NBA looking to change Draft Lottery; 76ers say no

[Effigy]

It all comes down to the League should have announced the changes June 1st, instead of the middle of July. Teams' long term plans haves already been made. Ultimately, the changes will hurt the 76ers in year 2 of this rebuild, but only slightly. The 76ers would benefit in year 3, if Embiid comes back healthy and makes any kind of impact.

I don't think that matters. The Sixers know they aren't supposed to tank. They were circumventing the spirit of the rules if not the letter of the law. Now they want another year so they can keep circumventing it? I'm sorry, no. It's like if a college professor starts sleeping with a student at a college where there is no explicit rule about it and then the college puts in a rule about it, he doesn't get to keep sleeping with her just because it used to technically be legal. He knew damn well he *shouldn't* be doing that regardless what the actual rule said.

I don't see anyone giving the Magic any grief. They've won 20 and 23 games the past two years and just traded Aflalo. Why is that ok but the Sixers are tanking for trading Evan Turner and Spencer Hawes? I don't understand.

The Sixers tried maximized the value of the assets they had. They didn't sit players to lose games. They identified players that weren't in their long-term plans and traded them for other assets that could become long-term assets. Why does a team like Orlando get a pass? Because they drafted players that will play immediately?

It all comes down to the League should have announced the changes June 1st, instead of the middle of July. Teams' long term plans haves already been made. Ultimately, the changes will hurt the 76ers in year 2 of this rebuild, but only slightly. The 76ers would benefit in year 3, if Embiid comes back healthy and makes any kind of impact.

I don't think that matters. The Sixers know they aren't supposed to tank. They were circumventing the spirit of the rules if not the letter of the law. Now they want another year so they can keep circumventing it? I'm sorry, no. It's like if a college professor starts sleeping with a student at a college where there is no explicit rule about it and then the college puts in a rule about it, he doesn't get to keep sleeping with her just because it used to technically be legal. He knew damn well he *shouldn't* be doing that regardless what the actual rule said.

Such ridiculous nonsense. As has been pointed out repeatedly here and elsewhere, at least a dozen teams have transparently tanked at one point or another. So basically you want to punish the Sixers because they're not lying about it? You know what else circumvents the spirit of the CBA - the way the Rockets structured the Asik and Lin contracts. But so what, they found a loophole that let them structure the contracts this way and exploited it - good for them. And if was so obvious that a tank isn't "supposed to tank" how come Silver had positive comments about what the Sixers were doing a few months ago?

The problem is that Sixer fans feel singled out like this is some attack on them, which is ridiculous. The league has long disliked the idea of tanking and something is finally being done about it. Honestly it is probably more due to Adam Silver taking over and wanting to put his stamp on the league than anything else. It is definitely not an attack against Philadelphia they just happen to be one of the tanking teams at the moment.

And nobody is giving Orlando a free pass. The only reason we are talking about Philly is because there are reports that they want to fight this new rule. We'd be having the same conversation about the magic if it was them that was reported on.

[Sixersftw]

1) The spurs didnt tank, they lost a league MVP. Duncan didnt go into a losing tanking situation, he went to a winning organization that had been in the playoffs and a winning enviornment

2) The sonics didnt tank to get durant. they had the 6th worst record but got lucky in the lottery and ended up with the #2 pick(not the #1). They had their best records that year in february and april. they just werent a good team. they are an example of not tanking. they also happen to get a once-in-a-decade player and were lucky enough to get the #2 pick and not the #1

These are just plain false. The spurs held players out not to mention many think they exaggerated the Admirals injury. They tanked. It might have been only for one year because they already had a star in place and drafted another one w/ an immediate impact but they tanked.

The Sonics lucked into KD but then didn't resign shard, and traded Ray Allen a high draft pick (sound familiar?) and proceeded to be bad for 2 years. They didn't walk into KD and stink up the joint naturally. They made moves to get worse in the short term to be where they are today.

Keep moving them goal posts.

[Snotbubbles]

Not to mention, all that tanking and roster with no veterans leads to tons of ego, bad habits, me first, losing atmosphere, etc. it is REALLY hard to get that losing stench off of a team or turn around ball jacking and bad habits.

Yep, when I think of Kevin Durant and Tim Duncan, the first things that come to mind are "tons of ego, bad habits, me first, losing atmosphere."

1) The spurs didnt tank, they lost a league MVP. Duncan didnt go into a losing tanking situation, he went to a winning organization that had been in the playoffs and a winning enviornment

2) The sonics didnt tank to get durant. they had the 6th worst record but got lucky in the lottery and ended up with the #2 pick(not the #1). They had their best records that year in february and april. they just werent a good team. they are an example of not tanking. they also happen to get a once-in-a-decade player and were lucky enough to get the #2 pick and not the #1

better examples are teams like the wolves, bucks, cavs(bailed out by lebron), and probably the best is the Nets.

The nets had one of the most blatant tanks ever the year we lost 70 games. We didnt get a top 2 pick. we drafted favors, and were again terrible the next 2 years with lopez, favors, and ryan anderson as a young core. the team lost and the players became content and it created a lsoing stench. dwill was traded for, came to that enviornment, and become content and was enabled to be a diva who dog who didnt care. it had gotten so bad, that aquiring hall of fame warriors like pierce and garnett, isntead of providing some leadership and changing the culture just became content with the losing ways and low effort of this team. hell it wasnt until lopez went down and dwill was injured/got a huge reduced role and we focues around pierce and johnson that we turned anything around. and the nets likely wont every be a winnign club again until williams, lopez, and any reminents of that culture are gone.

Looking back, im yet to find a team that tanked blatantly and it turned out well for them. usually they are bad for several years and their good young players bolt.

After the Sonics/Thunder drafted Durant they won 20 and 23 games. That is not a winning environment.

And the Boston Celtics tanked trying to get Durant and won the NBA title the next season after losing the lottery.

[madmaxmedia]

The more I think of it, it will just be beneficial for the Sixers and less for teams who are just starting to rebuild.

Sixers will have two prized rookies playing on their team for the next two years. Embiid and 2015 lotto in 2015- 2016 season, Saric and 2016 lotto pick in 2016-2017 season. That and with current staple of MCW and Noel, chances are they will not suck that bad after this season. But nevertheless, the team still has the potential to land a no.1 pick in both the 2015 and the 2016 drafts.

And if they don't land the no.1 pick, from Hinkie's track record in the last two seasons, I won't be surprised if Sixers still get the no.1 prospect with a non no.1 overall pick.

Well, not if Sixers are 'lucky', Saric is a PITA and stays overseas 2 years and Embid's back problems take an extra year to clear up...

[BullyKing]

I don't think that matters. The Sixers know they aren't supposed to tank. They were circumventing the spirit of the rules if not the letter of the law. Now they want another year so they can keep circumventing it? I'm sorry, no. It's like if a college professor starts sleeping with a student at a college where there is no explicit rule about it and then the college puts in a rule about it, he doesn't get to keep sleeping with her just because it used to technically be legal. He knew damn well he *shouldn't* be doing that regardless what the actual rule said.

Ridiculous analogy. You haven't had your morning coffee yet, have you?

I love when people say an analogy is ridiculous without saying why. Perhaps because you can't think of a reason to refute it? It usually winds up being because it isn't an exact match the exact scenario, which of course only demonstrates that the responder doesn't really understand what an analogy is.

Since you apparently need someone to state the obvious, how about that the reason the college puts in the rule about a professor not being allowed to sleep with a student is because helps insulate them from liability should a lawsuit arise. No one is suing the NBA because the Sixers tanked. Oh and for your information, many times when a company institutes a policy like this, they do grandfather in already existing relationships.

[Sixersftw]

The problem is that Sixer fans feel singled out like this is some attack on them, which is ridiculous......

Well we are singled out on any of the tanking discussions because we are the most blatant about it and Hinkie just DGAF. If I've heard it once I've heard it 1000 times "it's like there are 29 teams in the nba" in reference to the Sixers. I get it but lets not pretend that the teams are evenly discussed when the nuances of tanking are broached

[Snotbubbles]

I don't think that matters. The Sixers know they aren't supposed to tank. They were circumventing the spirit of the rules if not the letter of the law. Now they want another year so they can keep circumventing it? I'm sorry, no. It's like if a college professor starts sleeping with a student at a college where there is no explicit rule about it and then the college puts in a rule about it, he doesn't get to keep sleeping with her just because it used to technically be legal. He knew damn well he *shouldn't* be doing that regardless what the actual rule said.

I don't see anyone giving the Magic any grief. They've won 20 and 23 games the past two years and just traded Aflalo. Why is that ok but the Sixers are tanking for trading Evan Turner and Spencer Hawes? I don't understand.

The Sixers tried maximized the value of the assets they had. They didn't sit players to lose games. They identified players that weren't in their long-term plans and traded them for other assets that could become long-term assets. Why does a team like Orlando get a pass? Because they drafted players that will play immediately?

I don't think that matters. The Sixers know they aren't supposed to tank. They were circumventing the spirit of the rules if not the letter of the law. Now they want another year so they can keep circumventing it? I'm sorry, no. It's like if a college professor starts sleeping with a student at a college where there is no explicit rule about it and then the college puts in a rule about it, he doesn't get to keep sleeping with her just because it used to technically be legal. He knew damn well he *shouldn't* be doing that regardless what the actual rule said.

Such ridiculous nonsense. As has been pointed out repeatedly here and elsewhere, at least a dozen teams have transparently tanked at one point or another. So basically you want to punish the Sixers because they're not lying about it? You know what else circumvents the spirit of the CBA - the way the Rockets structured the Asik and Lin contracts. But so what, they found a loophole that let them structure the contracts this way and exploited it - good for them. And if was so obvious that a tank isn't "supposed to tank" how come Silver had positive comments about what the Sixers were doing a few months ago?

The problem is that Sixer fans feel singled out like this is some attack on them, which is ridiculous. The league has long disliked the idea of tanking and something is finally being done about it. Honestly it is probably more due to Adam Silver taking over and wanting to put his stamp on the league than anything else. It is definitely not an attack against Philadelphia they just happen to be one of the tanking teams at the moment.

And nobody is giving Orlando a free pass. The only reason we are talking about Philly is because there are reports that they want to fight this new rule. We'd be having the same conversation about the magic if it was them that was reported on.

The problem is that this proposal doesn't stop tanking.

[Effigy]

The problem is that Sixer fans feel singled out like this is some attack on them, which is ridiculous. The league has long disliked the idea of tanking and something is finally being done about it. Honestly it is probably more due to Adam Silver taking over and wanting to put his stamp on the league than anything else. It is definitely not an attack against Philadelphia they just happen to be one of the tanking teams at the moment.

And nobody is giving Orlando a free pass. The only reason we are talking about Philly is because there are reports that they want to fight this new rule. We'd be having the same conversation about the magic if it was them that was reported on.

The problem is that this proposal doesn't stop tanking.

If that's true, why do the Sixers care then? Clearly it must make teams seriously reconsider or the Sixers wouldn't be fighting it. The Sixers are tanking, if this rule doesn't deter tanking, then the Sixers wouldn't fight it.

[Effigy]

Ridiculous analogy. You haven't had your morning coffee yet, have you?

I love when people say an analogy is ridiculous without saying why. Perhaps because you can't think of a reason to refute it? It usually winds up being because it isn't an exact match the exact scenario, which of course only demonstrates that the responder doesn't really understand what an analogy is.

Since you apparently need someone to state the obvious, how about that the reason the college puts in the rule about a professor not being allowed to sleep with a student is because helps insulate them from liability should a lawsuit arise. No one is suing the NBA because the Sixers tanked. Oh and for your information, many times when a company institutes a policy like this, they do grandfather in already existing relationships.

Nobody is suing the NBA NOW, but in our lawsuit happy society, is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where season ticket holders do decide to sue a team if they feel they have reasonable cause? If your reason for doing something is that it could eventually lead to a lawsuit that logic could be applied to anything. Do you have any sources about that last line of yours? What does "many times" mean? 20% of the time? So the other 80% of the time it isn't allowed? So what?

[MagicMadness]

The line between rebuilding and tanking has become blurred.

Most Magic fans are happy with the direction our team has gone since trading Dwight. We could have kept the core, fought for mediocrity, and been an aging, boring team the past couple of seasons. Instead, we traded for youth and draft picks, moved high-salaried vets, and put together a team with a potentially exciting future. I think it's safe to say that the majority of fans have enjoyed the ride, and continue to be excited for what's next in store.

The Sixers are doing the same thing - and as far as I can tell, most Sixer fans (on RealGM, at least) are excited about the direction their team is headed in, as well. For the first time in many years, they have something to be excited about - potential.

People can call it 'tanking', they can call it whatever they want. But I sure feel a lot better about my team right now than I would have if we had a high salary cap, no future, a couple of late-lottery picks, and another boring season of 35-40 win ball. The NBA needs to give the fans some credit. If our teams can't be great, we'll settle for 'potential' over 'boring, swept-in-the-first-round, going nowhere' any day of the week.

Let the rebuilding continue.

[BullyKing]

I love when people say an analogy is ridiculous without saying why. Perhaps because you can't think of a reason to refute it? It usually winds up being because it isn't an exact match the exact scenario, which of course only demonstrates that the responder doesn't really understand what an analogy is.

Since you apparently need someone to state the obvious, how about that the reason the college puts in the rule about a professor not being allowed to sleep with a student is because helps insulate them from liability should a lawsuit arise. No one is suing the NBA because the Sixers tanked. Oh and for your information, many times when a company institutes a policy like this, they do grandfather in already existing relationships.

Nobody is suing the NBA NOW, but in our lawsuit happy society, is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where season ticket holders do decide to sue a team if they feel they have reasonable cause? If your reason for doing something is that it could eventually lead to a lawsuit that logic could be applied to anything. Do you have any sources about that last line of yours? What does "many times" mean? 20% of the time? So the other 80% of the time it isn't allowed? So what?

Well, advising on these kinds of things is part of what I do for a living but I understand if that's not good enough for you. And sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything but what is the claim? I voluntarily purchased tickets for a sporting event and the team that I went to go see sucked?

[BullyKing]

The line between rebuilding and tanking has become blurred.

Most Magic fans are happy with the direction our team has gone since trading Dwight. We could have kept the core, fought for mediocrity, and been an aging, boring team the past couple of seasons. Instead, we traded for youth and draft picks, moved high-salaried vets, and put together a team with a potentially exciting future. I think it's safe to say that the majority of fans have enjoyed the ride, and continue to be excited for what's next in store.

The Sixers are doing the same thing - and as far as I can tell, most Sixer fans (on RealGM, at least) are excited about the direction their team is headed in, as well. For the first time in many years, they have something to be excited about - potential.

People can call it 'tanking', they can call it whatever they want. But I sure feel a lot better about my team right now than I would have if we had a high salary cap, no future, a couple of late-lottery picks, and another boring season of 35-40 win ball. The NBA needs to give the fans some credit. If our teams can't be great, we'll settle for 'potential' over 'boring, swept-in-the-first-round, going nowhere' any day of the week.

Let the rebuilding continue.

Well said. For the basketball purists out there who complain that tanking goes against the competitive spirit, is simply accepting perpetual mediocrity and never trying anything bold to get better more in line with the competitive spirit?

[Effigy]

Since you apparently need someone to state the obvious, how about that the reason the college puts in the rule about a professor not being allowed to sleep with a student is because helps insulate them from liability should a lawsuit arise. No one is suing the NBA because the Sixers tanked. Oh and for your information, many times when a company institutes a policy like this, they do grandfather in already existing relationships.

Nobody is suing the NBA NOW, but in our lawsuit happy society, is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where season ticket holders do decide to sue a team if they feel they have reasonable cause? If your reason for doing something is that it could eventually lead to a lawsuit that logic could be applied to anything. Do you have any sources about that last line of yours? What does "many times" mean? 20% of the time? So the other 80% of the time it isn't allowed? So what?

Well, advising on these kinds of things is part of what I do for a living but I understand if that's not good enough for you. And sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything but what is the claim? I voluntarily purchased tickets for a sporting event and the team that I went to go see sucked?

I don't know how successful a claim would be, but that's the risk with any trial. If you purchased season tickets to a team and then afterwards they dump all their good players and have a terrible record (Think Florida Marlins after they won both their World Series), you could argue that the product they put on the field or court is not the product you paid to see.

[Snotbubbles]

The problem is that Sixer fans feel singled out like this is some attack on them, which is ridiculous. The league has long disliked the idea of tanking and something is finally being done about it. Honestly it is probably more due to Adam Silver taking over and wanting to put his stamp on the league than anything else. It is definitely not an attack against Philadelphia they just happen to be one of the tanking teams at the moment.

And nobody is giving Orlando a free pass. The only reason we are talking about Philly is because there are reports that they want to fight this new rule. We'd be having the same conversation about the magic if it was them that was reported on.

The problem is that this proposal doesn't stop tanking.

If that's true, why do the Sixers care then? Clearly it must make teams seriously reconsider or the Sixers wouldn't be fighting it. The Sixers are tanking, if this rule doesn't deter tanking, then the Sixers wouldn't fight it.

I think it's pretty obvious that it lowers their odds of getting the #1 pick. But even with a lower % chance, they will still tank. They've identified the draft as the most cost efficient way of building a championship contender. Until the NBA changes their structure with regard to the salary cap and contracts teams will always use the draft as a way to build their teams. Even under this proposed system, you're better off being in the top 6 of the lottery teams than the bottom 6. So team a might not try to be the worst in history, but they will still try to be bad to get in the top 6.

[philly262]

People just have a 12 month memory when it comes to the NBA, " The Sixers have been awful for ages" We've only been truly awful for a year, the NBA is tired of the Sixers tanking.... Were they tired of consistently being the 7th or 8th seed in the playoffs and losing year after a year? We've spent money to try and be good. Remember Elton Brand? We've traded our young assets to try and get a star piece, See Andrew Bymun, We even tried to build a team behind a bunch of young somewhat good players, See Holiday,Turner and Hawes. None of those solutions worked, since Decemeber 19, 2006 we've been putting off a rebuild/tank.We're finally doing it the right way and hopefully it turns out well.

[BullyKing]

Nobody is suing the NBA NOW, but in our lawsuit happy society, is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where season ticket holders do decide to sue a team if they feel they have reasonable cause? If your reason for doing something is that it could eventually lead to a lawsuit that logic could be applied to anything. Do you have any sources about that last line of yours? What does "many times" mean? 20% of the time? So the other 80% of the time it isn't allowed? So what?

Well, advising on these kinds of things is part of what I do for a living but I understand if that's not good enough for you. And sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything but what is the claim? I voluntarily purchased tickets for a sporting event and the team that I went to go see sucked?

I don't know how successful a claim would be, but that's the risk with any trial. If you purchased season tickets to a team and then afterwards they dump all their good players and have a terrible record (Think Florida Marlins after they won both their World Series), you could argue that the product they put on the field or court is not the product you paid to see.

That case would NEVER get anywhere close to trial. Up to you whether you trust me on this but seriously, you're grasping at straws to try and save an inherently flawed analogy. Let's just move on.

[philly262]

Nobody is suing the NBA NOW, but in our lawsuit happy society, is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where season ticket holders do decide to sue a team if they feel they have reasonable cause? If your reason for doing something is that it could eventually lead to a lawsuit that logic could be applied to anything. Do you have any sources about that last line of yours? What does "many times" mean? 20% of the time? So the other 80% of the time it isn't allowed? So what?

Well, advising on these kinds of things is part of what I do for a living but I understand if that's not good enough for you. And sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything but what is the claim? I voluntarily purchased tickets for a sporting event and the team that I went to go see sucked?

I don't know how successful a claim would be, but that's the risk with any trial. If you purchased season tickets to a team and then afterwards they dump all their good players and have a terrible record (Think Florida Marlins after they won both their World Series), you could argue that the product they put on the field or court is not the product you paid to see.

And that's exactly why the Sixers are rebuilding/tanking. No one comes to Sixers games anymore, even before the tank, Philadelphia fans are frontrunners, they only like teams with legitimate championship hopes. A team that's a 5th or 6th seed wouldn't get that many more fans. Unless you're the Eagles in Philly no one cares that you made it to the second round of the playoffs, you didn't win a champship so we're not going to really support the team.

[Effigy]

Well, advising on these kinds of things is part of what I do for a living but I understand if that's not good enough for you. And sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything but what is the claim? I voluntarily purchased tickets for a sporting event and the team that I went to go see sucked?

I don't know how successful a claim would be, but that's the risk with any trial. If you purchased season tickets to a team and then afterwards they dump all their good players and have a terrible record (Think Florida Marlins after they won both their World Series), you could argue that the product they put on the field or court is not the product you paid to see.

That case would NEVER get anywhere close to trial. Up to you whether you trust me on this but seriously, you're grasping at straws to try and save an inherently flawed analogy. Let's just move on.

It was an example simply because you asked. You can't act like our legal system always makes sense to you and you always agree with what does and doesn't make it to trial. Thieves break into homes and injure themselves and sue the home owners, there is no way to definitively say what could or would come to trial.

There was nothing wrong with the analogy, you like many make the mistake of thinking that if the analogy isn't exactly congruous with the original scenario it's a bad analogy, while completely misunderstanding what an analogy is.

[BullyKing]

I don't know how successful a claim would be, but that's the risk with any trial. If you purchased season tickets to a team and then afterwards they dump all their good players and have a terrible record (Think Florida Marlins after they won both their World Series), you could argue that the product they put on the field or court is not the product you paid to see.

That case would NEVER get anywhere close to trial. Up to you whether you trust me on this but seriously, you're grasping at straws to try and save an inherently flawed analogy. Let's just move on.

It was an example simply because you asked. You can't act like our legal system always makes sense to you and you always agree with what does and doesn't make it to trial. Thieves break into homes and injure themselves and sue the home owners, there is no way to definitively say what could or would come to trial.

There was nothing wrong with the analogy, you like many make the mistake of thinking that if the analogy isn't exactly congruous with the original scenario it's a bad analogy, while completely misunderstanding what an analogy is.

Ok, sure whatever. A fan could sue claiming that the arena lights were too bright and it upset. And since we never know what a jury will do, we should just play all games in the darkness.

[Effigy]

That case would NEVER get anywhere close to trial. Up to you whether you trust me on this but seriously, you're grasping at straws to try and save an inherently flawed analogy. Let's just move on.

It was an example simply because you asked. You can't act like our legal system always makes sense to you and you always agree with what does and doesn't make it to trial. Thieves break into homes and injure themselves and sue the home owners, there is no way to definitively say what could or would come to trial.

There was nothing wrong with the analogy, you like many make the mistake of thinking that if the analogy isn't exactly congruous with the original scenario it's a bad analogy, while completely misunderstanding what an analogy is.

Ok, sure whatever. A fan could sue claiming that the arena lights were too bright and it upset. And since we never know what a jury will do, we should just play all games in the darkness.

Bam. Checkmate. Have a lovely day. http://bangordailynews.com/2014/05/14/n ... s-property