90%
2003 Cleveland Cavaliers 17–65 (1st-worst) 22.50%
2004 Orlando Magic 21–61 (1st-worst) 25.00%
2005 Milwaukee Bucks 30–52 (6th-worst) 6.30%
2006 Toronto Raptors 27–55 (5th-worst) 8.80%
2007 Portland Trail Blazers 32–50 (6th-worst) 5.30%
2008 Chicago Bulls 33–49 (9th-worst) 1.70%
2009 Los Angeles Clippers 19–63 (2nd-worst) 177 (out of 1000) 17.70%

NetsForce · Post #11 » by **NetsForce** » Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:51 am

^ Which is why I hope they redo the lottery weights when they negotiate the new CBA ^

A 7th or 9th worst team does not deserve the #1 pick over a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd worst team record wise...

boogydown · Post #12 » by **boogydown** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:00 am

NetsForce wrote:^ Which is why I hope they redo the lottery weights when they negotiate the new CBA ^

A 7th or 9th worst team does not deserve the #1 pick over a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd worst team record wise...

The NBA draft lottery is one of the most unique and interesting things to the NBA.

Changing it the way you want is exactly what is wrong with the NFL. Of course in the NFL, you can't really tank because if you do you get pounded on.

Still a NFL lottery would be pretty unique.

deviljets7 · Post #13 » by **deviljets7** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:54 am

boogydown wrote:
NetsForce wrote:^ Which is why I hope they redo the lottery weights when they negotiate the new CBA ^

A 7th or 9th worst team does not deserve the #1 pick over a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd worst team record wise...

The NBA draft lottery is one of the most unique and interesting things to the NBA.

Changing it the way you want is exactly what is wrong with the NFL. Of course in the NFL, you can't really tank because if you do you get pounded on.

Still a NFL lottery would be pretty unique.

I don't think Nets Force is suggesting that they get rid of the lottery entirely. His issue is that really aren't that bad (ie: the Bulls and Blazers when they won).

The solution might be taking a page from the NHL's playbook. Here is how they run their draft lottery.

http://www.mynhldraft.com/NHL-Draft-Lottery

Basically, each non-playoff team has a certain amount of ping pong balls. However, there's a rule in place where you can't jump up more than 4 spots. So if Sacramento's (currently 8th worst record) ping pong ball was pulled, they'd jump up to pick #4.

No team can fall further than 1 spot compared to their record.

Applying the percentages to the current NBA standings, here are the odds of landing the #1 pick:
Nets: 48.1%
T-Wolves: 18.8%
Warriors: 14.2%
76ers: 10.7%
Wizards: 8.1%

Technically the odds of the Nets having their ping pong ball selected is just 25%. But with the can't jump up more than 4 spots rule, if any team outside of the bottom 5 was selected, NJ would still get the #1 pick.

It's not a perfect system and there is stuff I'd want to tweak with it, but I think it's definitely superior to the current system.

Post #14 » by **jerseyjac** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:22 pm

yeh dont forget it...

Post #15 » by **jerseyjac** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:14 pm

By Kelly Dwyer/Yahoo.com

New Jersey Nets, projected record: 7-75

Does that sound about right?

If you've taken in a Nets game live, sure. Overall? Hell no, it doesn't sound right. This team is terrible. This team is 12-wins terrible. But to be in the running for seven wins (we rounded up) this late in the game, with a (on talent alone, mind you) borderline All-Star center and point guard? The two hardest positions to fill, you have a pair that are just about the best in the conference, and you're on the road to seven wins? I know that the rest of the rotation is awful, and that some close games haven't gone the Netsies' way, but this is inexcusable.

jeff1624 · Post #16 » by **jeff1624** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:29 pm

jerseyjac wrote:By Kelly Dwyer/Yahoo.com

New Jersey Nets, projected record: 7-75

Does that sound about right?

If you've taken in a Nets game live, sure. Overall? Hell no, it doesn't sound right. This team is terrible. This team is 12-wins terrible. But to be in the running for seven wins (we rounded up) this late in the game, with a (on talent alone, mind you) borderline All-Star center and point guard? The two hardest positions to fill, you have a pair that are just about the best in the conference, and you're on the road to seven wins? I know that the rest of the rotation is awful, and that some close games haven't gone the Netsies' way, but this is inexcusable.

+

[size=200]+

+

=

WINS

Post #17 » by **jerseyjac** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:25 pm

pretty good jeff...lol

side note, its funny how Rafer is also starting for Miami since moving to the sunshine state...

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #18 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:58 pm

NetsForce wrote:^ Which is why I hope they redo the lottery weights when they negotiate the new CBA ^

A 7th or 9th worst team does not deserve the #1 pick over a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd worst team record wise...

The Nets are the team that doesn't deserve anything.

If you set the record, your players should be banned from the NBA for a year or two. They have plenty of talent to win games; they just don't care to do it. Borderline all-stars at the two most important positions on the court, and decent role players in Yi, CDR, and Lee?

Why does losing with a decent squad like that make a franchise "deserving"?

vincecarter4pres · Post #19 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:14 pm

adamcz wrote:
NetsForce wrote:^ Which is why I hope they redo the lottery weights when they negotiate the new CBA ^

A 7th or 9th worst team does not deserve the #1 pick over a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd worst team record wise...

The Nets are the team that doesn't deserve anything.

If you set the record, your players should be banned from the NBA for a year or two. They have plenty of talent to win games; they just don't care to do it. Borderline all-stars at the two most important positions on the court, and decent role players in Yi, CDR, and Lee?

Why does losing with a decent squad like that make a franchise "deserving"?

Go back to the Knix board you trolling little bunt cake.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #20 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:31 pm

I live in NJ, so I have rights to post on my local realgm board. Fact is, you don't deserve anything. Your team has decent players who just don't try hard, and you have the worst fans in the NBA: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4413

If I were running the NBA I'd give the #1 pick to a team like Houston who has had a few strokes of bad luck, but still tries hard. I wouldn't reward the team with fans who don't show up even when the team is great, and who is only bad because they're being bad on purpose.