NBA DRAFT LOTTERY GT, 12 MAY 2025, 6 PM CT, CHICAGO, ESPN

[dougthonus]

I don’t really think it’s a conspiracy- probability can be funny and cruel.

But it is convenient for the league. I disagree with your point. The league benefits way more from making small market teams relevant. Maybe not domestic finals ratings (those take the biggest hit), but Lebron, Duncan/Manu/Parker, Giannis, Jokic absolutely put their small market teams on the map. They sell out the stadium their entire career. Even Vlade/Peja, Gasol Bros, without rings in SAC and MEM.

Knicks, Bulls, and Lakers sell out no matter how hard they suck. Celtics and Sixers to a lesser extent (to me they’re smaller markets, even Cs despite their legacy). I mean- Philly and Chicago led in attendance despite having a god awful product for over half the season.

Attendance in Denver, Milwaukee and Memphis really drops hard when they stink.

If Zion was consistently healthy and they didn’t have a track record of losing superstars due to reg. season collapses, NOP would be selling out.

I don't know what to tell you except this is simply wrong. They make their money on TV in the playoffs. Money going to individual franchises is a different issue than the league making money. The league doesn't make more money by the Pelicans selling out their games. The league makes more money by negotiating a bigger TV deal. That is national money for hte league. Only the Pelicans make more money by selling out Pelicans games.

The TV deal is based more or less exclusively on ratings + competition between bidders, and ratings are dramatically better when the big market franchises are involved.

But even the small market teams themselves rely more on the national TV deal than anything else. Assuming 3% growth rate, the new TV deal will be ~200M in revenue (adjusted up at 3% annually) for the next 11 years. The present average revenue of the bottom 10 teams in the league is like ~300 million as of two seasons ago (last year I could find data). Assume they've had good growth and that number is like 330M now. Not sure what the old TV deal was, but the new national TV deal will be 50% plus of the revenue of all the small market teams.

The league helps the small market teams collectively more by maximizing this deal not by giving one small market team a star player.

[Am2626]

Flagg
Harper
Bailey
Edgecomb
Johnson
Maluach
CMB
Essengue

I only need 4 more guys lol

If the Bulls made an effort to maximize their pick how far up do you think they end up in the draft?

What do you mean by "made an effort to maximize their pick?"

Ask the players to slack off?

Make some specific trade that was on the table that they didn't?

Ask Billy to throw games?

They didn’t have to do any of that. The Bulls tried to win every game with a playoff like intensity. If they just did what other teams did (Rest guys, reduce minutes for their best player, ex White) and not try to beat up on teams that weren’t competing like them it would have kept them at around 8.

[waffle]

well in perusing the mocks they have us taking Queen, Richardson, or Demin....Of those I'd want Queen. I want a big with GOOD HANDS

[dougthonus]

It’s more than that. The organization needs new Ownership. They hired this FO. It’s time for people to stop paying for a bad product.

There's no moral right or wrong here. We aren't trying to solve a human rights crisis or global warming. People can pay for and enjoy whatever they want. It's certainly time for you to stop paying for it (based on your views), but the next person that enjoyed basketball as a kid and wants to take their kids to the game and have them see the United Center and enjoy Benny the Bull might have a really different motivation than you.

[League Circles]

If the Bulls made an effort to maximize their pick how far up do you think they end up in the draft?

What do you mean by "made an effort to maximize their pick?"

Ask the players to slack off?

Make some specific trade that was on the table that they didn't?

Ask Billy to throw games?

They didn’t have to do any of that. The Bulls tried to win every game with a playoff like intensity. If they just did what other teams did (Rest guys, reduce minutes for their best player, ex White) and not try to beat up on teams that weren’t competing like them it would have kept them at around 8.

First of all, I was just asking. It means different things to different people.

So now that I understand that some of you simply wanted AK to tell Billy to pump the brakes a little bit on wins, it clarifies what the expectations are.

I would not have wanted them to do that, for these reasons:

1. Since other teams were doing it, it's entirely plausible that we wouldn't have moved up much at all.

2. The players would smell how fake Billy would then be, and he'd largely lose them, which is not good any way you slice it IMO.

3. I kinda think this draft is incredibly overrated, and I don't expect to get a significant building block, whether at 12, 8, or frankly even a bit higher. Let alone one that fits us well enough to improve our projections much over the next few years. So I don't care too much relative to others.

[dougthonus]

First of all, I was just asking. It means different things to different people.

So now that I understand that some of you simply wanted AK to tell Billy to pump the brakes a little bit on wins, it clarifies what the expectations are.

I would not have wanted them to do that, for these reasons:

1. Since other teams were doing it, it's entirely plausible that we wouldn't have moved up much at all.

2. The players would smell how fake Billy would then be, and he'd largely lose them, which is not good any way you slice it IMO.

3. I kinda think this draft is incredibly overrated, and I don't expect to get a significant building block, whether at 12, 8, or frankly even a bit higher. Let alone one that fits us well enough to improve our projections much over the next few years. So I don't care too much relative to others.

You can't have the coach pump the brakes on wins. The coach is going to do the best with the roster he has.

If you wanted to pump the breaks on wins, you had to trade Coby White at the deadline.

But to be honest, they probably thought they HAD pumped the breaks on wins with the Zach trade. Collins/Huerter weren't good players. They both had new life in a new place. Coby was having an awful season and had new life after the trade.

[jnrjr79]

It’s more than that. The organization needs new Ownership. They hired this FO. It’s time for people to stop paying for a bad product.

There's no moral right or wrong here. We aren't trying to solve a human rights crisis or global warming. People can pay for and enjoy whatever they want. It's certainly time for you to stop paying for it (based on your views), but the next person that enjoyed basketball as a kid and wants to take their kids to the game and have them see the United Center and enjoy Benny the Bull might have a really different motivation than you.

Every time I read one of these "everybody must boycott the Bulls" posts, my first thought is "these people must not have kids."

[waffle]

The NYT has us taking Bryant which I think is interesting

[Am2626]

It’s more than that. The organization needs new Ownership. They hired this FO. It’s time for people to stop paying for a bad product.

There's no moral right or wrong here. We aren't trying to solve a human rights crisis or global warming. People can pay for and enjoy whatever they want. It's certainly time for you to stop paying for it (based on your views), but the next person that enjoyed basketball as a kid and wants to take their kids to the game and have them see the United Center and enjoy Benny the Bull might have a really different motivation than you.

Well then don’t expect anything different. Obviously people are going to do what they want to do but if some of those people change their minds that’s a good thing. Every team has a mascot and a stadium that people can go to enjoy a game. We are so far removed from the Jordan era now. My point is the only way that there is any hope in the future is with a complete change from the top down and I don’t see it happening unless the Bulls profit margins take a hit and that won’t happen if people continue to support a bad product.

[dougthonus]

Well then don’t expect anything different. Obviously people are going to do what they want to do but if some of those people change their minds that’s a good thing. Every team has a mascot and a stadium that people can go to enjoy a game. We are so far removed from the Jordan era now. My point is the only way that there is any hope in the future is with a complete change from the top down and I don’t see it happening unless the Bulls profit margins take a hit and that won’t happen if people continue to support a bad product.

I disagree. We won 6 titles with this group at the top. If Derrick Rose doesn't tear his ACL and remains a star level player into his early 30s, they probably are a title contender for a decade behind Rose and Butler.

I'm not psyched about our ownership by any means, but I think people vastly overstate the value here. Look at what most new super rich owners have done when they came in. It isn't a bunch of amazing results. This isn't an agreement with the way we are running things, just that it's probably a much smaller factor than you think. The biggest factor is dumb luck. In the end, super stars win titles, not owners, and changing owners doesn't grant you a superstar.

[League Circles]

First of all, I was just asking. It means different things to different people.

So now that I understand that some of you simply wanted AK to tell Billy to pump the brakes a little bit on wins, it clarifies what the expectations are.

I would not have wanted them to do that, for these reasons:

1. Since other teams were doing it, it's entirely plausible that we wouldn't have moved up much at all.

2. The players would smell how fake Billy would then be, and he'd largely lose them, which is not good any way you slice it IMO.

3. I kinda think this draft is incredibly overrated, and I don't expect to get a significant building block, whether at 12, 8, or frankly even a bit higher. Let alone one that fits us well enough to improve our projections much over the next few years. So I don't care too much relative to others.

You can't have the coach pump the brakes on wins. The coach is going to do the best with the roster he has.

If you wanted to pump the breaks on wins, you had to trade Coby White at the deadline.

But to be honest, they probably thought they HAD pumped the breaks on wins with the Zach trade. Collins/Huerter weren't good players. They both had new life in a new place. Coby was having an awful season and had new life after the trade.

I think they didn't know how good or bad they'd be. The idea that losing Zach may be addition by subtraction was surely in their minds, as that's largely why he was being shopped in the first place IMO.

I agree that to really change course, Coby would have had to be traded. He wasn't having an awful season though. He was putting up 18 and 5 on 58% TS% in 32 mpg before the all star break.

With deep mediocre teams like this it's always hard to accurately diagnose impact of adding or losing guys. I think they ultimately primarily did the deal for the pick rights and to get out of Zach's contract and play style.

[CROBulls]

Arent you all glad we won something this year. A coin toss. This franchise....

[jnrjr79]

First of all, I was just asking. It means different things to different people.

So now that I understand that some of you simply wanted AK to tell Billy to pump the brakes a little bit on wins, it clarifies what the expectations are.

I would not have wanted them to do that, for these reasons:

1. Since other teams were doing it, it's entirely plausible that we wouldn't have moved up much at all.

2. The players would smell how fake Billy would then be, and he'd largely lose them, which is not good any way you slice it IMO.

3. I kinda think this draft is incredibly overrated, and I don't expect to get a significant building block, whether at 12, 8, or frankly even a bit higher. Let alone one that fits us well enough to improve our projections much over the next few years. So I don't care too much relative to others.

You can't have the coach pump the brakes on wins. The coach is going to do the best with the roster he has.

If you wanted to pump the breaks on wins, you had to trade Coby White at the deadline.

But to be honest, they probably thought they HAD pumped the breaks on wins with the Zach trade. Collins/Huerter weren't good players. They both had new life in a new place. Coby was having an awful season and had new life after the trade.

I think they didn't know how good or bad they'd be. The idea that losing Zach may be addition by subtraction was surely in their minds, as that's largely why he was being shopped in the first place IMO.

I agree that to really change course, Coby would have had to be traded. He wasn't having an awful season though. He was putting up 18 and 5 on 58% TS% in 32 mpg before the all star break.

With deep mediocre teams like this it's always hard to accurately diagnose impact of adding or losing guys. I think they ultimately primarily did the deal for the pick rights and to get out of Zach's contract and play style.

I agree that getting their pick rights back was the main motivator for the deal. The players included were just expiring salary and there were reports the Bulls were looking at routing those guys to third teams and just couldn't swing it.

The late season surge was sort of a perfect storm - Coby and Giddey really broke out in their larger roles, while the newly-acquired role-players all of a sudden played a lot better than they had been. That may ultimately have some benefit if they have a little trade value, but obviously the stretch run was not great for the Bulls' draft position.

[Am2626]

What do you mean by "made an effort to maximize their pick?"

Ask the players to slack off?

Make some specific trade that was on the table that they didn't?

Ask Billy to throw games?

They didn’t have to do any of that. The Bulls tried to win every game with a playoff like intensity. If they just did what other teams did (Rest guys, reduce minutes for their best player, ex White) and not try to beat up on teams that weren’t competing like them it would have kept them at around 8.

First of all, I was just asking. It means different things to different people.

So now that I understand that some of you simply wanted AK to tell Billy to pump the brakes a little bit on wins, it clarifies what the expectations are.

I would not have wanted them to do that, for these reasons:

1. Since other teams were doing it, it's entirely plausible that we wouldn't have moved up much at all.

2. The players would smell how fake Billy would then be, and he'd largely lose them, which is not good any way you slice it IMO.

3. I kinda think this draft is incredibly overrated, and I don't expect to get a significant building block, whether at 12, 8, or frankly even a bit higher. Let alone one that fits us well enough to improve our projections much over the next few years. So I don't care too much relative to others.

It’s not about moving up. It’s about maintaining your draft position and not moving down. The Bulls failed to do that which probably will cost them the number 2 pick. Regarding players slacking off I don’t think what happens this year will have any impact on the following season. Bringing in a top 4 pick probably would have energized this team to start the following year and training camp strong. Now that won’t happen. It will be the status quo.

[MrSparkle]

I don’t really think it’s a conspiracy- probability can be funny and cruel.

But it is convenient for the league. I disagree with your point. The league benefits way more from making small market teams relevant. Maybe not domestic finals ratings (those take the biggest hit), but Lebron, Duncan/Manu/Parker, Giannis, Jokic absolutely put their small market teams on the map. They sell out the stadium their entire career. Even Vlade/Peja, Gasol Bros, without rings in SAC and MEM.

Knicks, Bulls, and Lakers sell out no matter how hard they suck. Celtics and Sixers to a lesser extent (to me they’re smaller markets, even Cs despite their legacy). I mean- Philly and Chicago led in attendance despite having a god awful product for over half the season.

Attendance in Denver, Milwaukee and Memphis really drops hard when they stink.

If Zion was consistently healthy and they didn’t have a track record of losing superstars due to reg. season collapses, NOP would be selling out.

I don't know what to tell you except this is simply wrong. They make their money on TV in the playoffs. Money going to individual franchises is a different issue than the league making money. The league doesn't make more money by the Pelicans selling out their games. The league makes more money by negotiating a bigger TV deal. That is national money for hte league. Only the Pelicans make more money by selling out Pelicans games.

The TV deal is based more or less exclusively on ratings + competition between bidders, and ratings are dramatically better when the big market franchises are involved.

But even the small market teams themselves rely more on the national TV deal than anything else. Assuming 3% growth rate, the new TV deal will be ~200M in revenue (adjusted up at 3% annually) for the next 11 years. The present average revenue of the bottom 10 teams in the league is like ~300 million as of two seasons ago (last year I could find data). Assume they've had good growth and that number is like 330M now. Not sure what the old TV deal was, but the new national TV deal will be 50% plus of the revenue of all the small market teams.

The league helps the small market teams collectively more by maximizing this deal not by giving one small market team a star player.

Popular players drive bigger ratings. Been that way. Of course NY, Chicago, LA have an edge over an OKC or SA, but otherwise, I don’t think anyone outside of their town gives a damn which team is in the final. They care about the player(s). Some guys are really marketable (MJ, Barkley, Edwards, Shaq, Kobe, Magic, Curry, Draymond- love or hate him), some are not (Shai, Jokic, Duncan, Tatum, Durant, Kawhi). Not so coincidentally, the quiet and/or international type.

Would the Bulls and Jazz of 98 draw 29M viewers without Jordan? Of course not. You could’ve replaced the Bulls jerseys with the Charlotte Hornets and that game would’ve had 29M viewers, going up against Salt Lake City.

TV ratings have also crumbled for 3 decades straight. Regardless, I don’t see any patterns or correlations between any big market matchups. Ultra small market matchups with “boring” personalities have done the worst, of course…

Although funnily, the worst recent ratings were the 2020 Lakers with Lebron against Miami — averaged 7.45M viewers. The biggest NBA team with the biggest star, against a big market and his former team, and the ratings blew. Politics affected ratings more than market.

1994 Rockets/Knicks had 17.25M views. 1995 Rockets/Magic had 20M, and it was a 4-0 sweep. Why was that? Why did Orlando draw more eyes than NY?

Why’d the 92 Bulls/Suns average 27M, while the 91 Lakers/Bulls marquee Magic/MJ matchup averaged 23M?

IMO, loud press conferences and rivalries make for good TV, and that pumps the casual viewing.

Furthermore… Were the Bulls considered a big market team before Jordan? Famously… No. He skyrocketed their brand and valuation (and the league’s). It’s funny to even think how (un-)popular the Bulls would’ve been without Jordan. He was a good fit for Chicago, right guy right time… but it’s not like Portland or Houston would’ve screwed it up.

[othawhitemeat]

Doug - I'm on the conspiracy nut theory too. Mainly, because it is done so secretively and just using this year as an example for not only the Mavericks winning it, but the fact that the Spurs get the 2nd pick and the 76ers get the 3rd pick while the Jazz and Wizards get the 5th and 6th picks. I saw something like this was almost impossible to happen the way it did, but it did. The year the Pelicans won it, they were struggling with attendance and ran by the NBA if memory serves correctly. It could have literally been anyone but the Mavs and I think less of the conspiracy, but because of the ridiculous trade that only Nico talks literally to only the Lakers when before the gift of a pick, most teams would have offered like 4 or 5 picks in addition to an established player. Everyone was saying it was literally the worst trade in history - so is Nico one of the dumbest GM's in the history of sports (even dumber than AKME which is bad enough) or did he know? On top of this, the league has already been perceived as WWE for the last decade or 2 and this does not help.

None of the rigged theories can answer the question:

Why would you rig things to lose money?

Why the hell would the league want Wemby in San Antonio, one of the worst markets in the league? Why would they not put Flagg in Chicago instead of Dallas? Why would they want to prop up the Pelicans vs putting Zion in Chicago or New York that had way better odds?

All of the things you could do that would add billions of dollars of value to the league you're not going to do? If it was ever proven the league rigged the lottery you would lose billions of dollars of value. The league would absolutely tank. You're going to take that risk to LOSE money? It's like cheating on your taxes to pay the government 80% instead of 30%.

I know people love a conspiracy theory, but as I said the rationale is always backwards thinking not forward thinking. Like all the executives in the league got in a room and said we want to direct the NBA to get Wemby in a bottom 5 market in the league and LeBron in a bottom 10 market in the league. If you think of it from a forward perspective, like the rigging committee is sitting down and thinking how are we going to rig the lottery this year, they decide to rig it to do these nonsensical things that minimize money?

Rose to Chitown honestly is an obvious one, bent corner/frozen envelope Patrick Ewing is another, but why rig it certain ways - it is not just for major markets teams. Below are some answers, IMO

1) AD to Pelicans - NBA owned it and during the whole Chris Paul/Lakers trade debacle
2) Zion to Pelicans as a favor for trading AD to Lakers
3) Literally could have been any other team and it would not have been an issue, but do you really think Nico Luka trade would happen to any other GM - like literally any other team. Luka at time of trade is probably a top 5 value for trade in the game. He gets an injury and older prone AD and a lousy draft pick. Like, almost think maybe could have waited until now and maybe have gotten a Giannis straight up and even more from the Bucks. Could have gotten some teams that would have given you something better than the Lakers. I'm sure the Rockets would have given some appealing package with defensive players, Grizzlies surely would have given Jaren Jackson Jr and some picks, Ainge - Lauri and picks, Cavs would have given you an appealing offer, Celts you could have probably gotten a haul, Pacers, Pistons would have given a lot, Magic, etc. I'm saying most teams would have given a whole lot of a heck more. So either Nico is really that stupid, rigged it for the Lakers, or was promised something.
4) Look at NBA playoffs - 02 Kings/Lakers, 2011-2014 Heatles, 2006 Heat/Wade vs Mavs.

[dougthonus]

Popular players drive bigger ratings. Been that way. Of course NY, Chicago, LA have an edge over an OKC or SA, but otherwise, I don’t think anyone outside of their town gives a damn which team is in the final. They care about the player(s). Some guys are really marketable (MJ, Barkley, Edwards, Shaq, Kobe, Magic, Curry, Draymond- love or hate him), some are not (Shai, Jokic, Duncan, Tatum, Durant, Kawhi). Not so coincidentally, the quiet and/or international type.

Would the Bulls and Jazz of 98 draw 29M viewers without Jordan? Of course not. You could’ve replaced the Bulls jerseys with the Charlotte Hornets and that game would’ve had 29M viewers, going up against Salt Lake City.

TV ratings have also crumbled for 3 decades straight. Regardless, I don’t see any patterns or correlations between any big market matchups. Ultra small market matchups with “boring” personalities have done the worst, of course…

Although funnily, the worst recent ratings were the 2020 Lakers with Lebron against Miami — averaged 7.45M viewers. The biggest NBA team with the biggest star, against a big market and his former team, and the ratings blew. Politics affected ratings more than market.

1994 Rockets/Knicks had 17.25M views. 1995 Rockets/Magic had 20M, and it was a 4-0 sweep. Why was that? Why did Orlando draw more eyes than NY?

Why’d the 92 Bulls/Suns average 27M, while the 91 Lakers/Bulls marquee Magic/MJ matchup averaged 23M?

IMO, loud press conferences and rivalries make for good TV, and that pumps the casual viewing.

Furthermore… Were the Bulls considered a big market team before Jordan? Famously… No. He skyrocketed their brand and valuation (and the league’s). It’s funny to even think how (un-)popular the Bulls would’ve been without Jordan. He was a good fit for Chicago, right guy right time… but it’s not like Portland or Houston would’ve screwed it up.

Certainly your elite players are the draw, but yes, Chicago would still have more potential than San Antonio as a market. The Jordan effect would have been huge no matter what if he had the same success, but it is bigger in Chicago than it would have been somewhere else in terms of its enduring effect. Having thriving basketball (even today) in Chicago due to Jordan is more important than it would have been to do the same in Charlotte.

And absolutely, the player elevates things, the market isn't everything, but it's a big thing. It's much bigger than local kid plays for the city he grew up in.

Again, you don't take the risk of bankrupting your league if you get caught fixing things so you can do something that is worse for you even if it is marginally worse.

[nomorezorro]

wemby to san antonio is such an obvious point of failure in the conspiracy theory logic that you don't really need to go any further than that to dismiss it. most impactful prospect in two decades and he goes to the #24 media market in the nba, and nobody can come up with a reason that the league would rig that outcome that's more substantive than "uhhh...they had good centers and a french guy in the past"

[The Explorer]

Arent you all glad we won something this year. A coin toss. This franchise....

Coin toss champs
Summer league champs
Pre-season champs
9th/10th seed champs
Stadium attendance champs

[MalagaBulls]

Arent you all glad we won something this year. A coin toss. This franchise....

Coin toss champs
Summer league champs
Pre-season champs
9th/10th seed champs
Stadium attendance champs

Errrr, don't you mean chumps?