Johnny Bravo's Post Season Plan

[Diesel]

The Knicks cannot give away their first round pick 2 years in a row...

Quote:

---

Also, league rules prohibit a team from trading away future first-round picks

in consecutive years.

This rule was created partially as a reaction to the practices of the Cleveland Cavaliers in the early 1980s. Ted Stepien, who owned the team from 1980 to 1983, made a series of trades for players of questionable value that cost the team several years of first-round picks. The trades nearly destroyed the franchise; the NBA pressured Stepien into selling out, and in order to get a solid local owner (Gordon Gund), the league had to sweeten the deal by giving the Cavaliers several future bonus draft picks.

---

The Bulls get this years pick.

That's it.

[Lascar78]

they didn't trade the pick, they gave chicago the right to swap picks. The trade went through so it's ok. They will have a first rounder next year, Chicago just gets to pick whether they get the chicago pick or the NY pick.

The rule is in place to prevent you from not having a first rounder 2 years in a row.

They will have first rounders both years, just not theirs

Again, if you want crazy conspiracy theories, try to get at least some of the facts right

[Diesel]

All I ask is What is the purpose of the draft lottery...

with the follow up.. If the draft lottery is not fulfilling it's purpose why do we have it??

And my new question... Why are so many teams involved in the draft lottery.

You see Lascar, you're quick to cry conspiracy theory.. Yet, you haven't attempted to answer one of the questions... because logically you know that they led to the conspiracy.

You might be happy with somebody claiming it's based on odds or whatnot, but you know we live in a world where man controlled systems are rarely true and untampered with.

[thesheedera]

Diesel, I think most people are satisfied that there can be a stupid system in place without the necessity of having a conspiracy to explain it. The lottery is not a good system, they tried to keep teams from tanking, but it doesn't work. They should change it.

But I hope they keep it around for next season, so the Hawks have at least a SHOT at Oden. The fact is that the Hawks can improve next season and still have a chance at the #1 pick. Is that fair to the worst team? Of course not, but for now, I'm glad its in place.

[Diesel]

The systems is in place, does need changing... so why do people defend it like it's the best thing going??

I believe that there are no dummies in Stern's office.

I believe that he knows that the system needs changing too.

So why not change it??

He was quick to make a dress code. Quick to enforce a rule to keep HSers out of the game..

However, you would think that something like the draft lottery that directly effects the markets would be something he has high on his agenda of things to do... Yet, it's not.

What would the league be like if the worse teams could really get the best pick?

What other sport uses a draft lottery?

It's senseless.

[Lascar78]

I answered all those questions 2 years ago. The reason no one is answering your questions is because the answers are obvious and no one wants to waste their time just because you're asking the same dumb questions everyone has answered for 2 years. Here we go one more time.

There are two factors at play:

-you want to discourage tanking, that's why you don't want to just hand the worst team the best player, otherwise especially for big years there will be clear cut tanking

-you want the worst teams to get better, that's why you can't do it in a way that gives all teams the same odds, much like a lot of the stupid ideas you get. They did it this way the first time, and you ended up with a team like NY who got the top pick when they weren't THAT bad.

THEREFORE, you need a system that IN GENERAL rewards the worst teams, but doesn't ALWAYS. The logical way to do this is a weighted lottery.

I don't know what crazy reason you've come up with in your head where the lottery isn't working, seems like it is to me. We see it every year on this site. Half of the crowd wants us to tank to get better odds, the other half says win the games because it's the right thing to do, plus there's going to be a lottery and losing guarantees nothing. The lottery has lowered the incentive of tanking, as many of us explained to you 2 years ago

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

. Besides we got #2 last year and the odds were against us getting a top 2 pick despite having the worst record (46% chance of being top 2). So technically we got lucky.

---

Oh yeah... A 13 win team, losses the top pick to a 30 win team and the 13 win team was LUCKY...

Better yet. The worse team in the league losses the top pick to the 6th worse team in the league and NOBODY got screwed.

Yeah Lascar. You're logic has just blindsided your common sense.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

What other sport uses a draft lottery?

---

Hockey for starters

LOL @ a rigged lottery and the team owners just not worrying about it despite the millions and millions of revenue $$$ it effects them by

Again, the risk-reward for rigging the draft lottery is nowhere near viable

[AHF]

Is because the lottery is part of the collective bargaining agreement and while it has not been as effective as hoped in stopping teams from tanking it isn't any worse than a non-lottery system so the incentive to change quickly isn't there. What happens if they change quickly? A team like the Hawks gives JJ a few more games off down the stretch, etc. and loses a couple more to ensure better guaranteed position in the draft. Not a dramatic incentive to change the system. With the current system, teams like the Hawks can concentrate on finishing strong and not worry about lottery position while teams like the Hawks circa 2004-05 will still tank to maximize their balls in the lottery. Not a big difference.

[Lascar78]

Listen close...

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND STATISTICS

You're out of your element. You reinforce that fact any time you say anything about it.

As the top pick, our odds were as follows:

#1 - 25.00%

#2 - 21.53%

#3 - 17.81%

#4 - 35.65%

We had a 46.53% chance of getting a top 2 pick, a 53.47% chance of getting 3 or 4. We got lucky. The fact that Milwaukee got way luckier than we did has no bearing on that.

[Diesel]

I don't think I've ever said give everybody equal odds??

That is stupid.

I said...

Just give the worst team the top pick and go in that order.

Like I have also stated.. The system is failed. It is not a deterant to teams tanking...

What did Charlotte do down the stretch this year. They Kept May out and they sat key players in games.

This system you speak of does not deter tanking.. It actually encourages tanking. A team that's 16-8 is more liable to tank because they know that by tanking they get these better odds. Because History has shown that the worst teams do not get the pick automatically and it's possible for a 7th seed to win the lottery...

I say one sensible change that can be made to the draft lottery is limit it to about 5 teams. That would be a bigger deterant to tanking than what we have now.

Also.. It's interesting to see your conflict.

You were pressing for the hawks to tank during the last few weeks. Yet you believe that the draft lottery doesn't encourage tanking?

CONFLICT.

[Diesel]

COMMON SENSE SAYS...

When you are the worst team in the league and you lose the top pick to the 6th worst team in the league.

YOU JUST GOT SCREWED

However, Lascar says...

We were lucky.

I would take my common sense over your statistics and logic anyday Lascar.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

What did Charlotte do down the stretch this year. They Kept May out and they sat key players in games.

---

Of course Diesel has never let the facts get in the way of his lunatic rantings.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

I don't think I've ever said give everybody equal odds??

That is stupid.

---

Interesting. Well then someone else logged in as you and posted a dumbass thread that included these ideas for example

Quote:

---

Poker.

Top 5 teams send their best Poker representative and they play a hand of texas Hold'em. The guy that wins the game wins the top spot.

I betcha BK could out poker all of them.

---

Quote:

---

Paint Ball

Let them all have a televised Paintball game. Each team has a representative paint ball game. The winner gets the top pick.

---

Anyhow,

Quote:

---

You were pressing for the hawks to tank during the last few weeks. Yet you believe that the draft lottery doesn't encourage tanking?

CONFLICT.

---

Nice try guy. I said down the stretch that I didn't really care either way, wins are good for the record and attracting FA's, losses give us better odd.

Even if I had, that would only be a conflict if I said that there was no tanking with the lottery. I obviously never said that because I'm not a moron. I said that the lottery lowers the incentive to tank and it does. That is why the board splits on tanking. The perfect example was the Terry Stotts run, the board was practically 50-50. If there was no lottery, just about everyone would have been on board for tanking, as it would have guaranteed Dwight or Emeka.

[Diesel]

Not to mention... May DNP.

[Lascar78]

Actually there is a need to understand statistics which is drastically highlighted by your cluelessness.

I'm done on this, it's like trying to explain relativity to a three year old.

Feel free to read the 2 year old threads for all my responses

[Diesel]

"Besides we got #2 last year and the odds were against us getting a top 2 pick despite having the worst record (46% chance of being top 2). So technically we got lucky."

Saying something as dumb as this.. You need not pick the issue up NO MORE IN LIFE...

This is perhaps the dumbest thing that has ever been utter on Hawksquawk.

[exodus]

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

This is perhaps the dumbest thing that has ever been utter on Hawksquawk.

---

Not even remotely. Don't you remember Josh_Smith_Fan talking about Martynas Andresuckivicious being the best player in last year's draft?

[Diesel]

Whatever happen to ole Marty A anyway??