Race to the Bottom thread

[hrdboild]

Had we tanked and gotten a forward instead of Davion, say Kuminga to keep it more plausible, the chances are pretty good we never trade Haliburton because we don’t have such a log jam.

Yes but the premise of my post is that Monte tried to work within the bounds of fair play as the NBA wants to define them and did not tank and now we find ourselves as the worst team in the league while the team which won 17 games and 14 games in the two seasons when the Kings were actually good is now sitting on top of the standings. The point is tanking is a problem because it works and the latest CBA has made it almost impossible to build a team without tanking. The 'almost' is accounting for teams like LA and New York which will always attract top free agents when they have cap space. For Sacramento it may actually be impossible.

I also see you posting this take a lot and I find it painfully reductive. We don't know what would have happened if Kuminga or Wagner had been available for our pick. The lazy response is to assume that since Franz Wagner averaged 24 points per game last season on the Magic that he would have been the same player in the context of our team but to believe that you have to ignore that (1) He took 19 shots per game which he would not have gotten as a #3 in our offense. (2) He shot 29.5% from three last season, so do you really want him shooting that much anyway? (3) His career 3pt % is 32.5 which is worse than De'Aaron Fox so do you really want him shooting that much anyway? (4) There were 10 players who played at least 1000 minutes for the Magic that year and of those 10 players, only KCP and Tristan De Silva had worse individual defensive ratings than Wagner. Maybe he's not the potential savior he is made out to be?

And Kuminga.... well there are already 47 pages of back and forth about him on this message board, sitting there in the Personnel Moves sub-forum like a bad hangover. I like Kuminga, I've been in favor of trading for him and still am. And if we still want him, I'm sure he's available since Atlanta took him on mostly to get something for their Porzingis investment. I don't know that he was the guy which would have made Monte stay the course on Haliburton. That trade seemed to be more about giving Fox the best chance to succeed and most of us presumed Haliburton was the one traded because Fox had no trade value.

What I do know is that Monte inherited a team which had the worst defense in the league that season and he drafted two guys in Davion Mitchell and Neemias Queta who were likely the best defenders available at those spots and signed another the following year (Keon Ellis) as an undrafted free agent who has been damned good in that department too. He saw the problem and was working the solution but this CBA is slanted so far in favor of the players that he couldn't even keep what he built together for more than a year and a half. He had to trade away the 2023 first round pick (as the sweetener for Richaun Holmes' contract) just to create enough room under the cap to sign Sasha Vezenkov and JaVale McGee. And the following year he had to trade away Davion Mitchell to create the cap space to sign DeRozan. We all get to armchair GM without any chance of being proven wrong but I don't know that anyone could have done better given the circumstances.

 

[sactowndog]

Yes but the premise of my post is that Monte tried to work within the bounds of fair play as the NBA wants to define them and did not tank and now we find ourselves as the worst team in the league while the team which won 17 games and 14 games in the two seasons when the Kings were actually good is now sitting on top of the standings. The point is tanking is a problem because it works and the latest CBA has made it almost impossible to build a team without tanking. The 'almost' is accounting for teams like LA and New York which will always attract top free agents when they have cap space. For Sacramento it may actually be impossible.

I also see you posting this take a lot and I find it painfully reductive. We don't know what would have happened if Kuminga or Wagner had been available for our pick. The lazy response is to assume that since Franz Wagner averaged 24 points per game last season on the Magic that he would have been the same player in the context of our team but to believe that you have to ignore that (1) He took 19 shots per game which he would not have gotten as a #3 in our offense. (2) He shot 29.5% from three last season, so do you really want him shooting that much anyway? (3) His career 3pt % is 32.5 which is worse than De'Aaron Fox so do you really want him shooting that much anyway? (4) There were 10 players who played at least 1000 minutes for the Magic that year and of those 10 players, only KCP and Tristan De Silva had worse individual defensive ratings than Wagner. Maybe he's not the potential savior he is made out to be?

And Kuminga.... well there are already 47 pages of back and forth about him on this message board, sitting there in the Personnel Moves sub-forum like a bad hangover. I like Kuminga, I've been in favor of trading for him and still am. And if we still want him, I'm sure he's available since Atlanta took him on mostly to get something for their Porzingis investment. I don't know that he was the guy which would have made Monte stay the course on Haliburton. That trade seemed to be more about giving Fox the best chance to succeed and most of us presumed Haliburton was the one traded because Fox had no trade value.

What I do know is that Monte inherited a team which had the worst defense in the league that season and he drafted two guys in Davion Mitchell and Neemias Queta who were likely the best defenders available at those spots and signed another the following year (Keon Ellis) as an undrafted free agent who has been damned good in that department too. He saw the problem and was working the solution but this CBA is slanted so far in favor of the players that he couldn't even keep what he built together for more than a year and a half. He had to trade away the 2023 first round pick (as the sweetener for Richaun Holmes' contract) just to create enough room under the cap to sign Sasha Vezenkov and JaVale McGee. And the following year he had to trade away Davion Mitchell to create the cap space to sign DeRozan. We all get to armchair GM without any chance of being proven wrong but I don't know that anyone could have done better given the circumstances.

I think most people could have done better. Now to be fair to Monte, Vivek tied his hands with regards to tanking. But even a limited tank that year would have netted us a forward without a stretch.

The draft in 2021 had

• 1st: Cade Cunningham (Detroit Pistons)
• 2nd: Jalen Green (Houston Rockets)
• 3rd: Evan Mobley (Cleveland Cavaliers)
• 4th: Scottie Barnes (Toronto Raptors)
• 5th: Jalen Suggs (Orlando Magic)
• 6th: Josh Giddey (Oklahoma City Thunder)
• 7th: Jonathan Kuminga (Golden State Warriors)
  
  
• 8th: Franz Wagner (Orlando Magic)
  

Had we responsibly tanked even to the lucky 7 spot we would have either jumped up to 4 which was Toronto’s spot or been in the Warriors spot looking at Kuminga or Wagner. Both of whom are better than what we have.

There are very few scenarios where we don’t come out of that draft with a forward. You might be one of the few people defending the Davion pick. And my hate for it is not revisionist history. I hated it at the time for the team and the player.

 

[hrdboild]

I think most people could have done better. Now to be fair to Monte, Vivek tied his hands with regards to tanking. But even a limited tank that year would have netted us a forward without a stretch.

The draft in 2021 had

• 1st: Cade Cunningham (Detroit Pistons)
• 2nd: Jalen Green (Houston Rockets)
• 3rd: Evan Mobley (Cleveland Cavaliers)
• 4th: Scottie Barnes (Toronto Raptors)
• 5th: Jalen Suggs (Orlando Magic)
• 6th: Josh Giddey (Oklahoma City Thunder)
• 7th: Jonathan Kuminga (Golden State Warriors)
  
  
• 8th: Franz Wagner (Orlando Magic)

Had we responsibly tanked even to the lucky 7 spot we would have either jumped up to 4 which was Toronto’s spot or been in the Warriors spot looking at Kuminga or Wagner. Both of whom are better than what we have.

There are very few scenarios where we don’t come out of that draft with a forward. You might be one of the few people defending the Davion pick. And my hate for it is not revisionist history. I hated it at the time for the team and the player.

I know this is more about Davion and how much you hate that pick than anything else. Because I'm agreeing with you about the tanking point-- we should have tanked that year. It was the smart move the way the league has set itself up to enable star players to make $60+ million a year while the teams that sign them to those deals get escalating penalties for trying to compete. And then that player will just force a trade to go where they want anyway.

And I also did not think Davion was the smart pick there. As I said before, I wanted either Jalen Johnson or Usman Garuba. Both big combo forwards who could shoot and defend. Garuba might have been something in the league if he went to a bad team that wanted to play him instead of going to Houston where he was never anything more than a trade chip. Who knows. I defend Davion because I like him as a player. Because he's one of the smartest defenders I've ever had the pleasure of watching and because being short is not his fault. He's done exceptionally well for himself to get to where he is now as a 6 foot tall guard. And I understand the logic behind picking him regardless of need for a front office which believed in their analytical approach and looked at the draft as an opportunity to develop and trade players to fill needs. They were right about Davion's talent but wrong that they would be able to trade him for fair value after not really playing him very much. A running theme really.

 

[SufferingKingsFan]

Speaking of the Spurs….I get so tired of everybody acting like they are such an amazing franchise. It’s super easy to say when you’ve had 3 generational #1 picks land in your lap spanning over a span of like 35 years.

Granted, they are still run better than our dumpster fire over here but the point is…it’s a lot easier to run a franchise when you have this kind of luck go your way.

 

[sactowndog]

okay looked at our finish against other tanking teams. If we avoid a dumb wins against non-tanking teams, especially the the Pels, we have a good chance to be a top 3 seed and potentially a number 1 seed going into the lottery. The game against Indiana and the two games against Brooklyn will be key to how we finish. The most interesting thing is the two games Indiana has against the Clippers. The Clippers have their pick, in a very good draft, it it falls 5-9. The Clippers could easily push them from the 1-3 seed. We play the Clips twice and they have every incentive for us to win and push Indiana down into 5.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Speaking of the Spurs….I get so tired of everybody acting like they are such an amazing franchise. It’s super easy to say when you’ve had 3 generational #1 picks land in your lap spanning over a span of like 35 years.

Granted, they are still run better than our dumpster fire over here but the point is…it’s a lot easier to run a franchise when you have this kind of luck go your way.

I’ll say out loud what I think you’re alluding to and that is having number one picks is amazing but they got them in exactly the right years, exactly

 

[sactowndog]

I’ll say out loud what I think you’re alluding to and that is having number one picks is amazing but they got them in exactly the right years, exactly

The Spurs have been in the lottery 11 times. They have been top three 5 times, number one 3 times, and have never had a negative drop from their seed.

Meanwhile the Kings have been in the lottery 28 times. They have been top three 4 times, number one 1 time, and have had a negative drop from their seed 10 times.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

The Spurs have been in the lottery 11 times. They have been top three 5 times, number one 3 times, and have never had a negative drop from their seed.

Meanwhile the Kings have been in the lottery 28 times. They have been top three 4 times, number one 1 time, and have had a negative drop from their seed 10 times.

Number one three times in the years that the draft featured:

David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Victor Wembanyama

Literally the luckiest franchise in history.

Yes, the Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili drafts were epic. But still luckiest franchise ever.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

"Never Nervous" Pervis. That's it. The one time.

 

[est.1999]

I used to be indifferent on the spurs, now I kinda hate them

 

[jiimbob]

"Never Nervous" Pervis. That's it. The one time.

What made Bill Russel pick Pervis? as I recall he saw a little of himself in him. Biggest names at the time included Sean Elliot, Stacy King, Glenn Rice, but it was actually later picks that produced like Tim Hardaway and Shaun Kemp, even Vlade though I was never a fan. Yes, just another in a long line of idiot King GMs.

And I too can’t stand the Spurs, hand it to Pop though as GM and coach think he knew how to work the system.

 

[sactowndog]

I know this is more about Davion and how much you hate that pick than anything else. Because I'm agreeing with you about the tanking point-- we should have tanked that year. It was the smart move the way the league has set itself up to enable star players to make $60+ million a year while the teams that sign them to those deals get escalating penalties for trying to compete. And then that player will just force a trade to go where they want anyway.

And I also did not think Davion was the smart pick there. As I said before, I wanted either Jalen Johnson or Usman Garuba. Both big combo forwards who could shoot and defend. Garuba might have been something in the league if he went to a bad team that wanted to play him instead of going to Houston where he was never anything more than a trade chip. Who knows. I defend Davion because I like him as a player. Because he's one of the smartest defenders I've ever had the pleasure of watching and because being short is not his fault. He's done exceptionally well for himself to get to where he is now as a 6 foot tall guard. And I understand the logic behind picking him regardless of need for a front office which believed in their analytical approach and looked at the draft as an opportunity to develop and trade players to fill needs. They were right about Davion's talent but wrong that they would be able to trade him for fair value after not really playing him very much. A running theme really.

Don’t get me wrong: I like Davion also!

One of the reasons I hated the pick was it was immensely unfair to the player. Monte saying he could guard the 3 at his standing reach was one of the grossest mis-setting of expectations I have ever seen in the NBA. Being drafted by the Kings with Fox and Haliburton in front of him was a huge disservice to the kid and set his career back half a decade.

AND HE NEVER ONCE COMPLAINED!

I despised the pick and the man who made it because I liked Davion and still do.

 

[serbiangoat]

Number one three times in the years that the draft featured:

David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Victor Wembanyama

Literally the luckiest franchise in history.

Yes, the Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili drafts were epic. But still luckiest franchise ever.

Kawahi was a crazy hit as hell and they gave away what at the time was a super two way PG in his prime in Hill

 

[The_Jamal]

Don’t get me wrong: I like Davion also!

One of the reasons I hated the pick was it was immensely unfair to the player. Monte saying he could guard the 3 at his standing reach was one of the grossest mis-setting of expectations I have ever seen in the NBA. Being drafted by the Kings with Fox and Haliburton in front of him was a huge disservice to the kid and set his career back half a decade.

AND HE NEVER ONCE COMPLAINED!

I despised the pick and the man who made it because I liked Davion and still do.

I just checked, Monte never said he could guard 3's in the draft presser as you've been espousing for years.

 

[eleventy]

okay looked at our finish against other tanking teams. If we avoid a dumb wins against non-tanking teams, especially the the Pels, we have a good chance to be a top 3 seed and potentially a number 1 seed going into the lottery. The game against Indiana and the two games against Brooklyn will be key to how we finish. The most interesting thing is the two games Indiana has against the Clippers. The Clippers have their pick, in a very good draft, it it falls 5-9. The Clippers could easily push them from the 1-3 seed. We play the Clips twice and they have every incentive for us to win and push Indiana down into 5.

View attachment 14833

this part doesn't make sense:

"... The most interesting thing is the two games Indiana has against the Clippers. The Clippers have their pick, in a very good draft, it it falls 5-9. The Clippers could easily push them from the 1-3 seed. We play the Clips twice and they have every incentive for us to win and push Indiana down into 5."

 

[sactowndog]

this part doesn't make sense:

"... The most interesting thing is the two games Indiana has against the Clippers. The Clippers have their pick, in a very good draft, it it falls 5-9. The Clippers could easily push them from the 1-3 seed. We play the Clips twice and they have every incentive for us to win and push Indiana down into 5."

Sorry should be for us to lose and push Indiana down to the 5 spot.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Number one three times in the years that the draft featured:

David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Victor Wembanyama

Literally the luckiest franchise in history.

Yes, the Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili drafts were epic. But still luckiest franchise ever.

Do you believe in luck?

 

[Mike]

Number one three times in the years that the draft featured:

David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Victor Wembanyama

Literally the luckiest franchise in history.

Yes, the Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili drafts were epic. But still luckiest franchise ever.

The ‘cynical’ fans would use this an example of people fixing the draft, much like the Mavs winning the lottery right after trading Doncic away to the Lakers. Either Lady Luck shines on teams like this and not teams like ours or they have some other kind of intervention…

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Do you believe in luck?

I don't really know what you're asking here. I would define luck as a random outcome that turns out to one's benefit. By that definition, luck clearly exists.

If you're really digging at the question "do I believe that the NBA manipulated the Spurs draft position on purpose?" then, no, I don't have any reason to believe they did, so yes, I believe the Spurs got lucky in those instances.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I don't really know what you're asking here. I would define luck as a random outcome that turns out to one's benefit. By that definition, luck clearly exists.

If you're really digging at the question "do I believe that the NBA manipulated the Spurs draft position on purpose?" then, no, I don't have any reason to believe they did, so yes, I believe the Spurs got lucky in those instances.

Close enough I guess. I had assumed that you would consider unlikely scenarios as lucky but at a particular point those statistically highly unlikely situations become question. I have no idea what the exact statistics for winning the first round pick in historically relevant drafts as being statistically suspicious. I don’t enjoy conspiracy theories. I also don’t believe in luck beyond random chance

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

I don't think the owners would be thinking in terms of competitive balance. They would be thinking in terms of not improving opposing teams. the point is that owners would want the #1 pick this year to go to Sacramento, or to New Orleans, or to Utah, or to Washington. They wouldn't really want the #1 pick to go to Indiana, because they will be getting Hali back next year. They definitely wouldn't want the #1 pick to go to OKC! It is fundamentally in everybody's interest to make sure that the best players go to the least threatening teams, and nobody has to care about "competitive balance" for that to shake out.

You seem to suggest that, for instance, the Celtics would prefer a high pick go to the Lakers (a large market) than to the Grizzlies (a small market). But making the Lakers into a super team is suicidal for the Celtics. The Celtics want to win. Why would they help the Lakers, who can sign premium free agents on the regular? I don't see it happening.

I don't understand what you mean by "selling these picks". If you mean that owners would take money to manipulate their rankings, it's possible that some might. And it's possible that the NBA would not be able to effectively police this sort of corruption. But remember that there would be 30 different front offices making rankings, which would be averaged. The maximum amount of "push" that one corrupt front office could conceivably make would be about one slot in the draft. Massive moves would require widely coordinated corruption. Who is going to do this? What nation-state is going to spend two billion dollars to bribe 20 or 25 franchises to put the Lakers at the top of the list so that L.A. can get AJ Dybantsa? This is a laughable thought. And not only that, but in most cases it would be blatantly obvious.

Interestingly, I think that the biggest disincentive to corruption is that the risk/reward ratio is just really bad. Corrupt one team, they're only one thirtieth of the total. Corrupt two teams, they're only one-fifteenth of the total. Corrupt three teams...oh, whoops! The third team had a conscience and tattled! And following the subsequent investigation the first two teams just got nailed!

When you arrange things from a game theory perspective, you are creating a balance based on the "best interests" of the participants. I think you are incorrectly assuming that all of the owners are very interested in winning in the NBA.

Donald Sterling was brazen about his apathy for winning for 35 years, and I think there's a bit of Sterling in all owners. The current Celtics owner, for example, is of the private equity world, an industry infamous for being populated with visionless slugs that don't give a **** about the products they flip. (Most teams in the NBA are associated with private equity in some capacity) I'm sure if he could make some money selling the long term rivalry of Celtics and Lakers, he'd make sure the Lakers were well stocked with talent. NBA team ownership is not and has never been a zero-sum game, where the only goal is to compete.

Even with the most ingenuous (and I think unrealistic) scenario of no external influence, and no collaboration between teams, team governors are all sort of the same kind of guy, with similar interests (they all, by definition, highly prioritize making lots of money.) If any of them actually care about basketball competition, that's only one of a variety of interests.
---
When I say "selling the picks", I'm really referring to external influence of all types. Money is (ironically) the cheapest form of influence. Saudi sovereign wealth is currently paying famous people hundreds of millions of dollars just to pretend their country is normal and that it's cool for a government to chop journalists into pieces, (going as far as to set up an entire parallel sports league of their own.) China was willing to embargo the NBA over Morey's 2019 comments that Hong Kong should continue to exist as it had. These are interventions that are blatantly obvious, and basically successful.

Those are just recent examples, and while they aren't my favorite governments in the world, they are the farthest thing from unique. States meddle with sports all the time; to erase persecuted minorities from public life, to stigmatize criticism of the regime, and to blend in with collective fervor. It's not a laughing matter at all.

Maybe there isn't political value in this particular year's draft, but imagine some team signs the son of some political dissident, or member of some inconvenient ethnic group in the NBA. A regime threatened by the influence of a player would be motivated to minimize that player's prominence. What do you suppose the cost would be to make sure the team that signs Colin Complainovic never receives another lottery pick for the duration of Colin's career?

I have no idea what the price would be, but I bet it would be cheaper than setting up an entirely separate sports league. It's also more discrete and targetable. You could have a lot more customers, some trying to buy the top end, some trying to bury other teams. It might even be economical for fellow rich guys to participate in that market.

On the topic of tattling, I can imagine that there are ways of conducting such a campaign discretely and indirectly via various fronts. It's contestable that more participants the scheme would result in a higher likelihood of the scheme being uncovered; there are socio-political dynamics that make institutional corruption stable and durable at scale. This seems especially dangerous since the team governors themselves are responsible for hiring the investigators and enforcers of league rules. As you get more governors profiting from this arrangement, the pro-corruption bloc in the team governors vote becomes more powerful.

---
All of this is to say, there are certainly interested buyers and most probably willing sellers. Making picks subject to discretion opens up the market between those two groups, and exposes the levers of competitive balance to the wider world. I think that market would crush the motivation to distribute picks according to the competitive merits of rival teams.

Even if you don't accept that external corruption would spread throughout the sport; I don't think the picks would be distributed primarily on the basis of basketball competitiveness.

There are up-sides to simplistic self-executing rules, even if they can be gamed.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

When you arrange things from a game theory perspective, you are creating a balance based on the "best interests" of the participants. I think you are incorrectly assuming that all of the owners are very interested in winning in the NBA.

Donald Sterling was brazen about his apathy for winning for 35 years, and I think there's a bit of Sterling in all owners. The current Celtics owner, for example, is of the private equity world, an industry infamous for being populated with visionless slugs that don't give a **** about the products they flip. (Most teams in the NBA are associated with private equity in some capacity) I'm sure if he could make some money selling the long term rivalry of Celtics and Lakers, he'd make sure the Lakers were well stocked with talent. NBA team ownership is not and has never been a zero-sum game, where the only goal is to compete.

Even with the most ingenuous (and I think unrealistic) scenario of no external influence, and no collaboration between teams, team governors are all sort of the same kind of guy, with similar interests (they all, by definition, highly prioritize making lots of money.) If any of them actually care about basketball competition, that's only one of a variety of interests.
---
When I say "selling the picks", I'm really referring to external influence of all types. Money is (ironically) the cheapest form of influence. Saudi sovereign wealth is currently paying famous people hundreds of millions of dollars just to pretend their country is normal and that it's cool for a government to chop journalists into pieces, (going as far as to set up an entire parallel sports league of their own.) China was willing to embargo the NBA over Morey's 2019 comments that Hong Kong should continue to exist as it had. These are interventions that are blatantly obvious, and basically successful.

Those are just recent examples, and while they aren't my favorite governments in the world, they are the farthest thing from unique. States meddle with sports all the time; to erase persecuted minorities from public life, to stigmatize criticism of the regime, and to blend in with collective fervor. It's not a laughing matter at all.

Maybe there isn't political value in this particular year's draft, but imagine some team signs the son of some political dissident, or member of some inconvenient ethnic group in the NBA. A regime threatened by the influence of a player would be motivated to minimize that player's prominence. What do you suppose the cost would be to make sure the team that signs Colin Complainovic never receives another lottery pick for the duration of Colin's career?

I have no idea what the price would be, but I bet it would be cheaper than setting up an entirely separate sports league. It's also more discrete and targetable. You could have a lot more customers, some trying to buy the top end, some trying to bury other teams. It might even be economical for fellow rich guys to participate in that market.

On the topic of tattling, I can imagine that there are ways of conducting such a campaign discretely and indirectly via various fronts. It's contestable that more participants the scheme would result in a higher likelihood of the scheme being uncovered; there are socio-political dynamics that make institutional corruption stable and durable at scale. This seems especially dangerous since the team governors themselves are responsible for hiring the investigators and enforcers of league rules. As you get more governors profiting from this arrangement, the pro-corruption bloc in the team governors vote becomes more powerful.

---
All of this is to say, there are certainly interested buyers and most probably willing sellers. Making picks subject to discretion opens up the market between those two groups, and exposes the levers of competitive balance to the wider world. I think that market would crush the motivation to distribute picks according to the competitive merits of rival teams.

Even if you don't accept that external corruption would spread throughout the sport; I don't think the picks would be distributed primarily on the basis of basketball competitiveness.

There are up-sides to simplistic self-executing rules, even if they can be gamed.

Institutional corruption!
International politics!
Sociopathic villains with a deeply invested interest in manipulating the NBA draft order!

Sorry, but I can't see this as a serious criticism of my proposal.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

Institutional corruption!
International politics!
Sociopathic villains with a deeply invested interest in manipulating the NBA draft order!

Sorry, but I can't see this as a serious criticism of my proposal.

I did link to specific examples of states influencing sports along these lines, I'm not pulling this out of thin air. It's historically documented and precedented. It's happening today out in the open.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

I did link to specific examples of states influencing sports along these lines, I'm not pulling this out of thin air. It's historically documented and precedented. It's happening today out in the open.

In any case, it's ok if you don't want to engage with my argument about the political impact of sports, it's somewhat off-topic for the board; but I do think it's important for adult fans to be aware that it exists. I could research 5 more examples easily, but I feel like I've made my point there.

What do you think of my more mundane (but in my mind less important) assertion that NBA team owners aren't solely driven by basketball competition?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

What do you think of my more mundane (but in my mind less important) assertion that NBA team owners aren't solely driven by basketball competition?

I find it unlikely that the Boston owner would deliberately attempt to direct better draft capital to the Lakers in order to inflate the Celtics/Lakers rivalry. But even if that were to happen, independently the Boston vote could only realistically move the Lakers' pick up one draft slot.

I find it deeply, deeply unlikely that 30 owners collectively would direct draft picks away from weak small-market teams and towards good large-market teams, deliberately creating an NBA underclass and stacking the already top teams with more top talent. I would not worry about this happening at all.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

I find it unlikely that the Boston owner would deliberately attempt to direct better draft capital to the Lakers in order to inflate the Celtics/Lakers rivalry. But even if that were to happen, independently the Boston vote could only realistically move the Lakers' pick up one draft slot.

I find it deeply, deeply unlikely that 30 owners collectively would direct draft picks away from weak small-market teams and towards good large-market teams, deliberately creating an NBA underclass and stacking the already top teams with more top talent. I would not worry about this happening at all.

Still excluding external influence, I'm assuming that you're basing this on the idea that owners care about winning as much as fans do. Do you think Donald Sterling was a one-off?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Still excluding external influence, I'm assuming that you're basing this on the idea that owners care about winning as much as fans do. Do you think Donald Sterling was a one-off?

I don't know whether Donald Sterling was a one-off or not.
1) I don't think there are 30 Donald Sterlings, or anywhere close
2) I don't think Donald Sterling votes to give the Lakers a better draft pick than they deserve

For clarity, I don't think that the owners would typically be in charge of making the rankings as they are not necessarily the most knowledgable NBA minds in the organization, I assume that each owner would delegate his team's vote to a front office person or panel. That does not mean that owners would not have input, or pull, or final say. But when I talk about each owner voting, that's shorthand for something more complicated.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

I don't know whether Donald Sterling was a one-off or not.
1) I don't think there are 30 Donald Sterlings, or anywhere close
2) I don't think Donald Sterling votes to give the Lakers a better draft pick than they deserve

For clarity, I don't think that the owners would typically be in charge of making the rankings as they are not necessarily the most knowledgable NBA minds in the organization, I assume that each owner would delegate his team's vote to a front office person or panel. That does not mean that owners would not have input, or pull, or final say. But when I talk about each owner voting, that's shorthand for something more complicated.

Do you think 100% owners need to be as cynical as Sterling to have an effect on the competitive equilibrium? Even if Sterling isn't 100% cynical, and wouldn't send a #1 pick to the Lakers; would he send them a top 5, or a top 10 if he's in line to profit from the revenue sharing?

The NBA let Sterling be an owner for nearly 40 years, with mild discipline. Clearly he wasn't completely anathema to a majority of owners

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Do you think 100% owners need to be as cynical as Sterling to have an effect on the competitive equilibrium? Even if Sterling isn't 100% cynical, and wouldn't send a #1 pick to the Lakers; would he send them a top 5, or a top 10 if he's in line to profit from the revenue sharing?

One team's vote only counts for 1/30th, so Sterling can't "send a #1 pick to the Lakers". Let's assume the other 29 owners in the league think the Lakers should be picking 25th based on their future outlook. Sterling's rankings can be set for the Lakers to pick #1, but this would basically move the Lakers from the 25th pick to the 24th pick.

 

[sactowndog]

One team's vote only counts for 1/30th, so Sterling can't "send a #1 pick to the Lakers". Let's assume the other 29 owners in the league think the Lakers should be picking 25th based on their future outlook. Sterling's rankings can be set for the Lakers to pick #1, but this would basically move the Lakers from the 25th pick to the 24th pick.

It doesn’t even count for that if you exclude outliers or remove the high and low rankings.