espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/3931...e-tip-of-the-iceberg

Cool read. Don't skim. Henry Abbott is always good for something.

Not to be a pessimist today, but reading this and thinking of it in the Wolves' context has me worried. We forget that Kahn is in charge and his career is basically riding on the fantastic luck of landing Ricky Rubio. No one knows the true roles of "Team Adelman." Most of his other decisions have been weird/bad/highlighted by acquiring novelty guys with irrelevant accolades (such as draft status, "I played minutes on a winning team", etc) who just don't know how to play, or over promises and lies. I mean, didn't Kahn want Thabeet on draft day more than Rubio? One can speculate.

He has made countless bad decisions that fit the profile of a bad GM/struggling franchise independent of the lottery. Consider Rick Adelman's position. Sure, we have injuries and stuff, but even he can hardly squeeze a win out of these guys these past few weeks. Was Rambis really that bad, or was the collection of players so terrible? Discuss.

Remember Re: Kahn: Even a clock is right twice a day.

You won't get any disagreement from me that Kahn sucks total ballsack. Been saying that for like 2 years now. I think Rhombus was a terrible coach, and Adelman is leagues better. With that said, Kahn is a moron that has absolutely no idea what he's doing. He got lucky that the Wizards made that terrible deal to give us their draft pick, and it was a no-brainer to take Rubio with one of our TWO picks when he luckily fell to us. Any idiot would have done that (trade with Washington + take Rubio.)

Anyways... great read. I saw it yesterday and it's definitely worth your time to read.

Here's Tom Ziller's follow-up on Sactown Royalty regarding Petrie. It's also fantastic:

www.sactownroyalty.com/2012/3/28/2907723...ses-sacramento-kings

He falls in love with guys based on 'casual-fan' logic and mind-numbing fallacies. For example:

-This guy has a high vertical. He must be good.
-This guy's wingspan is ELEVEN FEET! Sign/draft him!
-This guy was once picked in the top 5 of a draft, he must be good.
-This guy was drafted out of high school and is STILL ONLY 22 years old, therefore he must be good and have potential. He will BLOSSOM here. Extension, now!
-This guy has raging biceps - he must be good
-This guy has a warm personality and a big smile and a firm handshake, therefore he will be a leader in the locker room.
-Bill Simmons and others once said this guy had 'gobs of potential' even though he plays the game like a 12 year old. Therefore we had better absorb Eddy Curry's contract and facilitate the 'Melo trade to get him. He will BLOSSOM here.
-Al Jefferson and Kevin Love would have never worked. 2 first round picks are better than proven productivity. Wolves fans didn't have more than 3 or 4 firsts during the McHale era, so this trade is killer.
-This guy got good grades in college, so therefore he must be smart on the basketball court and a natural leader
-This guy currently on the team averages 25 and 14, but he is definitely only a '3rd option on a champion,' (and he doesn't look this part)...so he must not be good. He is a Kurt Rambis-type player.
-This guy once started some games and provided a spark on a playoff team, therefore he will come to Minny and make us a playoff team
-This guy went to an elite college (Syracuse, North Carolina, UCLA) so he must be a good NBA player for that reason alone.
-This guy has been a trouble maker for 100% of his life, but he will come to Minnesota and find God....fewer distractions, less marijuana and zero bars or clubs and all.
-We need to 'preserve our flexibility' so we can sign another player who matches the above descriptions.
-Knee surgery? Age? Tobacco addiction? Ha! Brad Miller was an all-star like 8 years ago for a season...he will help us FO SHO.
-Kurt Rambis is an excellent hire because he once was an assistant coach for a championship team, which is quietly as dysfunctional of a franchise as any.

....And so on.

This is why I'm worried. Good thing Rubio is finally coming over. Wonder how he will fare?

This was a good article. Sacramento my goodness they have failed lately. I am very curious who the 4 GM's are who "work less than part time". I think one way to help fix this is to not have weighted lottery balls. Every non-playoff team should have equal odds in the lottery.

BonK wrote: Kahn, Petrie, Ainge?, Whomever Portland's GM is?


Also, not all teams should have equal odds. Here is how to fix tanking/the lottery in the NBA.

Use data from the past 5 years. For all non-playoff teams in a given year, you look and see how many times they made the playoffs the past 5 seasons. You assign points. Say if a team didn't make the playoffs, they get 3 points for each season. So the TWolves would have 15 total points. If a team made the playoffs but lost in the first round, they get 2 points per season that happened. And if they made the playoffs and made it past the first round, they get 1 point each time that happened. Then you add up the points and assign the lottery odds that way. So for the crappiest teams (Kings, TWolves, Bobcats, etc), they may all have 15 total points. That's fine, there is nothing wrong with like 3 or 4 of the worst teams in the NBA having equal odds at the #1 pick. If those bad teams all have the max of 15 points, it clearly shows they are a bad team that is worthy of having better lottery odds than some of the other team.

This also eliminates the situation of a good team that has one bad season, or a star player gets injured, and they win the lottery. Like what happened with the Spurs and injured Robinson/getting Duncan, as they would have been good the previous 5 years. So then that year of the Duncan lottery, they would have had probably like 5-8 total points or whatever. So even though that year they had the worst record in the NBA because Robinson was hurt, they still would have (probably) had the worst odds to win the Duncan lottery that year.

And it obviously eliminates tanking, as there is no organization in professional sports that would completely tank for FIVE(!) years and not make the playoffs, or not even try to. I would hope I wouldn't have to explain to everyone why that wouldn't happen.

And a team like OKC or the Bulls wouldn't "get lucky" or anything even though they were bad 4-5 years ago, because they will obviously be in the playoffs this year and not eligible for the lottery.

Soooooo... is that a great idea or what?

College Wolf wrote:
Spot on. The Wolves did it for SEVEN seasons before attempting a playoff push!

It's a good suggestion. I like how it would eliminate Spurs/Duncan scenarios. They never really 'deserved' that pick.

What about just not having a draft? I suppose you would need a rookie scale-type situation though.

I like an equal weight among the bottom 5 though as you suggested. Eliminates ridiculous ranking scenarios, but then there would still be tanking in the 6-8 range to get to the bottom 5.

Or you eliminate the draft all together, and each of the bottom 10 teams are allotted a set amount of $$ to spend on rookies, and it's basically a mini-free agency period for new players. Then teams 11-20 have a smaller set amount and so on. This also gives the rookie a little bit of freedom of choice on where he might want to play. If not, maybe you could do an auction or something...like a fantasy draft...who knows.

Would never happen, but just an idea.

WallyWorld wrote: Teams wouldn't tank though under my scenario, because it takes the combined data of the past five seasons. It doesn't even matter where the lottery teams finish for the current season.

I don't see a downside to this whatsoever.

WallyWorld wrote: That could be fun/interesting/intriguing... but yeah, it would never, ever happen.

I like the idea of all the lottery teams having the same chance. It's simple and effective. It completely eliminates tanking because nobody is going to purposely tank out of the playoffs and lose out on that revenue for a 7% chance at the top pick.

Of course this only works if $tern stops rigging the draft. Otherwise it's a complete nightmare for the "unworthy" franchises.

WallyWorld wrote:
What do people do in real industries?

Interview prospects, make offers, compete for talent, negotiate contracts, and sometimes you lose a good guy to a competitor.

It's not all that different from College recruiting, except that the money involved is all above board.

If you are the Wolves you can say "Mr. Davis, you would fit perfectly next to Kevin Love," or "Mr. Barnes, imagine how many 3 pointers per game Rubio will get you?" And these guys can decide whether they want to play for the up and comers or be a bench player for a contender.

You will end up with a larger disparity of talent among teams but the disparity would be based on how good or bad a talent evaluator, recruiting team, and management team is rather than random.

Plus then an Owner has no incentive to hire a crappy GM or to tank so it solves that problem.

Instead of a NBA draft you'd have a NBA Recruiting event.

Model the whole thing after college recruiting/foreign baseball players.

wolfenstein wrote:
And for Pete's sake, don't punish teams for making the playoffs. That is the worst part of the current system.

Under my system, nobody would want to be punished by signing with the Bobcats until they figure out how to run their franchise well, talent or no talent. Why would anyone want to sign for New Orleans when the league has them all effed up? Maybe the Hawks are punished for having a dysfunctional front office and the Spurs continue to build talent because they are well run, leading teams to model their FO's after the Spurs rather than the Thunder (both are well run, but given that the Spurs have been dominant for 15 years based on 3 all stars and a smattering of late 1st and 2nd round picks, it is hard to understate how efficient that FO has been).

Plus then you'd never have to hear about players "going back to the plantation" and so on. If they don't want to play for a team, don't sign with that team. Basically you are a UFA out of college.

T-Wolves would have to prioritize 3 positions this year and they'd have to decide whether to go after a dominant defensive big man, a wing scorer, or a legit ball handling 2 guard. They could recruit a lower tier but promising guy like Dieng at C, go after a Bradley Beal or Austin Rivers (although Rivers seems like a front runner so he'd probably go for a bigger team like the Magic), and go for someone who can defend the perimeter at SF (don't know here but I'm sure there are some guys out there).

Point being that the college crop would be far more full of promise and intrigue because you'd be competing with other teams but also you'd be measuring your needs and every team wouldn't be gunning for Anthony Davis potentially (maybe a better example is Harrison Barnes, because everyone actually would love Anthony Davis on their team) because they'd have needs that are more pressing that would take precedence in the recruiting/contract negotiation process.

Downside: less dramatic TV. Something about a player announcing their team of choice is less dramatic than a team getting crushed by ping pong balls.

Upside: Bad managers would be replaced and teams that insist on being poorly run would fold as fans migrated to follow other better run teams.

That actually doesn't sound like a half bad idea there Wolfenstein. I think I like it.

One question, would all 30 teams in the NBA have equal chance to sign every player? Or would non playoff teams get some sort of small advantage?

Also... I assume there would still be rookie scale contracts? And teams would have to be able to go over the cap to sign them, but I guess they do that now anyways.

College Wolf wrote:
The worse teams would by and large have a natural advantage as measured over time because their talent would be less so they would have more money to play with (assuming the salary cap remains intact). Also if you're bad your players are more dispensable so there is more playing time available for younger players, the ability to step into a leadership role sooner, etc. Kevin Garnett and Kevin Love never would have been able to be the cornerstone of the franchise if they had gone to the Lakers, for example.

But basically I think players should have the right to choose their teams as much as the teams have the right to choose their players. Think of how much more teams would try to impress young players. Crappy teams would have no reward for sucking balls. The league would be competitive top to bottom, and if someone didn't help the team win, they'd hit the bricks.

Also, just like in reality, you'd have an interesting dynamic between people that would rather conform (think Corporate workers, or guys that would rather play for the Lakers) vs. those who are more independent (think entrepreneurs/small business types, or those who would rather work to build a contender out of a small market team).

I think the ESPN claim that "nobody would want to play for (Minnesota/Milwaukee/Oklahoma City before they were good/etc.)" comes from the fact that everybody who works for ESPN is actually a conformist who lives in a major media market and thus has no frame of reference on why it would be appealing to live/work in a smaller market or even for an underdog or whatever.

It would be a lot more interesting than that. You think Kobe would have chosen to go to a stacked team? Hell no. The best and most cutthroat players would probably be interviewing the under 0.500 teams to figure out which ones would be built around them and of those which would be the best run. Only a Bosh or a LeBron would sign on as a bit player on a stacked team.