RealGM

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.

I want Lebron and Wall.

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?

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.

Colonel Mustard might be a baller

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.

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.....

I'm sad we're 3-34.

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...

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%

^ 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...

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.

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.

yeh dont forget it...

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

pretty good jeff...lol

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

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"?

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.

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.