NBA likely to vote on changing draft odds next month

[guest81]

Changing the rules is totally fair. Doing it immediately is punitive and directed at the Sixers.

It's ironic that for all of the tanking done by the Sixers it was still the Cavs that got the number one pick and used it to get Love teamed up with Lebron. This anger directed at the Sixers is based only on perception because the results of the tank have produced only a 3rd pick so far.

Ultimately, the Sixers fate comes down to Embiid's health. If he turns into the next Hakeem or Duncan then all will be fine in Sixerland no matter who we draft in the next few drafts.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

So they should have to wait until the 76er's have carried out their plan? Why show bias in that sense? There's really zero reason to wait longer then it has to just because it affects the 76ers. Wouldn't it be hypocritical of Silver to say that tanking is a problem then pass a rule that wouldn't take effect for another 3 years?

Making the changes now hurts all of the worst teams in the league, including the Sixers. The reason that you do it in a few years is that by that time the worst teams in the league will be unknown.



Well the Bucks didn't trade away their vet players like Mayo or Sanders so I don't think they can be accused of not trying to win.

The Wolves traded for Thad Young and Mo Williams, two veterans, to try to win.

The Celts at least tried to trade for Love to try to win.

The Lakers tried to get a superstar to join them. They also signed some vet players.

The Jazz gave Hayward the max even though he wasn't worth it because they want to be respectable.

Silver has a responsibility to the fans to at least give them a reason to go to the games. How many 76er fans went to all 26 games they lost in a row? No team should be that bad to lose that many games in a row

[Philly_3]

So they should have to wait until the 76er's have carried out their plan? Why show bias in that sense? There's really zero reason to wait longer then it has to just because it affects the 76ers. Wouldn't it be hypocritical of Silver to say that tanking is a problem then pass a rule that wouldn't take effect for another 3 years?

Adam Silver has already proven himself to be a hypocrite so this is nothing new. He kicks out owners he doesn't like because of private conversations. He says he is going to address the league's drug problem and does nothing. He changes rules in the middle of the season because he feels like it. But as long as he invites Isaiah Austin to the draft it's all good, right?

All it would take is a bit of common sense to give teams 1 year of heads up before changing the draft. That would be the correct thing to do if you really wanted to address something. Instead, the NBA is showing its own bias against the Sixers by waiting until the last minute to make an important change. Another great move by our wonderful commisioner

what possible reason would Silver and the NBA have to have a bias against the 76ers?

[42uptop]

So they should have to wait until the 76er's have carried out their plan? Why show bias in that sense? There's really zero reason to wait longer then it has to just because it affects the 76ers. Wouldn't it be hypocritical of Silver to say that tanking is a problem then pass a rule that wouldn't take effect for another 3 years?

Adam Silver has already proven himself to be a hypocrite so this is nothing new. He kicks out owners he doesn't like because of private conversations. He says he is going to address the league's drug problem and does nothing. He changes rules in the middle of the season because he feels like it. But as long as he invites Isaiah Austin to the draft it's all good, right?

All it would take is a bit of common sense to give teams 1 year of heads up before changing the draft. That would be the correct thing to do if you really wanted to address something. Instead, the NBA is showing its own bias against the Sixers by waiting until the last minute to make an important change. Another great move by our wonderful commisioner

what possible reason would Silver and the NBA have to have a bias against the 76ers?

Zach Lowe has already confirmed that the league is making these changes because of outrage over the Sixers rebuild. Remember how Silver was all for raising the age limit a few months ago? Ask yourself: why is he suddenly abandoning that plan in order to adjust the lottery odds, seemingly out of nowhere?

[guest81]

Adam Silver has already proven himself to be a hypocrite so this is nothing new. He kicks out owners he doesn't like because of private conversations. He says he is going to address the league's drug problem and does nothing. He changes rules in the middle of the season because he feels like it. But as long as he invites Isaiah Austin to the draft it's all good, right?

All it would take is a bit of common sense to give teams 1 year of heads up before changing the draft. That would be the correct thing to do if you really wanted to address something. Instead, the NBA is showing its own bias against the Sixers by waiting until the last minute to make an important change. Another great move by our wonderful commisioner

what possible reason would Silver and the NBA have to have a bias against the 76ers?

Zach Lowe has already confirmed that the league is making these changes because of outrage over the Sixers rebuild. Remember how Silver was all for raising the age limit a few months ago? Ask yourself: why is he suddenly abandoning that plan in order to adjust the lottery odds, seemingly out of nowhere?

uhh tankings been going on a lot longer. I remember Mark Madsen launching like 8 3 pointers in a game to keep the Wolves from winning. How many teams kept good players out because of mysterious injuries? Tanking has been going on a lot longer then the 76ers. it's just that Stern never did anything about it

[wickedwrister]

I wonder what % of Sixers fans would be okay with the changes if they were to be in effect in say 2020. I certainly would.

The idea of the rule is to discourage teams from doing what the Sixers are doing now which is just to build a horrendous team to maximize your chance at the number 1 pick. I can understand the logic behind it for sure.

My biggest issue is the change would start with the 2015 year when teams rosters are essentially set which comes off as retroactively punitive. The Sixers put in a long term strategy based on the rules that have been in place for some time. There is nothing that can be done at this point for the 2015 Sixers to be anything but a bad team. If the idea is to deter teams from doing this then have the rules start with a later lottery date out of fairness, even 2016.

[guest81]

I mean if Silver says he wants to stop tanking, but the rule will go into effect in 2 years so the teams can finish their tanking, so I'm cool with it for two years, makes zero sense.

I'll pose a question, if Silver made this rule last year, what would the 76er's of done differently?

[guest81]

I wonder what % of Sixers fans would be okay with the changes if they were to be in effect in say 2020. I certainly would.

The idea of the rule is to discourage teams from doing what the Sixers are doing now which is just to build a horrendous team to maximize your chance at the number 1 pick. I can understand the logic behind it for sure.

My biggest issue is the change would start with the 2015 year when teams rosters are essentially set which comes off as retroactively punitive. The Sixers put in a long term strategy based on the rules that have been in place for some time. There is nothing that can be done at this point for the 2015 Sixers to be anything but a bad team. If the idea is to deter teams from doing this then have the rules start with a later lottery date out of fairness, even 2016.

So what would they of done differently? Pay Bledsoe the max? Keep Thad? Wouldn't a MCW-Bledsoe-Thad-Noel team provide some excitement?

[wickedwrister]

I wonder what % of Sixers fans would be okay with the changes if they were to be in effect in say 2020. I certainly would.

The idea of the rule is to discourage teams from doing what the Sixers are doing now which is just to build a horrendous team to maximize your chance at the number 1 pick. I can understand the logic behind it for sure.

My biggest issue is the change would start with the 2015 year when teams rosters are essentially set which comes off as retroactively punitive. The Sixers put in a long term strategy based on the rules that have been in place for some time. There is nothing that can be done at this point for the 2015 Sixers to be anything but a bad team. If the idea is to deter teams from doing this then have the rules start with a later lottery date out of fairness, even 2016.

So what would they of done differently? Pay Bledsoe the max? Keep Thad? Wouldn't a MCW-Bledsoe-Thad-Noel team provide some excitement?

I love what they are doing right now and think its smart, I don't think Hinkie would have done anything differently to be honest. I'm asking more about would you be for/against the proposed changes if they weren't going into effect for the 2015 lottery? I would be fine with them if they weren't going in immediately which just comes off as unnecessarily punitive.

[Ericb5]

So they should have to wait until the 76er's have carried out their plan? Why show bias in that sense? There's really zero reason to wait longer then it has to just because it affects the 76ers. Wouldn't it be hypocritical of Silver to say that tanking is a problem then pass a rule that wouldn't take effect for another 3 years?

Adam Silver has already proven himself to be a hypocrite so this is nothing new. He kicks out owners he doesn't like because of private conversations. He says he is going to address the league's drug problem and does nothing. He changes rules in the middle of the season because he feels like it. But as long as he invites Isaiah Austin to the draft it's all good, right?

All it would take is a bit of common sense to give teams 1 year of heads up before changing the draft. That would be the correct thing to do if you really wanted to address something. Instead, the NBA is showing its own bias against the Sixers by waiting until the last minute to make an important change. Another great move by our wonderful commisioner

what possible reason would Silver and the NBA have to have a bias against the 76ers?

I don't think that HE has any bias against the Sixers, but he has a lot of upset owners in the league and he increases his popularity by doing what they want. People in power can always increase their power by doing whatever is popular, but the popular thing isn't always the right thing.

It is fundamentally unfair to allow a majority of owners to punish a minority of owners for doing something that is not against the rules. If they want to change the rule then it should be done in a non political manner. The way that you accomplish that is by pushing it out for a couple of years because in a few years the worst teams will be unknown so there is no way for punishment to be part of the equation.

Imagine if there was a rule on draft eligibility that worked similarly to baseball. Where you could go pro right out of high school, but if you chose to go to college then you had to stay for 2 years. In baseball it is 3 years currently, but imagine that in the nba that it was 2. So a kid goes to college and after his sophomore year the rule gets changed from 2 years to 3 years. He went down a path while a certain rule was in place and then got stuck with an arbitrary decision made by other people. The only fair thing to do in that situation would be to allow him to leave college after his second year because that was the rule when he started.

For the tanking issue, the only fair way to change the rule would be to exempt the people that are already on that path. Again, this isn't a situation where any rules were broken. If Hinkie knew when he traded Turner and Hawes for peanuts that it would lead to punishment from the league then he may have done something different. There was no reason to believe that anything would be taken from him for traveling on that path.

Even if you think that tanking is wrong, you must understand the fundamental unfairness of changing the rules on the fly, and not exempting the teams that are already in no position to do anything about it.




Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[Skates]

Well the Bucks didn't trade away their vet players like Mayo or Sanders so I don't think they can be accused of not trying to win.

The Wolves traded for Thad Young and Mo Williams, two veterans, to try to win.

The Celts at least tried to trade for Love to try to win.

The Lakers tried to get a superstar to join them. They also signed some vet players.

The Jazz gave Hayward the max even though he wasn't worth it because they want to be respectable.

The Wolves are a bad joke that gave up a first rounder for one year of Thad Young who will never re-sign there. Mo Williams, seriously, does anyone advocate signing him as a way to get appreciably better?

The Celts tank actual games, losing on purpose, have done it several years. Tried to trade for Love? Sure, and I am sure we tried to sign LeBron, just because your media make it out to be a possibility doesn't make it so.

The Lakers are quickly becoming one of the worst managed teams in the league, so the NBA should want other teams to copy that?? We had Swaggy P too once, he ain't good. The Kobe signing was a Phillies-esque move, and that is the joke of jokes. The Lakers think they are entitled to a superstar, lately they have discovered that they are not.

Not trading Sanders for the Bucks? He was and is untradeable, and the moves they did make made them worse than a team that lost 26 straight last year.

So, the lesson to be learned is that being incompetent into low level mediocrity will make other teams like you??? In that case I presser to be disliked.

The Jazz are the only team on that list with any sort of a plan, but all they really did was overpay to keep their own draft pick.

[Ericb5]

I mean if Silver says he wants to stop tanking, but the rule will go into effect in 2 years so the teams can finish their tanking, so I'm cool with it for two years, makes zero sense.

I'll pose a question, if Silver made this rule last year, what would the 76er's of done differently?

Probably nothing, but that is besides the point. This rule will not stop tanking.

The more appropriate question though would be this.

If Hinkie knew that his actions that he was taking would lead to a punishment, how would it have affected his calculus? For the sake of simplicity let's just assume that the Sixers will have the worst record this year and that the lottery would turn out the worst possible way for them, meaning that they end up with the 7th pick. Before the rule change in this scenario they would have the 4th pick.

What kind of compensation would be required to move from the 7th pick up to the 4th pick? This is a concrete representation of how this directly hurts the Sixers. Would any of Hinkie's moves not have been taken if he knew that this cost would be imposed? That's the question.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[Mik317]

So they should have to wait until the 76er's have carried out their plan? Why show bias in that sense? There's really zero reason to wait longer then it has to just because it affects the 76ers. Wouldn't it be hypocritical of Silver to say that tanking is a problem then pass a rule that wouldn't take effect for another 3 years?

Making the changes now hurts all of the worst teams in the league, including the Sixers. The reason that you do it in a few years is that by that time the worst teams in the league will be unknown.



Well the Bucks didn't trade away their vet players like Mayo or Sanders so I don't think they can be accused of not trying to win.

The Wolves traded for Thad Young and Mo Williams, two veterans, to try to win.

The Celts at least tried to trade for Love to try to win.

The Lakers tried to get a superstar to join them. They also signed some vet players.

The Jazz gave Hayward the max even though he wasn't worth it because they want to be respectable.

Silver has a responsibility to the fans to at least give them a reason to go to the games. How many 76er fans went to all 26 games they lost in a row? No team should be that bad to lose that many games in a row

Intent is pointless. So you are saying if we had of signed one vet...it'd be okay what we are doing all of a sudden? GTFO

The Lakers and Celts went after Stars yes..because Stars would probably stay there. The Bucks didn't trade Mayo because no one wants him and they were shopping Sanders IIRC and his off the court issues makes him a tough sell regardless. The Jazz overpayed to keep Hayward but he is one of their young players.

Thad was going to walk that is why we moved him.... and we got a damn good deal for him. That is the only reason we have moved anyone so far. The idea that Hinkie is just giving away players is stupid. He is giving away players because they will soon walk for nothing and aren't worth keeping around for the most part. I Love Thad and if he was going to stay I'd be ok but on the other hand, he would also probably command a nice contract with the numbers he'd put up here too.

Our situation is our situation. If Thad had a few more years left on his contract, he'd probably still be here. If Turner was say a second year guy who we had control of for longer, he'd probably still be here.

I think many people are super short sighted. "oh but the team will be more exciting THIS year" ok and? Is that really worth potentially **** up the years after which also could be damn interesting?

Bledsoe, Parsons, and Lance were longshots to happen, IMO and to keep holding on to that as the alternate way is silly at this point. We did what was best for the current situation. Outside of maybe taking someone besides Saric (on a purely greedy I want to see more rookies now thing), I wouldn't change a thing.

[guest81]

Adam Silver has already proven himself to be a hypocrite so this is nothing new. He kicks out owners he doesn't like because of private conversations. He says he is going to address the league's drug problem and does nothing. He changes rules in the middle of the season because he feels like it. But as long as he invites Isaiah Austin to the draft it's all good, right?

All it would take is a bit of common sense to give teams 1 year of heads up before changing the draft. That would be the correct thing to do if you really wanted to address something. Instead, the NBA is showing its own bias against the Sixers by waiting until the last minute to make an important change. Another great move by our wonderful commisioner

what possible reason would Silver and the NBA have to have a bias against the 76ers?

I don't think that HE has any bias against the Sixers, but he has a lot of upset owners in the league and he increases his popularity by doing what they want. People in power can always increase their power by doing whatever is popular, but the popular thing isn't always the right thing.

It is fundamentally unfair to allow a majority of owners to punish a minority of owners for doing something that is not against the rules. If they want to change the rule then it should be done in a non political manner. The way that you accomplish that is by pushing it out for a couple of years because in a few years the worst teams will be unknown so there is no way for punishment to be part of the equation.

Imagine if there was a rule on draft eligibility that worked similarly to baseball. Where you could go pro right out of high school, but if you chose to go to college then you had to stay for 2 years. In baseball it is 3 years currently, but imagine that in the nba that it was 2. So a kid goes to college and after his sophomore year the rule gets changed from 2 years to 3 years. He went down a path while a certain rule was in place and then got stuck with an arbitrary decision made by other people. The only fair thing to do in that situation would be to allow him to leave college after his second year because that was the rule when he started.

For the tanking issue, the only fair way to change the rule would be to exempt the people that are already on that path. Again, this isn't a situation where any rules were broken. If Hinkie knew when he traded Turner and Hawes for peanuts that it would lead to punishment from the league then he may have done something different. There was no reason to believe that anything would be taken from him for traveling on that path.

Even if you think that tanking is wrong, you must understand the fundamental unfairness of changing the rules on the fly, and not exempting the teams that are already in no position to do anything about it.




Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

But if you want to stop tanking, why exempt the teams that are tanking. If you wait a few years, isn't that a bias against the teams who are trying to win?

Let's really boil it down. The 76ers are tanking because how it's been in the NBA either your a contender, a middle of the pack team, or a really bad team. Really the culture has been that the worst place to be is in the middle of the pack because in most cases, your team has already peaked. If you were a fan of the Spurs, or any team Lebron is on is great, but a team like the Trailblazers or the Warriors, your really as good as your going to be.

So thats what Silver's trying to change. If your hope lies on being so bad in order to be really good in the future, then the system is broken. The rule change isn't going to solve that problem completely, but it's a good start and should be applauded that he's trying to fix things right away as opposed to Stern, who never did anything

[guest81]

I mean if Silver says he wants to stop tanking, but the rule will go into effect in 2 years so the teams can finish their tanking, so I'm cool with it for two years, makes zero sense.

I'll pose a question, if Silver made this rule last year, what would the 76er's of done differently?

Probably nothing, but that is besides the point. This rule will not stop tanking.

The more appropriate question though would be this.

If Hinkie knew that his actions that he was taking would lead to a punishment, how would it have affected his calculus? For the sake of simplicity let's just assume that the Sixers will have the worst record this year and that the lottery would turn out the worst possible way for them, meaning that they end up with the 7th pick. Before the rule change in this scenario they would have the 4th pick.

What kind of compensation would be required to move from the 7th pick up to the 4th pick? This is a concrete representation of how this directly hurts the Sixers. Would any of Hinkie's moves not have been taken if he knew that this cost would be imposed? That's the question.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

hell his plans were already changed to begin with. They tried to get the 1st pick and didn't get it. They wanted Wiggins, and they didn't get him. They got Emblid, who could turn out to be good, but I don't think he invisioned the twin towers as the future.

If they never changed the tanking rule how long could he stretch things out? I mean, If Emblid struggles next year could he tell fans to wait until he fully matures? Or wait another 2 years for Saric because hes going to be game changing? Or wait 3 years because he would need a year to adjust?

[guest81]

Isn't the worst thing that could happen to the NBA if the 76er's plan ends up working? To the 76er fans great yea. But if the message becomes that you have become this bad in order to compete for a championship, isn't that league completely flawed?

[Ericb5]

I mean if Silver says he wants to stop tanking, but the rule will go into effect in 2 years so the teams can finish their tanking, so I'm cool with it for two years, makes zero sense.

I'll pose a question, if Silver made this rule last year, what would the 76er's of done differently?

Probably nothing, but that is besides the point. This rule will not stop tanking.

The more appropriate question though would be this.

If Hinkie knew that his actions that he was taking would lead to a punishment, how would it have affected his calculus? For the sake of simplicity let's just assume that the Sixers will have the worst record this year and that the lottery would turn out the worst possible way for them, meaning that they end up with the 7th pick. Before the rule change in this scenario they would have the 4th pick.

What kind of compensation would be required to move from the 7th pick up to the 4th pick? This is a concrete representation of how this directly hurts the Sixers. Would any of Hinkie's moves not have been taken if he knew that this cost would be imposed? That's the question.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

hell his plans were already changed to begin with. They tried to get the 1st pick and didn't get it. They wanted Wiggins, and they didn't get him. They got Emblid, who could turn out to be good, but I don't think he invisioned the twin towers as the future.

If they never changed the tanking rule how long could he stretch things out? I mean, If Emblid struggles next year could he tell fans to wait until he fully matures? Or wait another 2 years for Saric because hes going to be game changing? Or wait 3 years because he would need a year to adjust?

If the rule was never changed he could only continue to tank as long as he had the confidence of his owners. They are still a business so you can't lose money forever.

The point here is that he has only tanked for two off seasons so far and the only obvious accomplishment is that they received the 3rd pick in the draft. There are no real damages here that the aggrieved parties have suffered so there is no real grounds for punishment. It is all just perceptions.

Any team could accomplish what the Sixers have accomplished just by being incompetent. How many top 10 picks have the clippers had in the last 20 years?

Tanking in Basketball will always exist simply because getting a superstar is the only thing that really matters and the best way to get a superstar is to be in the position to draft one. This rule will not accomplish its stated goal because it's stated goal is not its actual goal. The actual goal is to make an example of the Sixers so it scares other teams from being so blatant about it in the future..




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Ericb5]

Isn't the worst thing that could happen to the NBA if the 76er's plan ends up working? To the 76er fans great yea. But if the message becomes that you have become this bad in order to compete for a championship, isn't that league completely flawed?

You seem to be of the belief that flaws are always fixable. My point is that they are not. Attempting to legislate systemic flaws out of things always has unintended consequences which are often times worse than the underlying flaw that you were trying to fix.

It will ALWAYS be in the best interest of a basketball team to get a superstar. You can only draft them or sign them, and you are competing with the rest of the league in both cases. If you are OKC or Milwaukee you will never be able to compete with LA or NY for big time free agents. Your ONLY shot is to draft one. You have a much better chance of drafting one in the top 5 than you do drafting in the teens.

No rule changes will change those facts.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[DavidHume]

A lot of folks, it seems, tend to describe Hinkie's strategy solely in terms of tanking. The truth is that his strategy is multi-faceted. 

He acquired MCW, Noel and Saric because they are top-rated prospects. Drafting or trading for them was done for the purpose of acquiring talent. No tanking was done or was needed to acquire those players.

Hinkie traded for 7 second round draft picks over 2 draft years (4 in 2014 and 3 in 2015), with the hope that at least 1 of them will become a rotation player on a good team. If 1 of them does, then it will have been a successful move. This is part of the strategy. No tanking was done or was needed to accomplish this.

Hinkie acquired Sims and Wroten in trades because both are candidates to become rotation players on a good team. No tanking was done or was needed to accomplish this.

He acquired three first round draft picks via trade (Pelican's 2014, Miami's 2015, Sixers' 2017). This is part of the strategy. No tanking was done or was needed to accomplish this.

So far, "tanking" has produced the third pick in the 2014 draft. It might also yield a good player in the 2015 draft. That's it. That's the extent of the "tank" to date.

So any characterization that the sole, principle or primary aspect of Hinkie's strategy is to make the team as bad as possible is just empirically false.

[Chamberlainship]

If Embiid pans out the way you think, what makes you think he'll stay here and not go to the Lakers?

it will be extremely difficult to retain the young talent that does pan out once their rookie deals are up, as they will be sought after by better teams with a better chance to win. Philly is a decent market, so they arent at as big as disadvantage there as say milwaukee... but they still risk losing their young talent because of being terrible.

Not to come across antagonistic, but this is incorrect.

In the last two decades of the NBA there have been almost no star rookies that haven't been retained by their drafting teams if their drafting teams can afford them. Most of the time rookies move teams it's financial (eg Harden, Grant Hill); and Philly has the lowest roster salary of all 30 teams.

All 1st round rookies are automatically RFAs which means their drafting team can match any offer and retain them. They're locked in. The only out is taking the QO, and this almost never happens (only 13 in the past decade) and has never happened with a star player AFAIK. The biggest names that took QOs are Ben Gordon and Greg Monroe.

The other exception is if you can force your drafting team to not match by saying you're a cancer and don't want to play there. And that worked out wonderfully for Eric Gordon's career.

TLDR - if you draft a star, 99.9% chance you will keep that star for up to 9 years (rookie + max contract).

Shaq left Orlando after 4.
Zo left Charlotte after 3.
Tmac left Toronto after 3.
Vince, Lebron, and Carmelo left after 7 full seasons.

None of those guys won a title with the team that drafted them (yet). CBAs change. A star can get out of town if he wants.

[Mik317]

the CBA was just changed to prevent things like that actually. You get 7 years to build around a player minimum...if you **** it up too bad.