2 things that makes no sense...

[Wretch]

Quote:

---

To me, you're not really explaining the why, you're just repeating the "what".

Why is it that a team that sucks at drafting should be penalized on top of that with worse draft picks?

---

Simple. Because they have had more opportunities to do so as opposed to teams that haven't been in the lottery as long and don't have 3 or 4, top 10 prospects on their roster...and another 3 or 4 that they've traded away or let walk.

Quote:

---

Why should a team who loses their only star player and suddenly sucks balls be penalized?

---

Because TMac and Yao won 50+ games last year. They do not need anyone in this draft to help them make the playoffs...let alone one of the top 3 picks in the draft.

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

...In due time everyone will get equally lucky / unlucky.

---

Lascar, I agree with that as far as probabilities go, but there is a wild card in the NBA draft. If you get lucky the year LeBron is available you are in business. This year, on the other hand, there doesn't look to be a real franchise maker at the top of the draft. Of course there's nothing the NBA can do about that, it's just the way it is.

That has nothing to do with most of what's being discussed here as far as %ages...but it can keep a team at the bottom. As far as penalizing a team that stays bad...what can they do if they keep barely missing out on the real impact players.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

If you get lucky the year LeBron is available you are in business. This year, on the other hand, there doesn't look to be a real franchise maker at the top of the draft.

---

Agreed all the way. But there's nothing you can do about that. If there's no lottery in a lebron (/oden) draft then you'd see insane tanking. As it is there is some but a lot of teams (see the stotts hawks) don't because they know tanking is no guarantee.

Quote:

---

As far as penalizing a team that stays bad...what can they do if they keep barely missing out on the real impact players.

---

Agreed also

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

Simple. Because they have had more opportunities to do so as opposed to teams that haven't been in the lottery as long and don't have 3 or 4, top 10 prospects on their roster...and another 3 or 4 that they've traded away or let walk.

---

I guess we disagree on what the draft is for. To me the draft is there to help the teams that need it, whether they need the help because they got unlucky or because they draft like jackasses. To you the lottery should reward the teams who draft better / penalize those who don't. I disagree.

[Wretch]

That's not it at all. You are missing the point. This isn't about punishing teams that can't draft. It's about:

- Weighting it against tanking

- Weighting it against teams that are in the draft year after year

- Weighting it against teams that were previously not in the lottery

Teams that are in the draft year after year will be in the draft year after year. I'm not proposing moving them out of the draft, just adjusting them based upon how well they do. Regardless of whether a team moves up and down based upon performance, there is no guarantee that the #2 pick (Darko) is better than the #5 pick (Wade).

I think we could have used the #2 pick (or #4 for that matter) moreso than the Clippers (perinnial lottery leeches) could have in 2004. Perhaps we needed Dwight Howard more than the Magic who were in the playoffs one year, then tanked the 03-04 season? I also think Tim Duncan would have been better served to a team that needed him (like Boston or Vancouver)...than San Antonio who already had a dominant, impact, 7 footer.

It's not about drafting better, because they will still be able to draft. It's about getting your crap together and actually playing to the best of your abilities - throughout the season. Which is another point which you just throw out the window. Teams that improve (like ours...who has doubled their win total) should be rewarded. It would give the bottom feeders something to play for...instead of something to lose for.

[Wretch]

Quote:

---

As far as penalizing a team that stays bad...what can they do if they keep barely missing out on the real impact players.

---

Just because you are moved down a few spots, it doesn't neccessarily mean you will miss out on a bad player. What if the Detroit (Memphis/Vancouver) pick had been moved down to #5 in 2003?

They could have drafted Wade or Hinrich...

Again, penalization wouldn't remove a team from the lottery, just skew the order based upon year in and year out performances. It forces teams to make better drafting decisions, better personnel decisions, and removes the incentive to tank because a) you won't end up where your record indicates (which is silly in itself. Is Charlotte a "better" team than us who "needs" one spot more than us?) and b) if you don't at least do as well as you have year in and year out, you will move down.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

This year, on the other hand, there doesn't look to be a real franchise maker at the top of the draft. Of course there's nothing the NBA can do about that, it's just the way it is.

---

I'm not suggesting that you are wrong in anyway.

I just wanted to point out that the position that the NBA is in is a position that it put itself into. When Stern made an age limitation (to help college basketball) he knew that this draft would be incredibly weaker).

Just imagine had he not done it...

Oden would be coming out.

I think G. Green would have gone to college and would have come out this year.

A few other HS phenoms would be on their way out of HS to the NBA.