The draft needs to change ASAP

RIPskaterdude · Post #1 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:08 am

Why does the NBA make it so the WORST team in the NBA gets the NUMBER 4 pick in the draft?! I would think that the WORST FREAKING TEAM IN THE NBA would at LEAST get a top 3 pick in the draft. Could you IMAGINE if the NFL did the draft like the NBA? There would be CHAOS! Is the NBA the ONLY sport to do the draft this way? Things need to change. It makes NO sense why the worst team in the league has a better chance to get the #4 pick than to land in the top 3. :evil:

10B10 · Post #2 » by **10B10** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:14 am

Yeah its a terribly flawed system, but Stern loves it. Did you see him in that interview today before the lottery on ESPN. He jumped out of his seat saying that the NBA lottery is just that, A LOTTERY. He said something like "the only draft order thats certain is what the lottery balls dictate."

I wish it would change, there is no excuse for the clearly worst team to end up with the fourth pick. But, we are not the first victims and, unfortunately, problem won't be the last.

RoyalCourtJestr · Post #3 » by **RoyalCourtJestr** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:20 am

Considering all the other 13 teams in the lotto were all like PLEASE MOVE US UP, and considering all of us were rooting to end up #1 the last two years... complaining after WE are the ones who lose is hypocritical.

_SRV_ · Post #4 » by **_SRV_** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:21 am

It's not a terrible system, it's a good system that keeps teams competitive at the end of the year, and takes the out motivation of constantly sucking.

NetsForce · Post #5 » by **NetsForce** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:21 am

I think the weighting needs to be changed. The team with the worst record in the NBA should have more than just a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick.

I'm not sure where to put the % but 33.3% of getting the #1 pick if you have the worst record in the league would be better than what we have now.

Post #6 » by **pillwenney** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:30 am

_SRV_ wrote:It's not a terrible system, it's a good system that keeps teams competitive at the end of the year, and takes the out motivation of constantly sucking.

Yup. Like it or not, the system prevents tanking. We just got the unlucky draw. It happens.

10B10 · Post #7 » by **10B10** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:31 am

I'm not sure it still keeps teams competitive, though. Look at the Heat of last year, they essentially threw away the season by sitting an "injured" Wade despite the "lottery."

The weighting definitely needs to be changed and it shouldn't involve every team. I rarely ever agree with Chad Ford but he mentioned somewhere today that the lottery should just be for the 3 worst teams. That would avoid tanking to obtain one particular player and still not throw the worst team out of the top 3.

Either way, its not changing and someone is always upset. This year, we unfortunately ended up getting the short end of the stick.

RIPskaterdude · Post #8 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:32 am

_SRV_ wrote:It's not a terrible system, it's a good system that keeps teams competitive at the end of the year, and takes the out motivation of constantly sucking.

It's a TERRIBLE and FLAWED system. What if get the worst record in the NBA AGAIN next year and AGAIN get the 4th pick in the draft. We NEED a franchise player and you hardly EVER get a franchise player with the 4th pick in the **** draft!

RIPskaterdude · Post #9 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:34 am

mitchweber wrote:
_SRV_ wrote:It's not a terrible system, it's a good system that keeps teams competitive at the end of the year, and takes the out motivation of constantly sucking.

Yup. Like it or not, the system prevents tanking. We just got the unlucky draw. It happens.

bull. The system is flawed. The Clippers CLEARLY tanked their entire season and got the #1 pick, while our team just sucked and we got the WORST pick POSSIBLE.

_SRV_ · Post #10 » by **_SRV_** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:37 am

xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:
mitchweber wrote:
_SRV_ wrote:It's not a terrible system, it's a good system that keeps teams competitive at the end of the year, and takes the out motivation of constantly sucking.

Yup. Like it or not, the system prevents tanking. We just got the unlucky draw. It happens.

bull. The system is flawed. The Clippers CLEARLY tanked their entire season and got the #1 pick, while our team just sucked and we got the WORST pick POSSIBLE.

That's why it's unlucky, if you guarantee the worst team the first pick, you're basically encouraging sucking fest all year long to get top prospects.

Post #11 » by **pillwenney** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:40 am

xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:
mitchweber wrote:
_SRV_ wrote:It's not a terrible system, it's a good system that keeps teams competitive at the end of the year, and takes the out motivation of constantly sucking.

Yup. Like it or not, the system prevents tanking. We just got the unlucky draw. It happens.

bull. The system is flawed. The Clippers CLEARLY tanked their entire season and got the #1 pick, while our team just sucked and we got the WORST pick POSSIBLE.

Yup. The one team that did got lucky. It sucks, but more weight towards the worst team will just cause more tanking. Getting screwed over once sucks, but while the system is flawed, there is no such thing as a perfect system. Somebody will always get screwed over, and this time it was us.

If your "what if" happened, it would suck for us, but if you weigh it more, the bottom of the league will just stop trying, and that would be horrible for the league.

RIPskaterdude · Post #12 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Wed May 20, 2009 6:45 am

mitchweber wrote:Yup. The one team that did got lucky. It sucks, but more weight towards the worst team will just cause more tanking. Getting screwed over once sucks, but while the system is flawed, there is no such thing as a perfect system. Somebody will always get screwed over, and this time it was us.

If your "what if" happened, it would suck for us, but if you weigh it more, the bottom of the league will just stop trying, and that would be horrible for the league.

Why would tanking be so terrible for the rest of the league? It should be a lottery for the top 3 worst teams. The rest of the teams in the lotto get their spots, depending on their records. So, if you have the worst team in the league, the worst you can get the 3rd pick.

sacking123 · Post #13 » by **sacking123** » Wed May 20, 2009 7:21 am

NetsForce wrote:I think the weighting needs to be changed. The team with the worst record in the NBA should have more than just a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick.

I'm not sure where to put the % but 33.3% of getting the #1 pick if you have the worst record in the league would be better than what we have now.

Pretty much spot on IMO.
It isnt a very good system, actually it constantly screws the worst team so it is a terrible system, but i don't think there will ever be a fair system.

Post #14 » by **pillwenney** » Wed May 20, 2009 7:38 am

xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:
Why would tanking be so terrible for the rest of the league? It should be a lottery for the top 3 worst teams. The rest of the teams in the lotto get their spots, depending on their records. So, if you have the worst team in the league, the worst you can get the 3rd pick.

Why would it be terrible for the league in general to have multiple teams trying to lose several games per season? Seriously?

And come on, would you really be that much happier with the 3rd pick?

RIPskaterdude · Post #15 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Wed May 20, 2009 7:56 am

mitchweber wrote:
xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:
Why would tanking be so terrible for the rest of the league? It should be a lottery for the top 3 worst teams. The rest of the teams in the lotto get their spots, depending on their records. So, if you have the worst team in the league, the worst you can get the 3rd pick.

Why would it be terrible for the league in general to have multiple teams trying to lose several games per season? Seriously?

And come on, would you really be that much happier with the 3rd pick?

Absolutely. Because in a draft like this, where getting Griffin or Rubio was VERY important to our team, having the 3rd pick would be huge since Memphis may not even take Rubio. If we are 3rd, we have a 50% chance of getting Rubio...now, we have maybe...5% chance?

And yes, why would it be so bad? So teams want to tank for a good player...so what. That just means more wins for other teams who are trying to make the playoffs....

Besides, I don't see how its so hard to tank in other sports. In the NFL, all you really need is a 2-4 win season and you are guaranteed the BEST player in the draft. I just don't think its fair that the TWO WORST teams in the NBA will be picking 4th and 5th.

Post #16 » by **pillwenney** » Wed May 20, 2009 8:07 am

xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:
Absolutely. Because in a draft like this, where getting Griffin or Rubio was VERY important to our team, having the 3rd pick would be huge since Memphis may not even take Rubio. If we are 3rd, we have a 50% chance of getting Rubio...now, we have maybe...5% chance?

We never had any chance. Memphis may trade out of their pick, but they won't just not pick Rubio. I can't believe we created a thread on it and I think the idea is ridiculous. To suggest the 3rd pick would have a 50% chance at him is even more ridiculous.

And yes, why would it be so bad? So teams want to tank for a good player...so what. That just means more wins for other teams who are trying to make the playoffs....

Besides, I don't see how its so hard to tank in other sports. In the NFL, all you really need is a 2-4 win season and you are guaranteed the BEST player in the draft. I just don't think its fair that the TWO WORST teams in the NBA will be picking 4th and 5th.

Because the entire league is based off of competition? Because fans pay to see teams trying to win each night? Because the league at least wants to maintain some kind of display of integrity? I can't believe I'm having to answer the question "why would it be bad for teams to try to lose in a professional sport?"

Not really. Often several teams get 3 or 4 wins. And regardless, it takes a full-season tank, in many cases. If you're 2-10, you have to tank for another 4th of your season.

Never mind the fact that in any sport, it really won't sit well with the players. Even if the players don't know about the tanking, then their reaction is basically going to be "oh, so my franchise is just making horrible decisions directly resulting in losses all the time.

SacKingZZZ · Post #17 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Wed May 20, 2009 8:36 am

mitchweber wrote:
_SRV_ wrote:It's not a terrible system, it's a good system that keeps teams competitive at the end of the year, and takes the out motivation of constantly sucking.

Yup. Like it or not, the system prevents tanking. We just got the unlucky draw. It happens.

The numbers are indeed a bit unfair though, it's a little close to 50-50 between getting the 1st or 4th to me. The worst team should have a better record of getting the 1st pick than 2 out of the last 20 years or whatever it is. The discrepancy in the odds between 1-8 isn't enough.

Post #18 » by **pillwenney** » Wed May 20, 2009 8:45 am

No, I mean teams already tank as it is, just not that often. The numbers are what they are and its unfortunate, but none of us were complaining about this before today, that I can remember.

RIPskaterdude · Post #19 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Wed May 20, 2009 10:17 am

mitchweber wrote:No, I mean teams already tank as it is, just not that often. The numbers are what they are and its unfortunate, but none of us were complaining about this before today, that I can remember.

Well obviously, why would we complain about a system that doesn't influence us until it actually DOES. :lol:

Really though, it should be a better chance for the WORST team in the league to land the #1 pick. You should have a 50% chance of getting the #1 pick, and a 50% chance of getting a pick between 2-4 (although I personally feel you should be guaranteed a top 3 pick for finishing last in the league).

_SRV_ · Post #20 » by **_SRV_** » Wed May 20, 2009 10:37 am

If it's a question of fairness, the Grizzlies and the Clippers sucked longer and more than the Kings did, and the Grizzlies are in dire financial straits (more than the Kings), they need the breathing air.
I have problems with the current method, but not for the reasons stated, IMO the record to determine lottery seeding should include the previous season at least to prevent one year wonders (Miami, SA in the Duncan draft, Houston and the Rudy Gay pick).
The problem in the NBA (and american pro sports in general) is that you don't lose your place in the league for sucking (unlike soccer), in addition to that you have the prize of a high draft pick, so the league must, again must, lessen the incentive of sucking.
There is no perfect system, but there are better and worse choices, this one belongs to the better ones IMO.