Draft lottery threas

[Case2012]

This was so predictable. Watching that last spurs game, you just knew that this was gonna happen. Billups needed to pad his record a few games for his extension that he was already gonna get. Joe had to get his extension that was gonna get no matter what. The league had to gift Dallas after the deal they made to get Luka to LA. This is so corrupt.

[Norm2953]

If only we had sent Dame to a big market, maybe we would've won the lottery.

Really getting hard to stick with the NBA.

Perhaps they would have given the Blazers the #1 pick if they had sent Dame to Miami after all

[Chanse503]

Just wait till we start cashing in those Bucks picks with ours-that’ll be the proper rebuild.

Hopefully you're right. Although once again that means they're moving the goalposts on us.

I just have a feeling Giannis is getting traded and Bucks going to be really bad. In retrospect- solid trade.

[PDXKnight]

This was so predictable. Watching that last spurs game, you just knew that this was gonna happen. Billups needed to pad his record a few games for his extension that he was already gonna get. Joe had to get his extension that was gonna get no matter what. The league had to gift Dallas after the deal they made to get Luka to LA. This is so corrupt.

Yup, although If I'm a Dallas fan I'm extra mad now. Doncic-flagg is an infinitely better core for 10-15 years than flagg-ad

[Norm2953]

Perhaps all the teams need to start sending their best players where the league wants them to be for
the league will reward them with the #1 pick

Deni and toumani to LA for Vanderbilt? Probably not enough from our end for the nba to agree to giving up a high pick...

League doesn't want Dybantsa in Portland

[PDXKnight]

Just wait till we start cashing in those Bucks picks with ours-that’ll be the proper rebuild.

Hopefully you're right. Although once again that means they're moving the goalposts on us.

I just have a feeling Giannis is getting traded and Bucks going to be really bad. In retrospect- solid trade.

Maybe so, also it could backfire though. I think if they get a super package for giannis, and they probably do, that means they will be rising to form right about when we would get those picks. But who knows maybe they're late lotto and some balls bounce in our favor

[Case2012]

Yeah — it’s hard not to feel like the whole thing was rigged.

Dallas jumps from 11 to 1 to get Cooper Flagg right after handing Luka to the Lakers in a trade that looked shady from the jump? And San Antonio, who barely edged us out in the standings, magically lands the No. 2 pick — their third top 4 pick in a row? Meanwhile, Portland ends up sitting there with nothing again? We lost the coin toss and then moved down. But I'm glad Joe and CB got to keep their jobs, they've done such a good one.

It’s infuriating.

It’s not just bad luck — it looks orchestrated. The NBA wanted Luka in a big market with LeBron, so they grease that deal to L.A. and then toss Dallas a generational prospect in Flagg to “compensate.” Flagg's not just a top pick — he’s a franchise reset button. And now the Mavs get to jump right back into contention with him after giving away the best young player in the league?

As for Portland — this is exactly why half-measures don’t work. We should’ve gone full rebuild, bottomed out, and played for Flagg or Harper. But no, Cronin had to chase meaningless wins and protect his job by putting together a fake surge in March.

And now we’re stuck AGAIN. There's no way we're keeping the pick. It doesn't make sense to be sooooo stupid getting these meaningless wins and ruining our chances at Flagg if we weren't moving it. I just wonder who they have lined up? I still think It's Zion. =(

[Wizenheimer]

And the utter failure of a season is complete.

not quite...soon, we'll hear about Simons and Ayton agreeing to massive extensions.....then it's complete

I hate you so much. No matter how much I try, you always find the bleaker POV.

I know my role!

[The Sebastian Express]

I understand why the NBA can't go to a straight worst equal first policy because the NBA season is so much longer than the football one.

But I think it'd be good to break it up into brackets. Like 1-7 are guaranteed a top seven pick, 8-14 are guaranteed a pick 8-14. Like separate lotteries for both of these brackets. Yes, you'll probably still have teams 8-10 trying to get into the 1-7 bracket, but. At least it guarantees that top 7 pick stays with top 7 teams and they get real chances at picking quality players to move up and out of that 1-7 bracket.

Honestly if Dallas had like top 7 lottery odds then this isn't an issue. But that they got Flagg with 1.8 chance after giving up Luka for that objectively terrible package when you know OKC and other teams would've bid so much more, it's rough. It's really, really rough to buy that that was legit. That feels like the NBA doing owners some favors. Especially in the context of past number one picks after a star player gets traded to a big market.

[Walton1one]

I actually think the teams that make the play in and lose should get a compensatory pick b/t 1st & 2nd round based on regular season record, then lottery teams get weighted odds but reversed, the top lottery team gets best weighted odds and the worst record team gets the worst odds.

Force teams to try and compete to get the best odds, losing on purpose goes directly against what teams should be doing, players want to compete, team mgmt think more long term, time to put them on the same path for what is best for their future instead of competing interests

[Sinobas]

The Luka to LA deal was extremely shady. Even if you can chalk up the imbalance of it all to a GM simply making a bad move, how can you possibly explain not getting other bids? A bidding war for Luka would have been insane. No, give him to a major market, to insure there is always a super star in LA.

But then the question was, what would be in it for Dallas? Now this happens.

And with the way the NBA shares TV revenue, everyone wins,so they turn a blind eye.

[Dame Lizard]

I understand why the NBA can't go to a straight worst equal first policy because the NBA season is so much longer than the football one.

But I think it'd be good to break it up into brackets. Like 1-7 are guaranteed a top seven pick, 8-14 are guaranteed a pick 8-14. Like separate lotteries for both of these brackets. Yes, you'll probably still have teams 8-10 trying to get into the 1-7 bracket, but. At least it guarantees that top 7 pick stays with top 7 teams and they get real chances at picking quality players to move up and out of that 1-7 bracket.

Honestly if Dallas had like top 7 lottery odds then this isn't an issue. But that they got Flagg with 1.8 chance after giving up Luka for that objectively terrible package when you know OKC and other teams would've bid so much more, it's rough. It's really, really rough to buy that that was legit. That feels like the NBA doing owners some favors. Especially in the context of past number one picks after a star player gets traded to a big market.

This is the best approach imo.

I still think a lottery serves its purpose (even with some almost certain rigging based on what we've seen).

Imagine in the Wemby draft, if the worst team instantly got #1 (i.e. if there was no lottery). That would make for such a horrific NBA season. The bottom dwelling teams would be doing absolutely everything in their power to lose games, in a way we haven't seen before. It'd make for horrendous viewing.

[Case2012]

SA moving up and Fox going to SA with Castle winning ROTY is 100% set up for Giannis to Join Wemby. It's not a small market when you factor in the international ratings. Luka to LA was also a big part of that as well. SA trades Harper, Castle and salary plus 14 for Giannis. Watch.

[Pattycakes]

Holy rigged ****

[Dame Lizard]

Just wait till we start cashing in those Bucks picks with ours-that’ll be the proper rebuild.

Hopefully you're right. Although once again that means they're moving the goalposts on us.

I just have a feeling Giannis is getting traded and Bucks going to be really bad. In retrospect- solid trade.

I thought the same, until I realised that New Orleans own Milwaukee's pick swaps in 2026 and 2027.

That, combined with Portland owning Milwaukee's picks and swaps in 2028/2029/2030, means that Milwaukee has zero incentive to tank. Therefore imo Milwaukee will want Giannis to be traded for young star talent (think Chet, Banchero, Jalen Johnson), allowing them to rebuild but also make a push for play-ins.

This offseason will be entertaining for many reasons across the NBA.

If Portland resigns Simons and Ayton, then it'll be a tough watch for us Blazer fans.

[Case2012]

It’s all lining up way too clean — this feels scripted.

Giannis to San Antonio isn’t just a wild theory — it’s textbook NBA narrative engineering.

They already have Wemby, who’s fast becoming the league’s new global face.

Now they luck into the No. 2 pick again, where they can take Dylan Harper, another high-upside future star.

Castle just won Rookie of the Year, and they’ve got pick 14 and plenty of matching salary.

So what’s the move? Package:

Castle (ROTY)

#2 pick (Harper)

#14 pick

filler

…for Giannis, who just watched his team implode around him and isn’t going to want to spend the next 2 years watching Milwaukee’s rebuild fail. That’s three young assets, one a proven rookie, one a projected star, and one late lotto. Milwaukee probably doesn’t say no — especially if Giannis makes it clear behind closed doors.

The NBA gets:

An semi-international big 3 of Wemby–Giannis–Fox

An elite small market team with global appeal

Massive overseas ratings, jersey sales, and narrative juice

It’s obvious. The Luka-to-Lakers trade was the first domino. Dallas gets Flagg. San Antonio gets Harper (or trades him). Milwaukee quietly resets around Castle and picks. Fox already forced his way to San Antonio. The pieces are falling into place too perfectly for this not to be intentional.

[Dame Lizard]

It’s all lining up way too clean — this feels scripted.

Giannis to San Antonio isn’t just a wild theory — it’s textbook NBA narrative engineering.

They already have Wemby, who’s fast becoming the league’s new global face.

Now they luck into the No. 2 pick again, where they can take Dylan Harper, another high-upside future star.

Castle just won Rookie of the Year, and they’ve got pick 14 and plenty of matching salary.

So what’s the move? Package:

Castle (ROTY)

#2 pick (Harper)

#14 pick

filler

…for Giannis, who just watched his team implode around him and isn’t going to want to spend the next 2 years watching Milwaukee’s rebuild fail. That’s three young assets, one a proven rookie, one a projected star, and one late lotto. Milwaukee probably doesn’t say no — especially if Giannis makes it clear behind closed doors.

The NBA gets:

An semi-international big 3 of Wemby–Giannis–Fox

An elite small market team with global appeal

Massive overseas ratings, jersey sales, and narrative juice

It’s obvious. The Luka-to-Lakers trade was the first domino. Dallas gets Flagg. San Antonio gets Harper (or trades him). Milwaukee quietly resets around Castle and picks. Fox already forced his way to San Antonio. The pieces are falling into place too perfectly for this not to be intentional.

That feels like a good trade for both parties. Perhaps with another pick going to Milwaukee, given Giannis is truly elite.

Yes, it's hard not to buy into conspiracy theories when incredible 'convenience' like this occurs. Dallas getting Flagg after trading Luka in the worst trade of all time imo, which 'randomly' benefits the Lakers tremendously, is laughable.

[zzaj]

I understand why the NBA can't go to a straight worst equal first policy because the NBA season is so much longer than the football one.

But I think it'd be good to break it up into brackets. Like 1-7 are guaranteed a top seven pick, 8-14 are guaranteed a pick 8-14. Like separate lotteries for both of these brackets. Yes, you'll probably still have teams 8-10 trying to get into the 1-7 bracket, but. At least it guarantees that top 7 pick stays with top 7 teams and they get real chances at picking quality players to move up and out of that 1-7 bracket.

Honestly if Dallas had like top 7 lottery odds then this isn't an issue. But that they got Flagg with 1.8 chance after giving up Luka for that objectively terrible package when you know OKC and other teams would've bid so much more, it's rough. It's really, really rough to buy that that was legit. That feels like the NBA doing owners some favors. Especially in the context of past number one picks after a star player gets traded to a big market.

This is the best approach imo.

I still think a lottery serves its purpose (even with some almost certain rigging based on what we've seen).

Imagine in the Wemby draft, if the worst team instantly got #1 (i.e. if there was no lottery). That would make for such a horrific NBA season. The bottom dwelling teams would be doing absolutely everything in their power to lose games, in a way we haven't seen before. It'd make for horrendous viewing.

I still think the system where you get a Lotto point every time you beat a team better than you in the standings makes the most sense--as that truly incentivizes winning. But I also agree that there should still be some tiers in place for teams. Sometimes teams are just bad, and it can be difficult to get out of that if you keep getting jumped out of Top 4 picks.

But it's good for the NBA to have the best players in the biggest markets clearly. And with a lot at stake with the new TV deals in place, I don't think the NBA wanted to gamble with letting a "must watch" player go to a Charlotte, New Orleans, or SLC.

The good news is Portland is one prolonged Deni injury away (knock on wood) from being right back in the lottery next year. I think there's less than a 5% chance they hit 50ish wins next season, which is what it will take to make the Playoffs in the West.

[The Sebastian Express]

I understand why the NBA can't go to a straight worst equal first policy because the NBA season is so much longer than the football one.

But I think it'd be good to break it up into brackets. Like 1-7 are guaranteed a top seven pick, 8-14 are guaranteed a pick 8-14. Like separate lotteries for both of these brackets. Yes, you'll probably still have teams 8-10 trying to get into the 1-7 bracket, but. At least it guarantees that top 7 pick stays with top 7 teams and they get real chances at picking quality players to move up and out of that 1-7 bracket.

Honestly if Dallas had like top 7 lottery odds then this isn't an issue. But that they got Flagg with 1.8 chance after giving up Luka for that objectively terrible package when you know OKC and other teams would've bid so much more, it's rough. It's really, really rough to buy that that was legit. That feels like the NBA doing owners some favors. Especially in the context of past number one picks after a star player gets traded to a big market.

This is the best approach imo.

I still think a lottery serves its purpose (even with some almost certain rigging based on what we've seen).

Imagine in the Wemby draft, if the worst team instantly got #1 (i.e. if there was no lottery). That would make for such a horrific NBA season. The bottom dwelling teams would be doing absolutely everything in their power to lose games, in a way we haven't seen before. It'd make for horrendous viewing.

I still think the system where you get a Lotto point every time you beat a team better than you in the standings makes the most sense--as that truly incentivizes winning. But I also agree that there should still be some tiers in place for teams. Sometimes teams are just bad, and it can be difficult to get out of that if you keep getting jumped out of Top 4 picks.

But it's good for the NBA to have the best players in the biggest markets clearly. And with a lot at stake with the new TV deals in place, I don't think the NBA wanted to gamble with letting a "must watch" player go to a Charlotte, New Orleans, or SLC.

The good news is Portland is one prolonged Deni injury away (knock on wood) from being right back in the lottery next year. I think there's less than a 5% chance they hit 50ish wins next season, which is what it will take to make the Playoffs in the West.

But I would ask - is it good for the best players to be in the biggest marks? This isn't the case for the NFL. Small markets have big followings and it's great when great players are there. Now certainly we know the NFL is more popular and the ratings are higher. But I think the real question is..

Does the NBA do well to have stars in big markets because that's a natural part of how society is setup? Or does the NBA do well to have stars in big markets because the narrative and stories from the league and its broadcast partners focus primarily on big markets? The NFL does a much, much, much better job at just sitting down and talking about the players, the teams, the schemes, the facts, the play. In the NBA we have the list I'm putting below and also dumb **** like Kevin Hart having a real time trashtalk of players in the middle of the all-star game, which was absurd.

The NBA's primary broadcast partners focus on: 1. Trades. 2. When will X player ask out to LA/NY/Boston/Philly, etc. 3. Drama.

There is no real big narratives and stories. Like NBC said when they won one of the NBA broadcasting contracts, they want to bring back stories. Setting up narratives. Real reasons for viewers to get invested. Promoting the players. Rivalries. Journeys. Treating stuff theatrically too.

So I think that the NBA has written itself into the corner of 'big stars must come to big cities' because that's what they and their broadcast partners have done. Nothing else.

[zzaj]

This is the best approach imo.

I still think a lottery serves its purpose (even with some almost certain rigging based on what we've seen).

Imagine in the Wemby draft, if the worst team instantly got #1 (i.e. if there was no lottery). That would make for such a horrific NBA season. The bottom dwelling teams would be doing absolutely everything in their power to lose games, in a way we haven't seen before. It'd make for horrendous viewing.

I still think the system where you get a Lotto point every time you beat a team better than you in the standings makes the most sense--as that truly incentivizes winning. But I also agree that there should still be some tiers in place for teams. Sometimes teams are just bad, and it can be difficult to get out of that if you keep getting jumped out of Top 4 picks.

But it's good for the NBA to have the best players in the biggest markets clearly. And with a lot at stake with the new TV deals in place, I don't think the NBA wanted to gamble with letting a "must watch" player go to a Charlotte, New Orleans, or SLC.

The good news is Portland is one prolonged Deni injury away (knock on wood) from being right back in the lottery next year. I think there's less than a 5% chance they hit 50ish wins next season, which is what it will take to make the Playoffs in the West.

But I would ask - is it good for the best players to be in the biggest marks? This isn't the case for the NFL. Small markets have big followings and it's great when great players are there. Now certainly we know the NFL is more popular and the ratings are higher. But I think the real question is..

Does the NBA do well to have stars in big markets because that's a natural part of how society is setup? Or does the NBA do well to have stars in big markets because the narrative and stories from the league and its broadcast partners focus primarily on big markets? The NFL does a much, much, much better job at just sitting down and talking about the players, the teams, the schemes, the facts, the play. In the NBA we have the list I'm putting below and also dumb **** like Kevin Hart having a real time trashtalk of players in the middle of the all-star game, which was absurd.

The NBA's primary broadcast partners focus on: 1. Trades. 2. When will X player ask out to LA/NY/Boston/Philly, etc. 3. Drama.

There is no real big narratives and stories. Like NBC said when they won one of the NBA broadcasting contracts, they want to bring back stories. Setting up narratives. Real reasons for viewers to get invested. Promoting the players. Rivalries. Journeys. Treating stuff theatrically too.

So I think that the NBA has written itself into the corner of 'big stars must come to big cities' because that's what they and their broadcast partners have done. Nothing else.

No real argument from me, TSE.

I consider the NBA an absolute GARBAGE league, that cares more about views than it’s product.

This is why I only watch the Blazers out of loyalty to my hometown, and won’t watch any other NBA games. Also why I care so much about the draft—seeing kids get their lives changed in real time is meaningful to me in a way that the culture of “Celebrity” that the league pushes, can’t touch.