Why The Knicks Had An Amazing Draft

[chang]

The thing is, you don't have to have the best odds to be rewarded for ripping off a team. In fact, usually the best odds doesn't get the #1 and the top 3 odds never get the top 3 picks. And it always seems like a playoff team somehow always get a top 3 pick (especially recently Chicago this year, Pistons with Darko, Celtics with Bias)From picks 1-7, they have a legitimate shot at getting #1 and while #8-14 have an outside chance, it's happened a few times. Now, say the Heat traded Jason Kapono to Toronto for their odds at the beginning of the season. Now a playoff team has a legitimate shot of getting a top 3 pick (and somehow they usually do) and in this case they'll get the #1 even though the odds are favoring 3-4 more teams. They just got rewarded for ripping off a team and ultimately got a #1 pick.I guess I'm saying that it gives a team a better shot of ripping off a team because of the wide range of picks that can get the #1.

 

[AdropOFvenom]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrianUrlacher54 @ Jul 2 2006, 05:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdropOFvenom @ Jul 2 2006, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chang @ Jul 2 2006, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Personally, I think the lottery is the dumbest idea in the world.I don't get why you'd risk punishing the worst team yet help reward good GMs for ripping off another team.Then again, Stern isn't a very smary commish.</div>The idea of the lottery was to prevent teams going into the tank for a draft pick.</div>Yeah. And how is a team being rewarded for ripping off someone else?? Say the Texans got fleeced in a deal by the Bears and it included their 1st-round draft pick, the Bears would be picking at #1

</div>I dont understand what your trying to say....were talking about the NBA here, not the NFL.The idea of the lottery was to keep a team from tanking the last number of games to get a draft pick because even if they tank they still might not get the player. Now if that team is stupid enough to trade their first rounder along with sucking thats just stupidity. Unless your gonna be a good team for a long time to come trading future picks should be unacceptable IMO.

 

[DevinHester23]

[quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='56753' date='Jul 3 2006, 12:00 AM'][quote name='BrianUrlacher54' post='56731' date='Jul 2 2006, 05:14 PM'][quote name='AdropOFvenom' post='56689' date='Jul 2 2006, 03:09 PM'][quote name='chang' post='56682' date='Jul 2 2006, 11:59 AM']Personally, I think the lottery is the dumbest idea in the world.I don't get why you'd risk punishing the worst team yet help reward good GMs for ripping off another team.Then again, Stern isn't a very smary commish.[/quote]The idea of the lottery was to prevent teams going into the tank for a draft pick.[/quote]Yeah. And how is a team being rewarded for ripping off someone else?? Say the Texans got fleeced in a deal by the Bears and it included their 1st-round draft pick, the Bears would be picking at #1

[/quote]I dont understand what your trying to say....were talking about the NBA here, not the NFL.The idea of the lottery was to keep a team from tanking the last number of games to get a draft pick because even if they tank they still might not get the player. Now if that team is stupid enough to trade their first rounder along with sucking thats just stupidity. Unless your gonna be a good team for a long time to come trading future picks should be unacceptable IMO.[/quote]He said the lotto was stupid and rewarded teams who were able to rip others off. I like the lotto too. The NFL should adopt it. And chang, it takes 2 to make a deal, And Venom, Isiah Thomas is stupid, that's why he traded the pick and the option to swap picks.

 

[chang]

The thing about basketball is that it's hard to point shave or tank unless you put every bad player in the game. If you did put every bad player in the game or traded for a bunch of bad players, the fans wouldn't show up so you'd be losing revenue anyway (Portland). There's 5 players on the court that can score or play defense so in order for the plan to work the entire court would have to cooperate in it. Plus, there are too many plays in a game so if you're not playing your best for about 10 plays, the fans and the coach will get on you. With basketball, there's 82 games, if you intend to tank, it would take a lot more effort to tank than it would to just play.Now, take the Trailblazers for example. It might have looked like they tanked. They have talent with Randolph, Pryzbilla, and Miles. But then on the other side, you have Telfair who thinks he's the top option when he's on the court, Dixon and Blake who aren't big time NBA scorers but they still played defense and kept themselves in games. Sure, LeBron might be able to carry a team to wins but not every team has a LeBron.In football, a quarterback could just purposely throw and interception or a running back could purposely fumble the ball. The change in possession could be a loss of 5 minutes in a 60 minute game. Plus, football has loyal fans. There's only 8 home game a season so they're almost always packed and the franchise wouldn't need to be concerned about revenue.