NBA looking to change Draft Lottery; 76ers say no

[76ciology]

Also, it's not like it's too late for the Sixers to be competitive. They're sitting on like $24 million in cap space. Go sign Eric Bledsoe and Shawn Marion. Make an offer for Greg Monroe. These are impact players that could help you THIS year. Monroe may seem unnecessary, but with the injury concerns to both Nerlins and Embid, he makes for a really nice insurance policy and they can take their time with those guys. We already know Embid won't play this year. Have a 3 big rotation in the 2015-16 season and if Nerlins and Embid both seem ready to go, trade Monroe who will only have 2 years left in the off season for a stud impact wing.

That's a brilliant strategy. Let's lock ourselves into a multiple year deal with guys like Bledsoe or Monroe and limit our flexibility so that when a guy like Durant comes on the market we won't have the space to make an offer. Signing a guy like Marion does absolutely nothing to move this team forward. Signing the other two guys hurts you long-term.

Why would Durant go anywhere near the Sixers anyway?

- Should be one of the few big market team that can sign him and maybe another max FA.
- ridiculous amount of money
- Promising coach under Greg Pop's tutelage.
- One of the most promising GM
- A very supportive owner that is very focused in building a championship team.
- Should have the most talented and promising roster by 2016.
(MCW,Noel,Biid,Karl Towns? Thon Maker? Saric, Wroten, Assets from Thad)

[omerome]

It's really not that complicated. The value the Sixers are bringing is hopefully revitalizing what used to be an amazing basketball market in the next couple years. Sixers have been moribund in Philly and elsewhere for almost a decade. If you want the Philly market to be back and contributing to the NBA overall but without tanking, then provide another avenue.

Also, please explain what this means: "If they just were a bad team that tried to win that's different." In what way is it different in terms of the value they bring to the NBA? You're suggesting that if they were the Bucks and lost a ton of games through incompetence rather than plan, that would sell more tickets?

The NBA is still a business, is it not? Their end goal is to make money. You aren't making as money as you could when you have teams throwing seasons away in hopes of getting better via the draft. That plan has a high chance of failing with no guarantee of succeeding in the near future.

What I mean is, if the Sixers approached each season where they played games to win and develop their players, but simply weren't good enough. At least that's different than what they are doing now. Having said that, the Sixers have something most teams don't, young assets and cap space. Their avenues to improve are right there.

[mksp]

That's a brilliant strategy. Let's lock ourselves into a multiple year deal with guys like Bledsoe or Monroe and limit our flexibility so that when a guy like Durant comes on the market we won't have the space to make an offer. Signing a guy like Marion does absolutely nothing to move this team forward. Signing the other two guys hurts you long-term.

Why would Durant go anywhere near the Sixers anyway?

- Should be one of the few big market team that can sign him and maybe another max FA.
- ridiculous amount of money
- Promising coach under Greg Pop's tutelage.
- One of the most promising GM
- A very supportive owner that is very focused in building a championship team.
- Should have the most talented and promising roster by 2016.
(MCW,Noel,Biid,Karl Towns? Thon Maker? Saric, Wroten, Assets from Thad)

Plus:

Brand new training facility.

Sixers are making an obvious commitment to excellence and long-term success. Only the shortsighted believe otherwise.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Last I checked, the bottom four records were Milwaukee, Philly, Orlando, and Utah. Philly was there on purpose and LA being there is pretty much an anomaly (I believe this was their highest draft pick since Worthy).

Youre right, I just took the bottom two teams in each conference. So out of those four, who has had the most success in the last decade? Who the least? Philly has been awful for a while. Orlando and Utah have had more success.

This can go on and on. Plenty of small market teams at the top, and plenty of large market teams at the bottom.

Yeah, I mean certainly not every bad team will be a small market or every good team will be from a large market. I'm just saying that I think taxing the bad teams for being bad will disproportionately impact small market teams. If the issue people are concerned about is endemic losing, then we should be discussing things like (1) not allowing one team to get the number one pick more than once in a three year span; (2) not allowing a team to have a top-3 pick in three consecutive; or (3) other things along these lines. I mean I think there can be reasonable solutions that improve the league. But just going in rashly to punish a team because you don't agree with their rebuild approach (though most seem to recognize its really the only available option) seems short-sighted to me.

I mean let's move away from the Sixers to a non-controversial team like Bucks who (1) are a small-market team; (2) completely and utterly sucked last year despite trying to make the playoffs; and (3) because of the lack of their appeal are forced to give big contracts to free-agents like Mayo. If I'm a Bucks fan, I'm furious about this kind of change. Why are you making it harder for us - as the worst team in the league - to get the best draftable talent? Dispersing the best incoming players to the worst teams is the whole point of a draft.

But that's my point, taxing them doesn't change that at all. Telling them they can't get another number one overall pick would do just that. It would punish the fans for being a bad team. Taxing the owner would, in theory, attempt to change the culture around certain teams.

You aren't taking away any possible talent the team can obtain through the draft. Milwaukee, or Utah, or whoever, would still get high picks. But by taxing the owners, you will TRULY have the worst teams at the bottom of the draft. Because owners are going to demand, again in theory, winning to avoid the tax.

[BullyKing]

It's really not that complicated. The value the Sixers are bringing is hopefully revitalizing what used to be an amazing basketball market in the next couple years. Sixers have been moribund in Philly and elsewhere for almost a decade. If you want the Philly market to be back and contributing to the NBA overall but without tanking, then provide another avenue.

Also, please explain what this means: "If they just were a bad team that tried to win that's different." In what way is it different in terms of the value they bring to the NBA? You're suggesting that if they were the Bucks and lost a ton of games through incompetence rather than plan, that would sell more tickets?

The NBA is still a business, is it not? Their end goal is to make money. You aren't making as money as you could when you have teams throwing seasons away in hopes of getting better via the draft. That plan has a high chance of failing with no guarantee of succeeding in the near future.

What I mean is, if the Sixers approached each season where they played games to win and develop their players, but simply weren't good enough. At least that's different than what they are doing now. Having said that, the Sixers have something most teams don't, young assets and cap space. Their avenues to improve are right there.

Again, you have no basis for asserting that the Sixers would have made more money if they just sucked through incompetence. Also, you know, facts:

76ers were a better draw on the road than at home in nine of the last 10 seasons with average home attendance of 15,697 and average road attendance of 17,414. In last year's 19-win, 26-consecutive loss season, the Sixers still averaged over 17,000 on the road while averaging a 14-year low (at least) of 13,869 at home. In fact, they had the 11th highest average road attendance in the league last year.

"Having said that, the Sixers have something most teams don't, young assets and cap space. Their avenues to improve are right there."

I mean, you can't be serious with this. The reason the Sixers have the young assets and cap space is because they tanked.

[BullyKing]

Youre right, I just took the bottom two teams in each conference. So out of those four, who has had the most success in the last decade? Who the least? Philly has been awful for a while. Orlando and Utah have had more success.

This can go on and on. Plenty of small market teams at the top, and plenty of large market teams at the bottom.

Yeah, I mean certainly not every bad team will be a small market or every good team will be from a large market. I'm just saying that I think taxing the bad teams for being bad will disproportionately impact small market teams. If the issue people are concerned about is endemic losing, then we should be discussing things like (1) not allowing one team to get the number one pick more than once in a three year span; (2) not allowing a team to have a top-3 pick in three consecutive; or (3) other things along these lines. I mean I think there can be reasonable solutions that improve the league. But just going in rashly to punish a team because you don't agree with their rebuild approach (though most seem to recognize its really the only available option) seems short-sighted to me.

I mean let's move away from the Sixers to a non-controversial team like Bucks who (1) are a small-market team; (2) completely and utterly sucked last year despite trying to make the playoffs; and (3) because of the lack of their appeal are forced to give big contracts to free-agents like Mayo. If I'm a Bucks fan, I'm furious about this kind of change. Why are you making it harder for us - as the worst team in the league - to get the best draftable talent? Dispersing the best incoming players to the worst teams is the whole point of a draft.

But that's my point, taxing them doesn't change that at all. Telling them they can't get another number one overall pick would do just that. It would punish the fans for being a bad team. Taxing the owner would, in theory, attempt to change the culture around certain teams.

You aren't taking away any possible talent the team can obtain through the draft. Milwaukee, or Utah, or whoever, would still get high picks. But by taxing the owners, you will TRULY have the worst teams at the bottom of the draft. Because owners are going to demand, again in theory, winning to avoid the tax.

Fair enough, but that also makes it so these bad teams will do whatever is necessary to avoid being one of the worst teams even if it means never building to be a competitive team. So a team like the Bucks will overpay mediocre players to avoid being the bottom whatever to not have to pay the tax. In the end, that does cost them the premium draft picks.

[76ciology]

Why would Durant go anywhere near the Sixers anyway?

- Should be one of the few big market team that can sign him and maybe another max FA.
- ridiculous amount of money
- Promising coach under Greg Pop's tutelage.
- One of the most promising GM
- A very supportive owner that is very focused in building a championship team.
- Should have the most talented and promising roster by 2016.
(MCW,Noel,Biid,Karl Towns? Thon Maker? Saric, Wroten, Assets from Thad)

Plus:

Brand new training facility.

Sixers are making an obvious commitment to excellence and long-term success. Only the shortsighted believe otherwise.

And one of the most promising teams for player development.

For those saying what Sixers is doing is stunting the players growth..

Spencer Hawes, Thaddeus Young and Evan Turner had their best days playing for the Sixers last season. At some point last season when the team was able to beat the top teams like the Heat, Rockets, Bulls (with Drose) and the Cavs? Hawes averaged 15/10/2..
http://www.thesixerscave.com/2013/11/25/the-new-and-improved-spencer-hawes/

Evan turner averaged 20/7/4
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pattisonave/drives-evan-turner-key.html
even asked for the Sixers not to trade him.

and Thad 20ppg 2spg and even won a player of the week award (not saying it's meaningful)

And MCW, the guy who was said to be TO prone, can't create, doesn't have advanced ball handling and can't shoot. Averaged 17ppg 7rpg 7apg and almost 2spg.

Tony Wroten went from being a 2ppg player to a 13ppg player
http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2013/12/20/tony-wrotens-journey-from-benched-rookie-to-most-improved-player-candidate/

Hollis Thompson
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/sports/sixers/76ers-film-review-Inventing-Hollis-Thompson.html

Henry Sims
http://www.libertyballers.com/features/2014/4/6/5585814/henry-sims-sixers-greg-foster-al-jefferson

Even Nerlens Noel has been 100% healthy with improved shooting mechanics and higher vertical leap.
http://www.libertyballers.com/2014/4/9/5596076/nerlens-noel-injury-sixers-return-76ers
*see summer league performance. Improved offense.

The whole Sixers rebuilding program is focused on player improvement.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/64381/philadelphias-victory-lab

Sam Hinkie during his post draft press conference went on to say that he receives calls from agents that they want to play for the Sixers because of the environment for improvement the sixers have. I know you guys are skeptics but if you look at the facts and see how the sixers' initiative and going the extra mile for player improvement, you'd see that we are not building some LA Clippers Darius Miles Era or Sacramento Kings (no offense) in here.

It's really a promising program if you look at it. Specially if you consider how much the team's assets has improved after the aftermath of the Andrew Bynum disaster.

[improper]

I would say the real problem with the league is that they have created a salary cap system that inherently favors big market teams that have more money and, thus, more spending power. Given that bigger markets are obviously more appealing to young millionaires, the system makes it easier for those big markets to poach stars from smaller markets with less spending power.

What the league needs to do is follow the NFL's lead and implement a hard cap coupled with a better revenue-sharing system. This will effectively remove the advantage that bigger markets have in pulling star players from smaller ones. It will also basically remove super teams from the equation, as managing pay raises will be much more difficult for teams with multiple stars.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Fair enough, but that also makes it so these bad teams will do whatever is necessary to avoid being one of the worst teams even if it means never building to be a competitive team. So a team like the Bucks will overpay mediocre players to avoid being the bottom whatever to not have to pay the tax. In the end, that does cost them the premium draft picks.

But everyone at the bottom will be doing that, so someone will get pushed into that bottom 3 or 5 whether they like it or not. I guess if you tax a percentage, the Lakers or the Bucks will do whatever they can to avoid it.

Regardless, this is something the owners would never agree to. But fun to think about.

[BullyKing]

Fair enough, but that also makes it so these bad teams will do whatever is necessary to avoid being one of the worst teams even if it means never building to be a competitive team. So a team like the Bucks will overpay mediocre players to avoid being the bottom whatever to not have to pay the tax. In the end, that does cost them the premium draft picks.

But everyone at the bottom will be doing that, so someone will get pushed into that bottom 3 or 5 whether they like it or not. I guess if you tax a percentage, the Lakers or the Bucks will do whatever they can to avoid it.

Regardless, this is something the owners would never agree to. But fun to think about.

Yeah, certainly worthy of discussion. Which I guess is my biggest complaint about what is being proposed. Rather than having a serious discussion looking at the possibilities and potential ramifications, the league seems focused on just pushing anything through to punish the Sixers, regardless of the collateral effects.

[omerome]

Again, you have no basis for asserting that the Sixers would have made more money if they just sucked through incompetence. Also, you know, facts:

76ers were a better draw on the road than at home in nine of the last 10 seasons with average home attendance of 15,697 and average road attendance of 17,414. In last year's 19-win, 26-consecutive loss season, the Sixers still averaged over 17,000 on the road while averaging a 14-year low (at least) of 13,869 at home. In fact, they had the 11th highest average road attendance in the league last year.

"Having said that, the Sixers have something most teams don't, young assets and cap space. Their avenues to improve are right there."

I mean, you can't be serious with this. The reason the Sixers have the young assets and cap space is because they tanked.

Every team has a player or players with value, but the Sixers also have cap space which they can use to acquire additional talent to get better. They choose not to utilize it, though.

You don't only get talent and cap space by tanking, but by having good management with great scouts who can find talent even if they aren't in the lottery. That's how teams like the Spurs can trade for guys like Kawhi, Indiana drafting Stevenson, or the Thunder drafting Jackson, for example.

[OvertimeNO]

Honestly, instead of looking for ways to help/hurt the top and bottom teams in the league, the NBA should figure out how to make it easier for the teams in the middle to take the next step. That way, the worst teams could actually look at being "just" mediocre as a step in the right direction, instead of OMFGWEREDOOMEDTIMETOTANKAGAIN

[BullyKing]

Again, you have no basis for asserting that the Sixers would have made more money if they just sucked through incompetence. Also, you know, facts:

76ers were a better draw on the road than at home in nine of the last 10 seasons with average home attendance of 15,697 and average road attendance of 17,414. In last year's 19-win, 26-consecutive loss season, the Sixers still averaged over 17,000 on the road while averaging a 14-year low (at least) of 13,869 at home. In fact, they had the 11th highest average road attendance in the league last year.

"Having said that, the Sixers have something most teams don't, young assets and cap space. Their avenues to improve are right there."

I mean, you can't be serious with this. The reason the Sixers have the young assets and cap space is because they tanked.

Every team has a player or players with value, but the Sixers also have cap space which they can use to acquire additional talent to get better. They chose not to utilize it, though.

You don't only get talent and cap space by tanking, but by having good management with great scouts who can find talent even they aren't in the lottery. That's how teams like the Spurs can trade for guys like Kawhi, for example.

Honestly, I think I'm just going to end the back and forth with you. All you do is talk in generalities and hyperbole and when presented with facts directly contradicting your assertion, you just change the subject. You're fully entitled to your opinion but there really isn't much point in having a conversation with you.

[76ciology]

Again, you have no basis for asserting that the Sixers would have made more money if they just sucked through incompetence. Also, you know, facts:

76ers were a better draw on the road than at home in nine of the last 10 seasons with average home attendance of 15,697 and average road attendance of 17,414. In last year's 19-win, 26-consecutive loss season, the Sixers still averaged over 17,000 on the road while averaging a 14-year low (at least) of 13,869 at home. In fact, they had the 11th highest average road attendance in the league last year.

"Having said that, the Sixers have something most teams don't, young assets and cap space. Their avenues to improve are right there."

I mean, you can't be serious with this. The reason the Sixers have the young assets and cap space is because they tanked.

Every team has a player or players with value, but the Sixers also have cap space which they can use to acquire additional talent to get better. They chose not to utilize it, though.

You don't only get talent and cap space by tanking, but by having good management with great scouts who can find talent even they aren't in the lottery. That's how teams like the Spurs can trade for guys like Kawhi, Indiana drafting Stevenson, or the Thunder drafting Jackson, for example.

Yup, but all of those guys are most likely role players or atleast really high end role players. They are not the type of players you can build around.

With regards to cap space, who do you suggest Sixers should sign that you think is not overpaying while should fit the sixers' long term plan?

The thing I don't get is.. people complain why teams do these boneheaded moves of overpaying mediocre players. But for the Sixers, you want them to do the same mistakes? It just doesn't make sense.

Like one poster said, I'm sure if LBJ expressed interest in signing the sixers, they will use it on him. But no.. We are down to a ridiculous PG who's asking for max money, a one way and overrated center who is most likely going to be overpaid and a bunch of role players who should just be as good as Hinkie's money ball squad or their arguably, lotto talent 2nd rounders of McDaniels, Jerami Grant or McRae.

[Snotbubbles]

It's really not that complicated. The value the Sixers are bringing is hopefully revitalizing what used to be an amazing basketball market in the next couple years. Sixers have been moribund in Philly and elsewhere for almost a decade. If you want the Philly market to be back and contributing to the NBA overall but without tanking, then provide another avenue.

Also, please explain what this means: "If they just were a bad team that tried to win that's different." In what way is it different in terms of the value they bring to the NBA? You're suggesting that if they were the Bucks and lost a ton of games through incompetence rather than plan, that would sell more tickets?

The NBA is still a business, is it not? Their end goal is to make money. You aren't making as money as you could when you have teams throwing seasons away in hopes of getting better via the draft. That plan has a high chance of failing with no guarantee of succeeding in the near future.

What I mean is, if the Sixers approached each season where they played games to win and develop their players, but simply weren't good enough. At least that's different than what they are doing now. Having said that, the Sixers have something most teams don't, young assets and cap space. Their avenues to improve are right there.

Hate to break the news to you but from 2007-2011, you know years where the Sixers were on the treadmill, making the playoffs and losing in the first round their average attendance was:

2007: 14,843
2008: 14,870 (made playoffs)
2009: 15,802 (made playoffs)
2010: 14,224
2011: 14,751 (made playoffs)

Last years attendance: 13,869

The Philadelphia fan-base will not come out and support a team simply because they make the playoffs.

[QRich3]

Smart management must be able to adapt to any changes right away and make an advantage of them, even if it looks like they're screwed at first.

Take a look at a sport like Formula 1, it's a sport based more on corporations competing behind the scenes than the actual drivers racing, and they make a point of heavily change regulations every season without much notice so that teams at the top have less of a chance to keep their advantaged position. They even banned practice so that rich teams don't have the advantage of paying for more tests. In the end, most of the times, the top teams are same anyway cause smart management will find a way to rise to the top. If an NBA franchise's management are smart, they should actually embrace the changes and start getting ahead of the curve, even if they begin from a worse position.

In the end it doesn't matter, if it comes down to a vote the 76ers are 1 of 30, it doesn't matter how hard they fight it.

[omerome]

Yup, but all of those guys are most likely role players or atleast really high end role players. They are not the type of players you can build around.

With regards to cap space, who do you suggest Sixers should sign that you think is not overpaying while should fit the sixers' long term plan?

You know you asked a question that unless I'm signing someone like LeBron or Durant, it will be met with people questioning the decision. Every team in the league is asking that question themselves.

The thing I don't get is.. people complain why teams do these boneheaded moves of overpaying mediocre players. But for the Sixers, you want them to do the same mistakes? It just doesn't make sense.

Like one poster said, I'm sure if LBJ expressed interest in signing the sixers, they will use it on him. But no.. We are down to a ridiculous PG who's asking for max money, a one way and overrated center who is most likely going to be overpaid and a bunch of role players who should just be as good as Hinkie's money ball squad or their arguably, lotto talent 2nd rounders of McDaniels, Jerami Grant or McRae.

All I'm saying is the Sixer's current plan is one with no guarantee that it will be successful except that you will have losing seasons.

What happens when your current roster is due for new contracts? Do they want to stick around or will you repeat the same process again?

[improper]

All I'm saying is the Sixer's current plan is one with no guarantee that it will be successful except that you will have losing seasons.

What happens when your current roster is due for new contracts? Do they want to stick around or will you repeat the same process again?

The only way to guarantee success in the NBA is to be the Spurs.

The Lakers traded for Dwight Howard and certainly thought that was going to be their ticket to another decade of lasting success. Two years later and they've got one of the most depressing rosters in the NBA.

Sacramento hasn't been to the playoffs in almost a decade, picking high in the lottery almost ever one of those years. They haven't won more than thirty games since 2008.

The Pistons have tried several times to bolster their team in free agency, most recently with Josh Smith. Thus far, all those attempts have backfired.

There are no guarantees in the NBA. Any plan you undertake has risks and could backfire. What happens if the Sixers spend big money on Bledsoe and then he gets seriously hurt and is never the same? It's a legitimate risk, especially with a guy like Bledsoe. The Sixers literally just experienced this when they traded for Bynum (they are apparently infatuated with injured centers, by the way ).

[Prokorov]

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.

[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.

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.