Phi, mil, et al. As in etc or "and so on". Without going into uncertainties, the Magic did luck out by squeaking into the top 4. IMO though tanking only pays off if you get the #1 overall pick which has a significantly higher value than #2 as you know (I assume). Otherwise, the "tanking" teams were mediocre at best and although their draft spots were essentially determined by w/l record the act of tanking didn't keep them out of a draft spot where they would've already arguably been. Had these teams "tried" (I don't buy the sitting Noel decision, for example, constitutes tanking; playing a potential franchise player coming off an ACL tear in a washout playoff-eliminated month gets people fired) and for the sake of the argument assume they had made a better attempt to field competitive teams then I still think these would've been the worst teams in the NBA: Phi, Mil, Orl, Utah, boston, LA, Sac. I say this based on known variables (salary cap situation entering the season and free agency, transaction factors in relation to tanking, etc). Saying the tanking strategy failed is of course a bold statement, and in the context of this talent-heavy draft it's seen as absurd, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Jabari is several tiers above Wiggins Exum Randle Embiid Gordon and the rest (although I do really like Wiggins, would love to see him in ORL). This argument is probably too hypothetical to be had in great detail, but feel free to continue if you wish.
I know. But I was referencing the two you specifically mentioned. They each got top 3 and they'll each wind up with a highly coveted player. I'm sure the Lakers and Celtics would love to have those picks.
Well since everyone is discussing the whole thing being rigged. If it is, and the NBA really wanted to put an end to tanking, they should have given the sixers 2 bottom end picks. Exum is going to be a good pick for someone, I would rather Philly fail.
Philly would've finished no better than 5th worst, with or without an unhealthy Holiday and Turner and his career 12 PER. I'm petrified that the Exum will only play for the Lakers rumors are true.
That off-season they got Kevin Garnett AND Ray Allen. Besides the Thunder getting Durant - The Celtics made the best choice that draft... Boston has had some shitty luck in the draft, so I am incorrect in that regards. I still stand by my statement that the league will try and do everything they can to bring the Celtics and Lakers back. Should be a decent draft.
Yes they did. But that wasn't the NBA rigging it for them. Those were trades they made. The Celtics chose Jeff Green, who was a bust, but they traded him, a second rounder, and two players to Seattle for Ray Allen and Big Baby. The KG trade did not involve the 2007 draft at all. It was five players (most notably Al Jefferson, who Boston got in the first round of the 2004 draft) and two 2009 first rounders for KG. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070629 " 4:41: Andy Katz reports that Boston agreed to deal the No. 5 pick, Szczerbiak and West for Allen. Not even 10 seconds later, the Sonics take Kevin Durant … the guy I'd been rooting for the Celtics to get since December. (Hold on, I'm picking my jaw off the ground.) Unless there's another major move coming -- and Lord, let's hope so -- are we really contending for the title in 2008 or 2009 with Pierce, Jefferson, Allen, Doc Rivers and nine unproven young guys? Are we even winning 47 games? Three seasons from now, if you're watching Doc and Danny Ainge announcing the same TNT game, then you flick channels and see a broken-down Ray Allen jogging around a half-empty TD Banknorth Center at age 34, you'll think of me. I promise you. 4:43: They just spent the last two minutes discussing Durant, and I didn't even feel jealous of Jay Bilas' orgasmic hyperbole because I was so rattled by the Allen trade. (Hands off, Jay -- I have the No. 1 media man-crush on Durant.) To be clear, I'm a big Allen fan: He's an excellent player; he always wanted to play in Boston (unlike everyone else in the league); I would have loved this trade if he were 28 or 29; and it's hard to top the comedy of Ray Allen and Allan Ray playing for the same team. Here's the problem: Allen's draft class was the year before I wrote my first draft diary. His movie ("He Got Game") came out nearly a decade ago. He played at UConn with Donyell Marshall, Donny Marshall and Doron Sheffer. This guy is not a spring chicken -- just look at his hairline, for cripes' sake. This feels like Mitch Richmond going to the Bullets for C-Webb all over again. I'm somewhere between "quitting coffee and trying to make it through Day 3" rattled and "waiting for the results of an HIV test" rattled. And you know who's going to suffer? You, the home reader. That's who. (Note: And just wait until John Hollinger comes out with his inevitable "Every quality 2-guard in NBA history declined as a player after Year 12 except Reggie Miller" feature to torture me. You know it's coming. Damn you, John Hollinger. Damn you.)" "One more thing: With the second-rounder obtained from Seattle, my dad and I were on the phone rooting for Big Baby … and when it happened, we both cheered and did the whole "I can't believe we got him at 35!" routine. Sure, it was a minor victory, but when you're a Celtics fan these days, you take what you can get."
Of course lots of you guys are saying it's rigged. I don't really care. The Bucks pick 2nd, and will probably get the guy they want most anyway. What I want to know, is how are the Celtics, and Lakers getting one of the elite guys in the class? They're picking 6, and 7, so they might not even need to trade up. I just am more so curious what they would have to do to get up in the top 3. Also, PS. If the Wolves really don't trade Love, they are beyond stupid. He's nice enough to give them a full year warning, (that or he's trying to get himself out of town earlier than scheduled) and still they're like nope nope he's ours we aren't trading him...and that's why the Wolves have always sucked, and always will.
Its not that simple. A team isn't going to trade for Love if he isn't willing to sign an extension. Love has a short list of places he would like to go. Players in Love situation have the power to pretty much choose where they want to go, hes not going to sign an extension if somebody like the Bucks called to make a trade.
Yup. They have him #1 on their board, all depending on how his back is. 76ers piece of shits about to get really lucky.
what do you mean about the 76ers? They have the 3rd pick...They pretty much will take Parker and call it a day but they also have the 10th pick...Not bad Bucks will go Wiggins no doubt if he is there
My point exactly. Wiggins and Parker are the 2 best players in the draft. If Embid goes 1, then the 76ers at pick 3 is equivalent to being pick 2. I would prefer Wiggins and Parker to go 1/2, because I don't think Embid will be as great as he is perceived to be. It will all the more justify their tanking ways as well.
Philly definitely tanked. Even Noel aside (he was fully healthy months before the season ended), they deliberately played garbage. Byron Mullens can't defend or rebound and they were starting him at center. They traded for Danny Granger and then cut him outright, because they were afraid using him might help them win a game or two. But I'd say tanking paid off for Philly, Milwaukee, and Orlando, since they all will get very good players out of this. It's hard to say how many more wins they could've gotten had they tried, but they almost certainly did better than they would've. Keep in mind the East this past season was as bad a conference as I've ever seen. The Lakers didn't even tank, they just had a lot of injuries and played in a brutal conference.
Of course Philly tanked no one denies that, myself included. And of course tanking decreased each team's wins, but, for example, it's not as though ORL and MIl weren't on the cusp of the salary cap to begin the season. It's not as though they declined to sign good players via FA. I would argue that even if they "tried", ORL and MIL would've ended up in the top 4 worst records regardless. Tanking ensured their final positioning, but it may not have changed the final outcome (we'll never know). As for the Lakers It wouldn't surprise me if the front office instructed DAntoni to shuffle lineups and balance minutes to evaluate talent at the expense of winning games. But it's not as though they were tanking before Kobe went down (again).
Lakers didn't intentionally bring in crappy players and sit good ones. They had some good wins because they were trying and they had some decent players. Kendall Marshall was a good find. Lakers won 40% of their games against Eastern Conference teams (12-18). They beat the Spurs, the Suns, the Knicks (by 31), OKC, Portland, Toronto, Memphis, Minnesota, Brooklyn, Golden State, Houston, Atlanta, and the Clippers. In fact, they actually beat every team in the West aside from the Ds: Dallas and Denver. As far as Milwaukee/Philly/Orlando, they did improve their positioning because you didn't need good players to win in the East. Any team trying could've easily won 25 games, because the competition was so dreadful. Orlando probably could've won 30 by trying, but they had nothing to gain by doing that, so they lost, lost, and lost some more. Orlando's last game was a 15 point loss at home to Indiana, and the Pacers were sitting their starters. Leading scorers for Indiana: Chris Copeland, Rasual Butler, Donald Sloan, Evan Turner, and Lavoy Allen. Orlando was the better team and at home. The Bucks did the same thing. They hosted the Pacers, Indiana sat the starters, and Indiana won.
of course the Lakers didn't do that, duh. It's too bad Marshall can't defend. He was formidable though (considering their other options). Their lack of depth, inconsistent lineups, and injuries. They did have some good games. They did beat SA at home. No Duncan, last game of the year, Parker played 16 mins. So they essentially beat SA on an off night. They did beat Phoenix at home behind a big Kaman game while PHX couldn't hit any shots. The Knicks were a bad team this year, and LA dropping 51 in the 2nd was a detriment against NY's D and not a compliment to LA. They needed Meek's 42 to beat OKC at home. The Portland game was a good win but one could also blame POR's terrible shot selection that game. The Toronto win was after that January team meeting where the Lakers strung together two Wins and two quality losses vs CHI and MIA. Young returned from suspension to drop 29 and Valanciunas was sucking. The lakers still played well with only 8 active. Win @ Memphis was with Kobe. Quality win vs Min. The win against Brooklyn was when they sucked and were like 4-11. They beat a Warriors team without Curry, as I'm sure you remember. They played a great game against Houston but that was at the beginning of the year before the injuries began piling on, it was one of the few Blake/Nash starting lineups. Same for the Atlanta game I believe. And finally that Clipper win was a huge 4th quarter run by LAL out scoring the clips by 20 (the very first game of the year, when teams are least like their April-selves). I'm very surprised at how LA managed to have almost identical home/road records; they won their easy away games and lost a lot of easy home matchups during streaks of futility. Regardless, none of this has much to do with the Lakers and tanking. On paper they weren't a bad team, but being forced to rely on 10 day contract players doomed them to mediocrity at best. I'm not denying that Philly ORL and Mil tanked, to be clear, but, while they could've each done better, it's not as though any team had great luck or didn't have a lot of injuries. Afllalo, Jameer, baby, and Tobias all missed significant time at pretty much different times throughout the year. Mil seemed to be dealing with a similar injury situation as ORL and la. I say this because IMO a healthy team with good chemistry (obviously) has much greater win potential and thereby could be labeled a loser because and regardless of tanking (as opposed to just because of). The Indy game was an example, though, of a healthy magic team neglecting to use its talent. The Magic are probably good enough on paper to have competed in the East this year but that assumes many variables other than just tanking.
I was differentiating between them and the real tankers, like Milwaukee and Philly. I think the Lakers had a pretty good season, all things considered. If they had tanked, they could've had the worst record, IMO. Anyway, I read Simmons' column last night.
B.S. really just called random chance a "mentality of repeatedly enabling poor franchises"... Some owners are incompetent or bad or greedy but he can't as a Celtics fan complain about parity. Yet somehow he does.
