Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Stephenson said he would've taken the minimum to play with Kemba Walker.
Too late to send Shabazzzzz to pair with Kemba, too?Stephenson said he would've taken the minimum to play with Kemba Walker.
We'll always have 2011.Too late to send Shabazzzzz to pair with Kemba, too?Stephenson said he would've taken the minimum to play with Kemba Walker.
We'll always have 2011.Too late to send Shabazzzzz to pair with Kemba, too?Stephenson said he would've taken the minimum to play with Kemba Walker.
It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
Fine, I'll throw in a Larry Bird rookie card, shirtless pictures of Matt Damon AND Ben Affleck and I'll have Thorn give you and TRE all the lap dances you want. Sign the papers and lets make this deal official.I don't think that's at all possible, would be insanely stupid and no matter what you think of Saunders I don't think he hits "insanely stupid."So there is a feeling by some in Boston that Minnesota will refuse to deal with Boston because the KG deal ended up being so one-sided they don't want to send another all-star to Boston. I can't believe that would actually be true, any Minnesota-ians feel that way?It's what Saunders is asking for. It's what we're hoping they'll get. How is that so delusional?The wolves fans in here and their Love trade proposals are some of the most delusional posts I've seen yet in this thread.![]()
Did Datonn give all of you guys some of the crack he's using?
Celts don't have a young stud to give up but I'm willing to put a gun to Ainge's head and make him offer you all of our number 1 picks for the next 50 years and take back all your bad contracts for Love. If it helps you can have David Ortiz back too. What do you say? Do we have a deal?
Boston could end up with Love for a bunch of picks, but it won't happen until the trade deadline if that looks like the best deal and either Love says he'll sign in Boston or the Celtics are willing to gamble on him deciding to stick there without a guarantee.
i'd take action on this. Lebron to LAC in 2016 Bank it.I was kidding... I think he is in Cleveland for the rest of his career.I already lost 100 on betting on Melo's future. But I would wager even more that Lebron aint leaving cleveland unless they secede from the States.Lebron opts out, 37.4% chance.I keep hearing in NY about the Knicks 2015 cap room and all that. Who is even available next year as a FA?
Klove, Dragic, Rondo. anyone else worthy of salivating over?
Love and Martin (total $22.5 mill) for Olynek, Bass, Anthony, James Young and Bogans (total $19.6 mill) and 2015 Celts #1, 2015 Clippers #1, 2016 Nets #1 and 2018 Celts #1.It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.
The Wheel of Death thing is where every team gets one #1 pick every 30 years? That might be the worst idea for anything I've ever heard.NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.![]()
Wheel of Death or Entertaining as hell tournament.
Yep. No special treatment for being a terribly run franchise. What's wrong with it?The Wheel of Death thing is where every team gets one #1 pick every 30 years? That might be the worst idea for anything I've ever heard.NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.![]()
Wheel of Death or Entertaining as hell tournament.
Maybe add Wiggins?It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
wow such a great system change. Way better than draconian nonsensical measures like that stupid Draft Wheel. I would even make them draw for to 8 so as to totally disincentive tanking and allowing teams near the playoff bubble to get number 7 or 8 picks instead of 14NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.
Love and Martin (total $22.5 mill) for Olynek, Bass, Anthony, James Young and Bogans (total $19.6 mill) and 2015 Celts #1, 2015 Clippers #1, 2016 Nets #1 and 2018 Celts #1.It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
Works in the trade-checker. Bass and Anthony are expiring contracts and Bogans is non-guaranteed so his $5.2 mill can be cut immediately. Olynek's still on rookie deal for $2 mill for 3 years and Young is on rookie deal for $1.6 mill for 4 years. Cap space, a couple nice young cheap players (Olynek and Young) and 4 #1s. And Bass and Anthony's expiring contracts could be used to get more assets.
Does that work? You can mix in anyone else on the roster (except Rondo) but honestly, I don't think you'd want to take on more "bodies" with contracts that won't make you that much better. Now lets get this done before training camp.
I could roll with this.Love and Martin (total $22.5 mill) for Olynek, Bass, Anthony, James Young and Bogans (total $19.6 mill) and 2015 Celts #1, 2015 Clippers #1, 2016 Nets #1 and 2018 Celts #1.It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
Works in the trade-checker. Bass and Anthony are expiring contracts and Bogans is non-guaranteed so his $5.2 mill can be cut immediately. Olynek's still on rookie deal for $2 mill for 3 years and Young is on rookie deal for $1.6 mill for 4 years. Cap space, a couple nice young cheap players (Olynek and Young) and 4 #1s. And Bass and Anthony's expiring contracts could be used to get more assets.
Does that work? You can mix in anyone else on the roster (except Rondo) but honestly, I don't think you'd want to take on more "bodies" with contracts that won't make you that much better. Now lets get this done before training camp.
My favorite thing to see is Wolves fan say Wiggins PLUS others for Love. As if the #1 pick in the most hyped draft ever is not enough to get an expiring Love, they need more assets as well.Maybe add Wiggins?It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
I really don't see the point in trying to "fix" the lottery. The lottery itself was meant to fix tanking. Not sure how much of an effect that's really had, but either way, I don't see tanking as a huge problem.NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.
IIRC there was a hypothetical NHL draft proposal floating around where draft order was set by number of standings points accrued after getting eliminated from playoff contention. So once a team was out of the playoffs, it had no longer had incentive to keep losing.The Wheel of Death thing is where every team gets one #1 pick every 30 years? That might be the worst idea for anything I've ever heard.NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.![]()
Wheel of Death or Entertaining as hell tournament.
lol you laughed at Waiter, Bennett, Thompson and multiple firsts for Love, but Olynik, James Young and a bunch of low first round picks is the deal that does it for you?Love and Martin (total $22.5 mill) for Olynek, Bass, Anthony, James Young and Bogans (total $19.6 mill) and 2015 Celts #1, 2015 Clippers #1, 2016 Nets #1 and 2018 Celts #1.It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
Works in the trade-checker. Bass and Anthony are expiring contracts and Bogans is non-guaranteed so his $5.2 mill can be cut immediately. Olynek's still on rookie deal for $2 mill for 3 years and Young is on rookie deal for $1.6 mill for 4 years. Cap space, a couple nice young cheap players (Olynek and Young) and 4 #1s. And Bass and Anthony's expiring contracts could be used to get more assets.
Does that work? You can mix in anyone else on the roster (except Rondo) but honestly, I don't think you'd want to take on more "bodies" with contracts that won't make you that much better. Now lets get this done before training camp.I could roll with this.Love and Martin (total $22.5 mill) for Olynek, Bass, Anthony, James Young and Bogans (total $19.6 mill) and 2015 Celts #1, 2015 Clippers #1, 2016 Nets #1 and 2018 Celts #1.It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
Works in the trade-checker. Bass and Anthony are expiring contracts and Bogans is non-guaranteed so his $5.2 mill can be cut immediately. Olynek's still on rookie deal for $2 mill for 3 years and Young is on rookie deal for $1.6 mill for 4 years. Cap space, a couple nice young cheap players (Olynek and Young) and 4 #1s. And Bass and Anthony's expiring contracts could be used to get more assets.
Does that work? You can mix in anyone else on the roster (except Rondo) but honestly, I don't think you'd want to take on more "bodies" with contracts that won't make you that much better. Now lets get this done before training camp.
lolMy favorite thing to see is Wolves fan say Wiggins PLUS others for Love. As if the #1 pick in the most hyped draft ever is not enough to get an expiring Love, they need more assets as well.Maybe add Wiggins?It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
I'm just trying to get the salaries to match here.My favorite thing to see is Wolves fan say Wiggins PLUS others for Love. As if the #1 pick in the most hyped draft ever is not enough to get an expiring Love, they need more assets as well.Maybe add Wiggins?It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
Yes. I would love to see that deal made immediately. Or maybe you put it on the list and keep waiting and see what else happens, which is what I've been saying this entire time.lol you laughed at Waiter, Bennett, Thompson and multiple firsts for Love, but Olynik, James Young and a bunch of low first round picks is the deal that does it for you?Love and Martin (total $22.5 mill) for Olynek, Bass, Anthony, James Young and Bogans (total $19.6 mill) and 2015 Celts #1, 2015 Clippers #1, 2016 Nets #1 and 2018 Celts #1.It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
Works in the trade-checker. Bass and Anthony are expiring contracts and Bogans is non-guaranteed so his $5.2 mill can be cut immediately. Olynek's still on rookie deal for $2 mill for 3 years and Young is on rookie deal for $1.6 mill for 4 years. Cap space, a couple nice young cheap players (Olynek and Young) and 4 #1s. And Bass and Anthony's expiring contracts could be used to get more assets.
Does that work? You can mix in anyone else on the roster (except Rondo) but honestly, I don't think you'd want to take on more "bodies" with contracts that won't make you that much better. Now lets get this done before training camp.I could roll with this.Love and Martin (total $22.5 mill) for Olynek, Bass, Anthony, James Young and Bogans (total $19.6 mill) and 2015 Celts #1, 2015 Clippers #1, 2016 Nets #1 and 2018 Celts #1.It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43aYeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
Works in the trade-checker. Bass and Anthony are expiring contracts and Bogans is non-guaranteed so his $5.2 mill can be cut immediately. Olynek's still on rookie deal for $2 mill for 3 years and Young is on rookie deal for $1.6 mill for 4 years. Cap space, a couple nice young cheap players (Olynek and Young) and 4 #1s. And Bass and Anthony's expiring contracts could be used to get more assets.
Does that work? You can mix in anyone else on the roster (except Rondo) but honestly, I don't think you'd want to take on more "bodies" with contracts that won't make you that much better. Now lets get this done before training camp.
That would do little if anything to reduce tanking. It's still better to have a slightly higher chance at the 1st pick and a guarantee of the 7th pick than it is to drift around in mediocrity.NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.
In theory I like that one, although I haven't really thought about it enough to see the potential problems.IIRC there was a hypothetical NHL draft proposal floating around where draft order was set by number of standings points accrued after getting eliminated from playoff contention. So once a team was out of the playoffs, it had no longer had incentive to keep losing.
Not sure if that idea doesn't create more problems than it solves, but you wouldn't have the late-season debacle games where one team is trying to rest starters for the playoffs and the opponent is not playing their starters because they want to move down in the standings.
If I'm understanding the system correctly, instead of tanking down the stretch, you'd have tanking 15-20 games earlier. It just shifts the problem to mid-season.In theory I like that one, although I haven't really thought about it enough to see the potential problems.IIRC there was a hypothetical NHL draft proposal floating around where draft order was set by number of standings points accrued after getting eliminated from playoff contention. So once a team was out of the playoffs, it had no longer had incentive to keep losing.
Not sure if that idea doesn't create more problems than it solves, but you wouldn't have the late-season debacle games where one team is trying to rest starters for the playoffs and the opponent is not playing their starters because they want to move down in the standings.
They were locked into that plan anyway. Wade did them a solid (on top of a whole career of "solids"), and he was getting paid.Riley's moves for the Heat make no sense , they are basically going to be in the NBA dead zone for the next couple of seasons. Not good enough to contend but not bad enough to land a high lottery pick.
I don't really think tanking is a problem in the sense of teams not trying to win individual games. Starting on an awful team is a great opportunity for a player who wouldn't otherwise get that chance and could maybe turn it into a contract somewhere (Jodie Meeks is a great current example).Instead of tanking down the stretch, you'd have tanking 15-20 games earlier. It just shifts the problem to mid-season.In theory I like that one, although I haven't really thought about it enough to see the potential problems.IIRC there was a hypothetical NHL draft proposal floating around where draft order was set by number of standings points accrued after getting eliminated from playoff contention. So once a team was out of the playoffs, it had no longer had incentive to keep losing.
Not sure if that idea doesn't create more problems than it solves, but you wouldn't have the late-season debacle games where one team is trying to rest starters for the playoffs and the opponent is not playing their starters because they want to move down in the standings.
YEAH, GET IN HERE!You Wolves fans seem like a lively bunch.
Can I join your bandwagon until they trade Love? I just want to be part of something.
DELUSIONAL!
Bosh + Wade at 75% can contend for a year or two in the East.Riley's moves for the Heat make no sense , they are basically going to be in the NBA dead zone for the next couple of seasons. Not good enough to contend but not bad enough to land a high lottery pick.
I don't see it, at best they are a 6th seedBosh + Wade at 75% can contend for a year or two in the East.Riley's moves for the Heat make no sense , they are basically going to be in the NBA dead zone
for the next couple of seasons. Not good enough to contend but not bad enough to land a high lottery pick.
One problem raised is that players would set themselves up to go where they want. So if Minnesota (sorry, too easy) had the #1 pick this year and the Lakers had the #1 pick next year, then guys like Wiggins would stay an extra year to get into that better situation. Leaving some money on the table in your career but a real concern.Yep. No special treatment for being a terribly run franchise. What's wrong with it?The Wheel of Death thing is where every team gets one #1 pick every 30 years? That might be the worst idea for anything I've ever heard.NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.![]()
Wheel of Death or Entertaining as hell tournament.
It is a fair point. Up to know the Heat (with Lebron) had only 2 ifs to contend with: If wade stays healthy and if they play good D they would make the championship. Now (sans Lebron) they have many more ifs. If wade stays healthy, if they play good D, if the guys they picked up pan out and arent on the injury bandwagon with wade, and if Bosh can be the "centerpiece".I don't see it, at best they are a 6th seedBosh + Wade at 75% can contend for a year or two in the East.Riley's moves for the Heat make no sense , they are basically going to be in the NBA dead zone
for the next couple of seasons. Not good enough to contend but not bad enough to land a high lottery pick.
Better shooter? The career 36.5% 3 point shooter or the career 37.8% 3 point shooter? Dragic had a career year. He is a buy high candidate. Irving might also be near the peak of his value as well but I don't expect a regression the same way I do for Dragic. Dragic has two things going for him, more manageable contract for next year and durability. But Dragic becomes a FA after next year (probably won't get as much as Kyrie but could increase). Kyrie's benefit is that he is under control for much longer time. He does have the Rose provision so he could cost more than expected. Beyond that, he is young and can still get better as most 22 year olds have more potential than 28 year olds.For sure. The PGs during LeBron's first tenure with the Cavs were horrific. If you tried, I don't think you could get a worse collection of scrubs. Switching Irving for someone like Dragic still gives them an excellent ball handler who can create his own shot. It also gives them a better outside shooter and would let them add additional players.One of the criticism's I always heard about the Cavs during LeBron's first stint was that they never had anyone who could handle the ball and create his own shot. Irving satisfies both of those criteria very well. With LeBron, he and the others only get better.
And just b/c LeBron never had a great PG before doesn't mean it can't work now and going forward. No way I trade Kyrie.
I think that would be few and far between and have little impact on the game compared to the tanking problem right now.One problem raised is that players would set themselves up to go where they want. So if Minnesota (sorry, too easy) had the #1 pick this year and the Lakers had the #1 pick next year, then guys like Wiggins would stay an extra year to get into that better situation. Leaving some money on the table in your career but a real concern. Love to see a relegation style system but know that will never happen.Yep. No special treatment for being a terribly run franchise. What's wrong with it?The Wheel of Death thing is where every team gets one #1 pick every 30 years? That might be the worst idea for anything I've ever heard.NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.![]()
Wheel of Death or Entertaining as hell tournament.
I'm not really sure that there is that much of a tanking problem. Sixers are probably the only team who has purposely tanked and nobody else seems like they are actively trying as much. And heck, the Sixers still didn't have the worst record in the league. Picture that, a team with playoff aspirations actually finished worse than a tanker.I think that would be few and far between and have little impact on the game compared to the tanking problem right now.One problem raised is that players would set themselves up to go where they want. So if Minnesota (sorry, too easy) had the #1 pick this year and the Lakers had the #1 pick next year, then guys like Wiggins would stay an extra year to get into that better situation. Leaving some money on the table in your career but a real concern. Love to see a relegation style system but know that will never happen.Yep. No special treatment for being a terribly run franchise. What's wrong with it?The Wheel of Death thing is where every team gets one #1 pick every 30 years? That might be the worst idea for anything I've ever heard.NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.![]()
Wheel of Death or Entertaining as hell tournament.
SECONDEDNotorious T.R.E. said:YEAH, GET IN HERE!GOB said:You Wolves fans seem like a lively bunch.
Can I join your bandwagon until they trade Love? I just want to be part of something.
DELUSIONAL!
GOB, your first mission is to injure sporthenry.sporthenry said:One problem raised is that players would set themselves up to go where they want. So if Minnesota (sorry, too easy) had the #1 pick this year and the Lakers had the #1 pick next year, then guys like Wiggins would stay an extra year to get into that better situation. Leaving some money on the table in your career but a real concern.Cliff Clavin said:Yep. No special treatment for being a terribly run franchise. What's wrong with it?Good Posting Judge said:The Wheel of Death thing is where every team gets one #1 pick every 30 years? That might be the worst idea for anything I've ever heard.Cliff Clavin said:Bruce Dickinson said:NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.![]()
Wheel of Death or Entertaining as hell tournament.
Love to see a relegation style system but know that will never happen.
You're committing to something for at least 30 years. 1984 was 30 years ago.Cliff Clavin said:Yep. No special treatment for being a terribly run franchise. What's wrong with it?Good Posting Judge said:The Wheel of Death thing is where every team gets one #1 pick every 30 years? That might be the worst idea for anything I've ever heard.Cliff Clavin said:Bruce Dickinson said:NBA Competition Committee will be evaluating proposals to make changes to the draft lottery in an effort to reduce tanking.
One proposal flattens the odds a bit. Instead of worst team having 25% shot at the first pick and second worst at 19%, the worst team would have just a 14% shot at the top pick, with a one-point drop for each slot behind them, and flattening out a 1% for the last few teams out of the playoffs.
Also looking at drawing for the top six picks instead of just the top three.
So, instead of the worst team having a 1-in-4 shot at the top pick and guaranteed to pick no worse than fourth, it would have just a about a 1-in-7 shot at the top pick and could drop all the way down to 1.07 in the draft.![]()
Wheel of Death or Entertaining as hell tournament.
The Pacers need is to improve at the point. George Hill struggled breaking down defenses and is much better suited as SG or 2nd string point. Like Hibbert, Hill benefitted from a timely contract. I'd place the ceiling at 3 and floor 7 or 8. The East is still the East.Cliff Clavin said:I don't think it would be that surprising to see them miss the playoffs. Ceiling is a 5 seed, floor is 9/10 IMO. If George goes down for any amount of time, they're screwed.Juxtatarot said:It's hard to predict what Pacers team we'll see this year. Will their chemistry improve without Lance or is their window of opportunity closing?
Has Love indicated that he'd re-sign with Boston? This seems like a worse team than what he has now.Gadzooks said:Love and Martin (total $22.5 mill) for Olynek, Bass, Anthony, James Young and Bogans (total $19.6 mill) and 2015 Celts #1, 2015 Clippers #1, 2016 Nets #1 and 2018 Celts #1.Notorious T.R.E. said:It's close, would have to add a bit on Cleveland's end: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=pt3x43abiggamer3 said:Yeah I kind of agree, but I have no idea how the money will work if its just youngsters for K Love. Don't the salaries have to match?Frostillicus said:Honestly we can cross the Waiters/Bennett bridge when the trade deadline approaches and see where the Wolves stand and if anybody is making a monster offer. All I know is that isn't getting it done now, and it shouldn't.
Works in the trade-checker. Bass and Anthony are expiring contracts and Bogans is non-guaranteed so his $5.2 mill can be cut immediately. Olynek's still on rookie deal for $2 mill for 3 years and Young is on rookie deal for $1.6 mill for 4 years. Cap space, a couple nice young cheap players (Olynek and Young) and 4 #1s. And Bass and Anthony's expiring contracts could be used to get more assets.
Does that work? You can mix in anyone else on the roster (except Rondo) but honestly, I don't think you'd want to take on more "bodies" with contracts that won't make you that much better. Now lets get this done before training camp.