Van Gundy doesn't like that lottery rewards losing

[KINGSFAN-FROM-L.A.]

i agree, have all the non-playoff teams have an equal share of balls in the lottery.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I don't think that's necessarily true, especially when you use the term "a lot of teams"... For some teams, the difference between being in the red and the black at the end of the year is the playoffs. I think that has to also be considered.

And playoff experience, even if you flush in the first round, is still beneficial to the young guys on the team.

The one thing I really hope is that the team owners will at least address this in the off-season. I honestly believe the time has come for some kind of change if at all possible...

If you're a team that's already set up nicely for the future then yes the trip to the playoffs is valuable experience and a good sample to evaluate your team's capabilities to play in the postseason. However for a team like us it's definitely more valuable to be in the lottery.

 

[Bricklayer]

If the NBA was really concerned about parity, they would install a more rigid and restraining salary cap, giving both large and small market teams alike the opportunity to land big free agents - a much better way of improving your team than the Draft. This is, in my opinion, what has set the NFL apart from the NBA and MLB. Not image, not steroids, not exposure - true parity.

Yes, its set the NFL apart...but not in a good way.

Nothing quite so fun as seeing your favorite team torn apart and its best players tossed overboard not for reasons of their play, but because they can't be afforded anymore. If anything the luxury tax has begun to swing the NBA that way...maybe too much so. There is only one team at this point gaining an advantage by spending money -- the Mavs.


NBA has a very good system thx. It allows for dynasties, while providing a built inroute for the next generation of dynasties to be born.

 

[Superman]

Yes, its set the NFL apart...but not in a good way.

Nothing quite so fun as seeing your favorite team torn apart and its best players tossed overboard not for reasons of their play, but because they can't be afforded anymore. If anything the luxury tax has begun to swing the NBA that way...maybe too much so. There is only one team at this point gaining an advantage by spending money -- the Mavs.


NBA has a very good system thx. It allows for dynasties, while providing a built inroute for the next generation of dynasties to be born.

That distinction is good for small market teams. Yeah it sucks to see your team torn apart (as is happening with my Colts right now, though not as bad as it could be), but for teams like the Raiders and Bucs and Titans, etc. , who are signing the Colts free agents, it allows teams that would otherwise have no shot a chance to land solid free agent veterans in the offseason without having to trade players. It is creating true parity in the NFL.

Which is what the Lottery is set up to do. Only it doesn't consistently do that, in my opinion.

The NBA allows for dynasties because it has to in order to survive. Which is the difference between it and the NFL. The NFL does fine whether it's a new team winning every year or if it's the Cowboys winning every year. It actually does better, I'd assume, with a new team winning every year. The NBA needs the Lakers and Knicks and Celtics to be good; it doesn't need the Kings or Bucks or Bobcats at all. True parity is not in the best interests of the NBA, as a business.

The luxury tax was designed to have as little separation of the haves and the have nots as possible. That swing that has caused teams to lose valuable players via free agency was intentional, I believe. A way of saying to the big market teams: "Either you're going to share the wealth in taxes, or you're going to share the wealth in players." However you want to look at it, though, the NBA doesn't want the Knicks outspending every other team every year.

And you're right that the Mavs are the only team that's having real success with a huge payroll, but that's more an indictment of the poor decision making of guys like Isiah Thomas, along with a head nod in the direction of Donny Nelson and Mark Cuban.

I guess where we differ the most is our belief in the Lottery as a way to help bad teams get better. It isn't that effective anymore, in my opinion. 15 years ago when you had players coming into the League ready to play at a high level, yes. But that just isn't the case anymore. Most of the players drafted are "projects" that either turn out to be serviceable back-ups, or don't turn out at all. Like I said earlier, maybe that will change with the continued use of the D-League and new requirement that players spend at least in year in college. But right now, I'm sort of disillusioned with the idea of building an NBA team back up through the Draft. I don't think it's very effective.

 

[Gargamel]

How much revenue is generated from two home playoff games? And how many times has the 1st or 2nd seed taken six-plus games to finish off the 7th or 8th seed?

I'm assuming that two, possibly three home playoff games, plus a chance at a second round appearance (we had a good shot at beating the Spurs, the Lakers had a good shot at beating the Suns) is enough incentive to keep teams from tanking, especially when tanking isn't giving you an advantage.

Tanking for an already bad team when a Shaq, Bron, or even Oden are coming out is a good thang. Tanking for an average team is unwarranted unless your GM has no hope of improving by other means. Draft is a real crapshoot nowadays. Look at Orlando getting stood up by Fran Vazquez.

 

[Gargamel]

The NBA allows for dynasties because it has to in order to survive. Which is the difference between it and the NFL. The NFL does fine whether it's a new team winning every year or if it's the Cowboys winning every year. It actually does better, I'd assume, with a new team winning every year. The NBA needs the Lakers and Knicks and Celtics to be good; it doesn't need the Kings or Bucks or Bobcats at all. True parity is not in the best interests of the NBA, as a business.

The NBA has turned into a big honeypot for the suits in charge, and their cable channels and merchandisers. They don't need the Bobcats, but they do want them. They REALLY don't need the WNBA, but yet they persist in keeping it around to tap the little girl market. Modern revenue sharing is a way to KEEP 30 teams alive no matter what. Only going back to 82, Utah was in such bad shape that they had to sell Nique to Atlanta. They say that Bird and Magic saved the league -- well, David Stern did too, but he started the path to gluttony only 5 years into his reign w/ the additions of 4 expansion teams in a single pop.

I don't think we're gonna see a lot of dynasties anymore. Too many teams which spread the number of very good players too far and wide. SA is an exception to the norm via a competent front office and by being a team that didn't really belong in the lottery, yet they won Tim Duncan.