What's the conspiracy? To get the big market teams the high picks? Then why don't they get them? If there's a conspiracy, it's obviously not to help the big market teams.
Hilarious how Cleveland got it again. They should draft Embiid to pair him with Irving, but they probably go with Wiggins who has been compared to LeBron in athletic ability
You give me plausible theory, I'll take it. Your theory comes off as a whiny Spurs fan. You only got two #1 picks, one in the 80s and one in the 90s. In 3 chances. Because you made the playoffs every other year and you won 4 titles in that process. But the NBA is out to get you? Sure thing. They are the ones who made Kawhi miss a free throw, have Pop take Duncan off the floor, have Duncan miss a gimmie layup. Stern really gave you guys a parting shot by knocking down the corner 3 disguised as Ray Allen in game 6 of the NBA finals. Your theory, after Cleveland won the lottery, was that for hype and Johnny Football, Cleveland got the pick. Granted, team execs watch the drawing along with Ernest and Young, but they are all in on it and don't complain about the Cavs getting these picks. But yeah, hype is the reasoning. Because young start in LA with Kobe is not hype at all. No, let's keep LA bad, great strategy. Or LA trying to trade the pick for Love. You know what's more plausible? The NBA pushes stars to "small market" teams to expand their brand and sport because otherwise the market doesn't support the team. That's why SA, ORL, and CLE are some locations that have gotten multiple #1 picks. Funny how nobody (outside of Knicks fans) talked conspiracy when the Pacers shot 60 more free throws than the Knicks in the final 3 games of their series last year including +28 in the final game 6. what was the conspiracy behind that? Big market? Star power? game 7? Guess what, NBA refs are bad. Welcome to sports. Stars are given different treatment, welcome to sports.
Is it about strong market teams? I posted a small market idea above. For example, the Knicks sucked in the mid 2000s, but according to ESPN they were top 10 in attendance in the NBA. That doesn't happen in many cities where the NBA expanded. If the team is bad, nobody goes. So send them a top player, a reason to hope.
Anyway the NBA can benefit from marketing, they will take the chance I still think the conspiracy is that the lottery is fixed. The lottery was instituted to help strengthen the league's appeal. The 2003 Draft, where the Cavaliers got the No. 1 pick and Akron native LeBron James. The 2008 Draft, where the Bulls got the No. 1 pick and Chicago native Derrick Rose. The 2011 Draft, where the Cavaliers got the No. 1 pick one year after LeBron left. The 2012 Draft, where the NBA-owned New Orleans Hornets got the No. 1 pick and Anthony Davis Those to me are examples of when the NBA tried benefiting from marketing. Rarely do we see the event where The Spurs win the top pick over a team like the Celtics. A team deserving of the top pick. If the NBA wants to continue to succeed, they know they have to get the Lakers and Celtics back into contention - that's just my opinion. This year's draft is all about enticing Lebron to come home.
I just disagree with the premise (every team deserves a top-5 pick very 6 years). Why have the big market teams sign away (or trade for) talent when you can just draft it? It'd be an entirely different scenario if basketball wins weren't so greatly influenced by individual players.
***CLE, SA and LAL have benefitted from the lottery. ORL is LA's minor league team. Watch, Exum will get drafted by ORL and demand a trade to LA.
See I think the 1985 lottery was rigged to get Ewing to NY. Whether it was a folded corner, heated envelope, or frozen envelop, or whatever, I buy that. The ones above are after the fact. If it was marketability, why not give NYK the #1 pick in 2003. Could you imagine Lebron in NY and the marketability of that? It's got to be something more than that. Yes they know they need to get LAL and BOS back into it, so why didn't they give one of those two a top 3 pick? Why Cleveland, to bring Lebron back there? Again, Lebron in NY or LA is much much much better for them if marketability is the reason. I do not see logistically how the lottery could be rigged unless everyone is in on it. Compared to 1985 at least where it's very obvious how it could be rigged but I do think the NBA prefers certain results. I just don't think "marketability" explains all of it. If it did, the Knicks would have had more #1 picks to screw up.
For all the complaining that pundits did about tanking this season I'm disappointed that many aren't piling on to the "failed strategies" of Phi, Mil, et al.
The Spurs have been in three lotteries and won twice. Like I've said, they've made the playoffs for 17 straight seasons. How is the NBA supposed to rig the lottery for them when they're not in it? Oh, and in the Duncan lottery, the Celtics were in it as well, with two lottery picks and the best chance of getting the #1 pick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_NBA_Draft That's everyone's opinion. Every lottery that they're a part of, people say the NBA will rig the draft for the Lakers/Celtics. People said the same thing this year. But neither team has ever won the lottery. The Celtics have been in the lottery 10 times. The NBA had many chances to give them a 1. Never happened. The Lakers have been in the lottery three times (as many times as the Spurs, in other words). In fact, Boston lost a coin flip with Utah and had the 5th best chance (they tied for 4th best), and LA had the 6th best chance. They each wound up a spot worse, at 6th and 7th. Oh, and remember the 2007 draft? Boston tanked the hell out of the season leading up to the draft. They wound up with the second-worst record (better than only Memphis). They got the 5th pick. The bottom line is Boston and the Lakers have actually been adversely affected by the lottery system. Try telling Bill Simmons the NBA has been rigging the draft lottery to help the Celtics. I'm sure it will be news to him.
It wasn't a failed strategy. They're going to get a really good player. If the Cavs take Embid, then picks 2 + 3 pretty much fall in line as a pick 1 and 2. As of right now, reports are Cavs have Embid on top of their board, and it will all be pending on how his back is. Ideal situation is for the Cavs and Bucks to take Wiggins, Parker, and hopefully Embid goes 3 to sixers and is a bust.
It definitely wasn't a failed strategy. They each got a top 3 pick in a loaded draft. They're incompetent so they lose on purpose in the hopes of getting a savior. It worked out.
Magic got a top 4*. The argument about tanking is just as much about positioning (worst record vs second-worst record) and throwing individual games as much as it is fielding a non-competitive roster and intentionally missing the playoffs. One of the arguably few "non-tanking teams" got first overall.
The NBA just doesn't get it. You can't have parity with this draft process. Parity is why the NFL has no competition from the other sports in ratings and interest.
Who is he? Regardless OrL had merely 4 more wins than philly, the team that tanked the hardest (arguably).
I was responding to your post. You specifically mentioned Philly and the Bucks and they each got a top 3 pick. That's what I was saying. That's not a failed strategy. It wasn't a failed strategy for Orlando either, if you want to bring them up.
To be fair, the ideal situation is Exum top 3 and embiid at #1 Cavs are rumored to favor Embiid atm. The tanking discussion throughout the season was just as much about rosters as it was throwing particular games. Had philly Mil finished 1/2 in any order then the discussion would've been about the importance of 4 wins. I'm just glad that the playoffs won't be overshadowed by a discussion about Philly's overtime win against MIL and how important it was for PHI to win only one game between February and March.
