Wretch

Well...because I agree with you here. WE NEED A NEW IMAGE. I think bringing in a new coach would do that; I've already said as much. I also believe that we've missed the boat on the guys who could really do that. I would like to see Fratello come back, but that may even be percieved as (like Jay Walker says) "been there done that."

At the same time, people don't even know who Stotts is. Like much of anything that has to do with the Hawks, they don't care. So, if he really has something to bring to the table...then he could very well be a part of this new image makeover.

...

If we didn't have a coach, I'd be looking exclusively at bringing in someone with instant credibility. We've got a guy, who's been here for a while...that has more experience than some of the guys looking for a chance. He's been through as rough a storm as it gets...he's still standing, but barely. That, to me, gives him a leg up on anyone other than someone with instant credibility.

Agreed. At the same time though, keeping Stotts on for a little while longer gives the rest of the league a chance to hand us a better coach. Letting Rivers slip into Boston's back door has really prolonged the situation.

Is there someone who could be brought in that would be better than Stotts? No doubt. Are they available now? That's questionable. I'm not interested in Byron Scott and his ego or stubborn substitution pattern. I don't think he'll mix well with the rebuilding effort. I think the Czar can and I think Rudy T could...if he were healthy and willing to coach.

I don't feel sorry for Stotts. I liken him to an unproven draft pick. Maybe he'll turn out good, maybe he won't. My gut tells me when it comes down to it, that we'll end up replacing him anyway - so go forward with him, draft as we please, and if he doesn't show us anything...adios.

I think we could commit to him as much as "hey, show us what you've got. Things have settled down, show us that you are a leader." I don't think we give him the same amount of leeway as we would a Larry Brown, Paul Silas, or Rivers. However, another mid season coaching change is not cool. If we go with Stotts, we take him through next season, with the same group of players whether he struggles or not.

I don't believe that he DESERVES to be fired; but the organization deserves stability and a good coach. If it's Stotts, then so be it. If we bring in a veteran coach that can get it done...I've got no problem showing Stotts the door.

If we were coachless, he would not be on my short list. He might not even be on my list. I wouldn't even try going forward with a guy looking for a chance, because we need stability; but true to Hawks "ill-luck-bad-decision", form every big named coach has been snapped up.

IMO, going with a guy like Stotts is no different than going with the next great coach in the waiting; so, firing him just to bring in someone else like him only perpetuates the instability.

I don't think he's been given a chance; but that has more to do with so many changes within our organization and so many distractions. If he were a veteran head coach, I might be inclined to levy a bit more of the blame on him. Being a newbie at it, having come into this situation, I don't put it all on him.

DON'T GET ME WRONG THOUGH I am not a Stotts fan. No sir. I think he deserves a shot to show what he can do given stability, just like anyone else itching for a chance, but I do not believe that he has "earned" an extended stay. I don't believe he should be fired based on the team's performance, but I don't believe that his performance has been amazing either.

That's really what it comes down to for me. For a better head coach, I'd scoot him right on out the door - he hasn't impressed me. But is there anyone left? Fratello? Chuck Daly? Rudy T? I'd go with either of those guys over Stotts. But as far as potential goes, I think he has just as much as the next young gun; I see no need to fire him just to bring in another one...and fire him in 2 years too.

Yes, it is worth watching. I'll have to add it to my collecction now that I think of it.

Stotts doesn't deserve to get fired. Not by a long shot. The changes and organizational turmoil have NOTHING to do with him. At the same time, he hasn't been given the chance to show what he can do. He's basically coached 3 different teams and it's hard to establish any kind of identity or system with that; and not just for a new head coach either.

We set ourselves up for rebuilding this past season; now we actually start doing it. Time to build the team and time to pick a coach. It comes down to Stotts vs. someone with instant credibility...and if this team had made the playoffs, or even come close, then I don't think we'd even have to make that choice.

One of the things that I worry about is that Stotts takes this team into next season and doesn't find a way to win consistently against the bottom feeders. I want to see stability and I want to see defense. Scoring hasn't been an issue, we just haven't been able to slow down the opposition. Given a season without wholesale changes, players that compliment each other and follow directions, will Stotts get results?

It doesn't matter right now, but it will in a few years when we are playing to win. I don't want to be in that situation saying, "well, if we can just get Stotts another star player..." Another mid-season coaching change is not cool either. For the sake of stability and the young talent that will be our future, whomever we select now needs to be IT - our coach for better or worse.

I agree that...

Stotts was in a no win situation. Not because of the team that he inherited, but because of the organization that inherited him. We changed players, GMs, and owners while he has been bouncing around right in the middle of it. We don't know what our identity is going to be, we barely have an inkling of where we're going. By default, Stotts' job has a cloud of uncertainty over it.

To stabilize the club, it is quite neccessary to have a system and a vision of where the organization wants to go. Nobody wants to come to a team in turmoil; especially not the difference makers that we want to sign as free agents. It really hurts the young guys who need solid tutilage and direction - JT would be the poster boy for this kind of misdirection. I believe that if Stotts is brought back, he should be given a new contract - mainly for stability.

I do not believe...

That Stotts has done an amazing coaching job. I think the guys who came in the 2nd half of the season simply played their game. We all knew JT could score. If anything, we can credit Lon Kruger for discovering this. For JT to continue to be an effective scorer, he needed a ball handling compliment.

Sura is that. Sura's game is hustling, falling, scrapping, getting into the lane, and passing. This isn't something that Stotts discovered or asked of him. His game simply compliments JT...and Jackson for that matter.

We knew what kind of player Jackson was coming in to the season. Stotts didn't bring out the toughness in him, and he certainly didn't find a way help him compliment the 1st half team better. With Sura and JT both being able to handle and distribute, Jackson simply did what he did best - with more opportunity to do it.

And sure, the team cut down on the turnovers. However, would this be due to JT handling the ball less? Could it be due to Sura handling the ball more? If we already knew JT needed another ball handler, then what was there for Stotts to figure out? What's more, this isn't even the same group of players that cut down on it's turnovers. We're talking about TWO completely different sets of players who play TWO completely different styles of basketball.

The only reason why this group was expected to fail, which, as our record indicates, they still did (and vs. bottom feeders), was because nobody knew that they could do anything. The guys were loose, played with nothing to lose and everything to gain (in the form of a new contract), and Stotts spread them out in a system that they could play in. That is most of what I give him credit for.

Not for a stellar 2nd half record... Not for developing anyone into a better player... Not for stabilizing a club vs. different levels of competition... Not for getting this club to play better defensively... And not for doing any of this in 1 1/2 seasons.

I'm not saying he's a bad coach, or that he is primarily responsible for our horrible record. But, people are giving Stotts too much credit for what happened after the Allstar break this year; and WAY too much respect if we're talking about building a team for him.

For a world where your mind controls the boundaries and the sky is literally the limit, I thought there was way too much simple gunplay in the original. However, the story and the concept of the Matrix floored me and carried my interest through the trilogy.

I thought the second movie did a better than decent job of exploiting the freedom of the Matrix and the characters' control of mind over matter. Why do you need a gun when you can hurl a street bike from a 10 story building...or slice through the side of an SUV with a Katana?

The second movie also brought a new dimension to the fight against the the machines. In the original, Cypher was basically the antagonist and the only real extent of villany. The Agents were less like villans and more like basic, disinterested, extensions of one big, emotionless computer system - until the end when Smith showed signs of self awareness. In Reloaded, not only was the machine menace given a face in form of The Architect, but also with the charismatic frenchman and his "rogue" programs. Also, multiple agendas and interests were effectively established: the Humans (divided into believers and non-believers), the Machines, and Programs (benevolent, independent, and malevolent).

I enjoyed the Reloaded, as I went in NOT expecting the mind-f!ck that was the Matrix. How can you replicate that kind of twist? By comparison, I believe Reloaded is a decent movie in it's own right. Standing alone, it's just a great action movie that delivers.

Revolutions was a bit of a disappointment. My biggest problem was how the trilogy didn't end with a resounding thud of a door closing. Where did Neo go? What is the significance of this little girl? How do the machines plan to survive without human power? How do the two sides plan not only to maintain the peace, but establish a way to live together PERIOD?

There were also too many cliche's as you said AHF, with the unavoidable American movie corn-age to boot: "Neo, I believe in you with all my heart!" It seemed as though The W brothers had completely worked out the Matrix and it's plot, conceived or possibly even completely worked out the details of Reloaded, but were unprepared to end the series - as if they had waited all their lives just to do the Matrix and when it was finally done, and successful, they were like..."what now?"

After futher review (having purchased the final movie) watching Reloaded, then going straight into the finale, Revolutions doesn't seem so bad. Compared to the 1st two, it's definitely average at best...but it does effectively carry the human's struggle. The siege of Zion was stirring and the religeous undertones were interesting. The core of the story however, the Matrix (and our imprisonment within it), seemed to get lost within the physical struggle and I think that really took something away from the series.

Overall, I believe Reloaded was worth waiting for and Revolutions could have been 100% better. Neither compares to the impact of the 1st, which I fully expected, and only Reloaded manages to shine on it's own.

I'm just not ready to give him the keys to the city. He hasn't earned a long term deal. He hasn't proven anything; and I certainly wouldn't build a team around him. There are only a handful of coaches that I would build a team for - and Phil Jackson and Jerry Sloan constitute half of that handful.

Doc Rivers is not among those coaches. I like Doc though. He's a good coach, but what I really like about him is his personality. That's one of the Hawks' biggest needs right now. We haven't had a decent identity since Dominique left. Mookie, Smitty, and Mutombo came in with Lenny Wilkens and we became a solid team capable of winning in the regular season...occasionally sqeaking out of the 1st round of the playoffs. However, the team still didn't have a real identity. Does anyone talk about those days? Does anyone even remember? They won, but they couldn't win the big games. They played VERY well, but they were boring. Bringing in Doc would have jump started the process of rebuilding not only our team, but our identity as well.

I think there are better coaches though. Mike Fratello is one. The Czar has always been one of my closet favorites. He can just flat out coach. I'm all for an old-school coach and I know Mike would come in and get results. If you give him the right team, he'll get results...but Mike is a guy who'll find out the best way to play what he's got and get every ounce out of that squad. The only thing is, I'd rather not have him slow our young guys down to a plodding, barely watchable, style of basketball just to eeek out a winning season.

I also like EMuss's hard nose, no wimps allowed, style of coaching...but that's better suited to a veteran squad. Plus, his lack of attention to the young guys is apparently what's got people talking about him right now. He's a guy you bring in like Chicago did with Skiles. I think the Bulls' days of underachievement and slow-development are coming to a close.

In the end, that's we need to be looking at - a guy that can come in and develop the players we're drafting. If Fratello can accept the rebuilding process and do that, then I think he's a good candidate. Oh, and he's got ties to the organization too...

There's a bunch of guys out there that will probably make good coaches one day. Guys that are itching for a start somewhere. Maybe our search for a recognizeable commodity would unfairly alienate those eagar young coaches; but honestly, if we're seriously looking at hiring a young gun just itchin' to run the show then we should just stick with Stotts. That's what it comes down to. If we're not going after a big name that can develop our guys (uh, when we get 'em), then we just keep Stotts.

Not Frank Williams...sh#t just rolls out sometimes when I'm typing!

But we still LOST, consistently, and to fellow bottom feeders like Orlando, Philly (without Iverson), New York (without Houston), Washington, a 101 – 84 Thrashing at the hands of Toronto, and the last game of the season against Boston without Pierce. We almost lost one of our precious late season “gems” against Dallas.

I didn’t say that the man can’t coach. I’m saying he has done nothing to earn him a long stay in Atlanta nor has he distinguished himself as one of the better coaches in the leage – and that is what we need when our games start having meaning.

I wouldn’t build my team around a coach. I’d see what my coach can bring out of my players and go from there. I certainly wouldn’t promise a new head coach ANYTHING based on a coaching basically 3 different teams with inconsistent results.

And the bottom line is that everyone is expendable in this league. There’s no such thing as a permanent head-coaching job; and we’re rebuilding. There’s no telling what this team will look like in 2 or 3 years. If and when we put a winning team on the floor, we don’t even know if Stotts can handle it.

To have this discussion, you have to define standards. What are the standards to which Stotts is being held? Are we judging him on 1-½ years of tenure? Are we judging him on half a season with Dog, half a season with Theo and SAR, and half a season with the free agents?

Looking at all three, I don’t see anything spectacular that merits a long extension for Stotts. A good coach comes in when players have given up on his successor, they get results, and they take good teams and make them better. Most importantly, they get consistency. Even if it was just a routine beating of lottery teams, it’s still consistent – but no matter whom the personnel were, our team could not do that.

…and so is every player that plays on a team with bad chemistry considered a cancer? Is that what we’re saying here, Stotts had two very cancerous players that refused to do what he wanted them to do? The things that would help this team beat even the bottom feeders on a regular basis…? Theo and SAR were not those types of players. I think given the same amount of talent, there are coaches who could have at least gotten consistent results – Rivers, Carlisle, Karl, Silas, Van Gundy, Fratello, O’Brien. Even new head coaches like Frank Williams or Musselman could handle that. I think these kind of guys have distinguished themselves as “good” coaches.

I think generally speaking, you could call him a good coach; however, I don’t think Stotts has accomplished anything that could put him in the category with guys who get results; nor do I believe that he is a BAD coach.

Either way, he is by no means my hands-down favorite to coach this team going forward. While we flounder away trying to find our identity, I think it would be wise to see what he’s got. Extending him for a couple of seasons isn’t a bad idea either. But committing to his vision and his coaching ability right now is premature to say the least.

He just hasn't impressed me much in his time here. He couldn't get anything consistent out of the team that we traded away - even though Jack was supposed to come in and somehow be the player that Dog wasn't. And I think it would be a mistake to give Stotts too much credit for what these guys did late in the year.

They were contract players, with nothing but playing time to work in and shots to take. Stotts spread the floor out and created a system to cater to their style of play; however, it was the loose "YMCA" style basketball that caught the league off guard - and even that didn't work consistently. This team continually played up to the better teams and down to the bad ones. This is a trend that did not change during Stott's run.

I think Stotts should stay on, but not because he's so great. He should stay on because he knows our players and because he's expendible. If he proves that he can coach this team to a winning record, then we've got our coach. If not, then just keep him on until we get ready to get serious.

It think that's an approach that's workable for both sides. Stotts gets to show the league what he can do, the team keeps the flexibility to keep him if they want.

With the exception being, I'm looking for faults these days...something to validate my suspicion. I don't think the NBA lottery being rigged could be compared to the state lotteries or actual games. There are too many factors and too many people invovled - you'd have to control entire teams - coaches, owners, players, EVERYBODY on TWO teams; that's just not something that I believe is very possible.

With the state lotteries, you have the government involved and public money. You're not talking lawsuits, you're talking about jail - and likely fed time. This process is also out in the open. Stern's lottery is conducted, controlled, and probably audited in house.

Despite it all, the one thing I know for sure is that Stern has enough reasons to control this thing. I know he has the resources to do it. If that is the case, then I do not believe that the majority of teams that have a shot at the top 3 spots will get it.

I think that if a team from the WC makes the top 3, then it will be a team with little chance of doing so - just to make things look random. I am almost positive that Atlanta will be drafting Dwight Howard in this scenario and that Philly will be given a chance to improve as well. I don't think Chicago will be selecting either of those PFs. I think that Atlanta and Orlando or Philly will sit 1 and 2; I have a strong feeling that Philly will be given a boost just like Detroit was last year. Iverson is one of the leagues most marketable players. Bringing him back to prime time with a high quality PF is just the kind of shot in the arm that the NBA needs.

I don't think the NBA needs the Clippers to draft yet another strong forward.

I don't think the NBA needs Phoenix to babysit another hssr, and they've already got their future at the 4.

Same for Washington, who just nabbed a top PF prospect.

Chicago is babysitting two F/C former HS prospects, and have been fishing in the draft seemingly forever.

Cleveland just won the lottery, and if they win it this year the conspiracy chatter will not stop. I know I'll throw my hands up.

Portland needs something to rouse their weary fans, and they do have fans, but they have fans and all they need to do is start winning.

Utah is a darkhorse candidate here. They've got a pretty good PF in AK, but wouldn't it just seem appropriate to put Dwight Howard out there in Utah; if he's good, then he's the perfect replacement for Karl Malone - nice guy with wholesome religious values? Oh man, it's too good!

Seattle? They could use a PF presence. Nobody's saying anything about them, and if they win it, everything looks legit.

Toronto? Already got a decent front court - but they do have a VERY marketable star in VC.

But I'm just guessing at what *somebody* could be looking at.

Atlanta

Orlando

Philly

Utah

Seattle

I was certain Bron would be coming east along with the 2nd overall pick. I don't really have that kind of certainty this year; but the closest thing to it would be Howard landing in Atlanta or Utah and Okafur landing in Philly or Orlando.

We'll see.

Well again, it could have been that NY had already been handed a prime time center. It could also be that NY plays in the EC. While that may be going against "balancing" it doesn't go against the opportunity to put Shaq and Yao head to head.

California would have been a good choice for Yao, but he couldn't give Yao to the Clippers - but quite obvious at the same time. Plus, there is the chance, good chance, that the Clippers would have taken JWill. They screwed up taking a bigman prospect over a very good PG prospect. They wouldn't likely do it again.

And it may have very well come down to a simple tossup between GS and Houston. Perhaps they were both evaluated on talent? Marketability? Who knows. But, where in here do I say "Houston was the best choice for Stern to put Yao Ming"...

The first sentence there says it all. The challenge was laid out by Catapult: name a team that landed the #1 pick where the results DON'T seem convenient. That's what I did. My answer was Houston landing Yao, but you could still find a method to madness. That's the point too.

Sorting through the list of lottery teams in 2002, the best fit comes down to Houston and GS. The Clippers would have been TOO obvious: they play right next to the Lakers and they probably have the largest Asian population. That's TOO perfect.

But the point here 1st of all was not to prove that Houston was a perfect or convenient choice. It was to answer the exact opposite question. But in the same way that Houston would have selected Yao over JWill, the other top prospect in the draft was perfect for Chicago - who would have taken him with the 1st pick and not Yao.

My reasons for being doubtful does not come down to the sheer number of possibilities. That's just stupid and a narrow-minded retort to boot. I love the NBA and I love the intrigue surrounding the draft lottery. For the majority of the past 2 decades that I've followed the NBA, I haven't even given much thought to the whole thing.

Again, it wasn't until San Antonio fell out of the playoffs due to an injury to Robinson and were subsequently handed a superstar player that I raised an eyebrow. And it wasn't until recently that I actually thought something was amiss. I knew that Chicago would be selecting JayWill, not GS. I knew that LeBron was going to be playing in the East and I knew that there would be a 2nd EC team to nab the 2nd overall pick that should have put Bron and Melo head to head.

I'm simply giving the draft this same kind of evaluation this year.

Well first, I don't know if the lottery is staged; I don't fully trust Sterns claims and I'm not sure he could resist, but most of this is just speculation based on convenient results. The point that I've been trying to make here for a couple of days is that not only is a lottery machine riggable, but there is very little independent control over it's proceedings. Regardless, if Stern is rigging the draft, then I do have the utmost confidence in the man. Through the outstanding job he's done with the NBA since he stepped in, he has proven that he knows what to do.

But to answer your question...

You know, I've watched the draft for YEARS. But only recently have I begun to seriously question it. When Orlando was given back to back top selections, I thought it was kinda strange...but I was too excited that they might pair Shaq and Webber to really analyze anything. I think the '97 draft is about where I really started taking a good look.

And all I see is convenience. I think Houston landing Yao seems pretty straight up. Then again, someone was making a point in here... Why didn't Stern put Melo and Bron in the same conference so they could go head to head? So Yao goes west for several prime time matchups with Shaq. It's made for TV and that is a HUGE part of the NBA's financial well being.

There are also only certain markets that the Chinese were willing to let Yao play in. One of the factors was the percentage of Asian Americans in that market. I've read that Houston has a fairly decent Asian population. But, which one of these teams would have made a better selection?

New York landing the top pick would have been TOO obvious.

Couldn't send him to LA, because then Atlanta gets to keep that pick. I wonder how Houston's population demographics compares to every other lottery team that year. If I get time, I'm gonna look it up.

Either way, I think this will be a good year to REALLY take a look at teams that really don't need a top selection: Chicago, the Clippers, Phoenix. And teams that really do: Orlando, Atlanta, Philly. And teams that if they get a top selection are likely playoff bound next season: Cleveland, Utah.

The thing is, this year the teams with the worst records really don't need a PF. So it won't make sense to give that team the 1 or 2 pick ('cept Orlando, who I believe will get a top 2 selection). Either way, we are the team drawing the most attention in this draft.

New owners, new management, sucky attendance, a fresh team to market, and a homegrown top prospect - not to mention being screwed by previous draft decisions. Topping it off, we've also landed one of the NBA's league executives as our CEO.

If we don't get a top selection, I will be VERY surprised and will have MUCH more confidence in the legitimacy of the lottery.

But what you didn't know was that Atlanta was almost handed the 2nd pick. The 2nd or 3rd pick came up with 3 numbers that the Hawks had. When the final number fell, we lost out; but it is interesting how close we got.

I've heard that EY audits and witnesses the event. But "auditing" could mean anything, especially when the NBA hires them to do it.

What I have heard is that people watch the proceedings. Here's some questions for you.

#1) Why are people "allowed" to watch the lottery?

#2) Why would anyone need to watch the lottery?

What you are alluding to here is that a "conspiracy" is stupid. It's baseless and "ridiculous." Right? Then why are there so many people concerned about watching it? I mean, it's been audited right? Why are people...intelligent people, professional people...why are they writing columns about it?

If it's been audited, meaning the machine has been certified inside and out, then it all has to be the odds just working out the way they do - and nobody has any questions.

Hey the NBA lottery is real too! 'Cause you said so! *lol*

Ernst and young audits the lottery, at the request of the NBA no one, as in nobody outside of the NBA, requires them to do it.

With that, the question is how deeply is the process audited. Are they certifying the machines random results or are they certifying that machine itself?

The NBA has hired Ernst and Young and there doesn't have to be any bribing or anything. They could tell EY to simply certify that the machine produces random results. PRESTO, the NBA's got the backing of EY, no foul play, nobody is lied to. They tell EY, when the time is right..."watch us as we get the machine out of the closet, take it to the studio, and run it."

Everybody's happy.

Give me a report on EY's audting of the NBA's lottery, but don't tell me simply that they audit it. That means nothing.

Answer the damn question for yourself! The NBA pays for the machine. The NBA owns the machine. The NBA operates the machine. The NBA hires the auditors to audit the machine.

That is a far cry from say...

Stern giving EY 1 million dollars and telling them to create a committe of 10 people - technicians, random sports writers, and attorneys. They tell them, get a lottery machine, keep the lottery machine, operate the lottery machine, create a method to choose the top 3 spots in the lottery.

The difference is, it's not a David Stern process - it's an independent process.

*LOL* What are the 12 other lottery team owners going to sue Stern for a LeBron? These athletes aren't for sale by the NBA; there's no price tag on them. Stern can do whatever he wants with these players. He could sit down with the next CBA and say that in an expansion draft, you can only protect 1 player.

League rules and regulations are governed in house. When you buy a team, you buy a room in the house. The difference is like a superstar smoking weed out in the street or smoking it in his home. Sure there are likely some legal liabilities to people with financial interests in the NBA, just like it's illegal to smoke pot in your house; but as long as Stern is smoking it under his roof...someone has to get IN the house to see him doing it.

The NBA is a private organization, whose financial interests are not tied to the government.

This is a very thin arguement.

Maximize NBA profits...*lol* Tell me, what is David Stern's job?

Because Memphis plays in the Western conference and Stern was trying to bolster the strength of the East. I don't know if my eyes could stand the beating of another Spurs Vs. New Jersey finals...I don't know if the ratings could take such a beating either. And if he wanted Detroit, an already pretty good team, to get a #2 draft pick then why would he give that pick to Memphis?

Nothing, because he will not get caught. That's the whole point. Why does the NBA hire an independent company to Audit the lottery? Because they want you to believe it's real.

That is the purpose of EY here: "Building and communicating trust. There can be no doubt that the world is operating in a less trusting environment"

Which is why as D said, he would not get caught.

Fukc me? Are you mad? You're mad. Don't be mad. I'm not trying to get you mad dude; and yeah, you are mad. Behind this computer screen, your lips are all knotted up, just shakin' your sweaty little fist. Wooo dat wascally wabbit!

And me? You're like a videogame machine to me. I just press the reset button and *POOF*

Besides it's not that serious there, skippy. I'm not even saying the draft is rigged. Just that it could be.

First and foremost, I've never said that the lottery is rigged - only that its results are convenient and that it is possible. I have read somewhere that Stern had a machine built for the lottery and that some techs from some institute built it. I just filed it away under "well, that's interesting" and didn't pay much attention to it. I could have even read it wrong...but I'm not going on about it; and haven't been since Diesel posted that link about who built it.

So...what are you getting at with that?

And that means...?

See, this is what I'm gettin at. How does this validate that the machine is legitimate? Stop dribbling your lips and give me a stupid-free answer for that.

(...)

You can't. There is no solid evidence supporting a greater probability either way regarding the machine's legitimacy.

It's real because it was built by a company who does nothing but build lottery machines, because a handful of people get to watch it, and because David Stern says so.

That 'bout Right?

Because you are dealing with the government and you are dealing with people's money. If the operators were not responsible to the public and the law, then they'd have someone spinning a small cage with envelopes in it and that person would reach in and grab one.

...*sigh* see this not a good example of a stupid-free point.

Nothing. The secret behind magic is misdirection. I'm sure you've heard that before. While you are being ALLOWED to watch the balls, and while you are watching the balls, and while you watch someone press a button - there could be so many things done before and during the process.

And there is absolutely NO WAY that the NBA could buy this machine and its balls and hand it over to someone to make modifications...?

(...)

That isn't possible either is it, huh? Because uh... Because uh... Because dammit you say so!

What if it were half the balls? And what if there were three differently rigged sets of balls. You could follow all that action and spot the foul play...

...in 25 seconds or less.

It is possible to build or rig a lottery machine. There is motive for David Stern to guide the fate of the best talent in the draft. There have been convenient results in the history of the NBA draft. Say what you want, but I'm not going to debate physics with you. The motive and the results are a much better subject to discuss.

Well...

Then shut up.

I've read this before; but why does it sound like a magic show to me now?

"Watch! An ordinary (insert somthing here) right? I take it and (do something ordinary right here) and hocus-pocus! (insert desired magical effect)"

"It's magic I tell you!"

Yeah...magical misdirection...

We are only talking about random results. You or I can flip a coin. ANYONE can produce a system that gives you random results. What is the need for the NBA to conduct the drawing? There are a million and one ways to market the NBA lottery regardless of who pushes the button on the ping-pong ball machine.

Stern isn't in control of who each team picks. Besides, he handed the #2 pick to Detroit who could have drafted Melo, but opted to take Milicic. So your own logic here supports the theory.

Yeah...the thing is, Boston sucked and would continue to suck; so they could be right back in the lottery the next year - AND THEY WERE! AND THEY SELECTED PAUL PIERCE!. And why would Stern need to help them? They had TWO lottery picks. They selected Chauncy Billups and Pitino's own Wildcat Ron Mercer. Imagine Boston's back court if they had selected McGrady and hadn't given up on Billups and traded him.

Billups, McGrady, Pierce...

...and how often does a team get to select TWO players the calibur of David Robinson and Tim Duncan? Stern created a monster here! A championship monster that could rival the weighted Eastern conference. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity (that happened before with Orlando - *lol* OMG does nobody see this?!?! *lol*) and Stern jumped at the opportunity. That'd be like Jermaine Oneal having an injury the season before last, the pacers falling into the lottery, and being handed the #1 or #2 pick...and selecting Bron or Melo...

And Duncan was a BronBron calibur selection!

OH MY GOD! *LOL* Whew.... Maaan, please. Give me a break here...

*LOL* Does anyone see any of this? Study the results with an open mind. I'm not saying the lottery is fake and it's a conspiracy. Who the hell am I and what do I know?! I'm just a simple basketball fan...

But at the same time, I don't believe everything that's said to me just because someone says it - and I have sat by and watched and analyzed each draft, every year since I was in high school. I love it! And I love what Stern has done with the league...and if the draft is rigged by Stern then I have 1001% confidence in him to do what needs to be done.

Telling me that the lottery is real is not proof; I believe in odds and probabilities, so showing me results of random drawings is nothing out of the ordinary. Questions don't arise from things that go accordingly. Questions arise from things that go TOO accordingly. Such is the history of the NBA's draft lottery system.

If the NBA Lottery was operated by anyone other than NBA league officials, then I would have absolutely no questions. I wouldn't even need to witness it. But it isn't. Nobody knows much about the machine and only a select group of people get to watch it run.

I don't question the purpose of having a lottery at all. I think discouraging teams from tanking is a great idea and the entertaiment value is immeasurable. It's a great system. No question.

The thing is, we can all assess every team in the NBA and say who needs what. The lottery dictates where the stars in this league fall. If Stern has control over that, then he has the ability to address team needs, create parity, and increase marketability as he sees fit to.

Yeah, Thomas needs to shut the f#ck up, but get a load of this crap! What the hell is Lamond Murry doing demanding a trade! ROTFLOL... What EVER man!

I would trade his @ss straight to the NBDL. Freakin' jobber...

Numbered 1 through 14 – to give the lottery a possible 1001 combinations. If you fix one ball, then you have effectively controlled many different number combinations. There are also combinations that are unlikely to fall. Like say...1, 2, 13, 14. There are only 14 balls, and if 4 or 5 of them have been "fixed" in a certain way, then you could choose the combination that you want to be displayed.

Imagine how all of these factors could affect teams with certain amounts of number combinations (see here). Imagine how easy it would be to give one team with 250 combinations a weighted advantage. This isn't a question of whether or not it CAN be physically done. We can replicate a human heart…we can build a rigged lottery machine. The question is whether or not anyone has any kind of jurisdiction over whether or not it's done.

...and again, I have heard that people are allowed to witness the event (see here), but I have yet to read one article that says anyone has been inside the machine. I can’t imagine Stern letting anyone do that.

The NBA runs their lottery and I don't think they have to answer to anyone regarding their lottery machine. If they did, then it would be up to an independent agency to run the entire thing. There would have never been any "envelopes" and there would be no questions about a "conspiracy." No one would even be pointing fingers at Stern because he would have no influence over the proceedings whatsoever.

The 1st lottery system that was used reinforces this it was changed to avert suspicion. The system that had the logo balls was likely too difficult to control. After all, there were a thousand balls in the machine. This system is much easier to direct because there are only 14 balls in the machine. If anything, you could eliminate many teams just by screwing with one ball and assigning certain improbable number combinations. And if it is a computer that generates the list of combinations for every team...then forget about it.

And still, I wait to hear or read something that convinces me that there is very little room for Stern to manipulate the lottery.

Eddy Curry by a landslide...

Van Horn and JT get a nod, but I'm going with Dirk...although not an excuse, he was brought up playing Euro ball.

I'll go with McDyess who has done very little since coming back from injury. I can't pick on the rookies too much, and we all have our gripes about our own players, but Hansen was kinda floating around at the beginning of the season.

Not his fault, but SAR has no purpose in Portland.