New Orleans Hornets Win 2012 NBA Draft?

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

Looking at the NBA Standings, the New Orleans Hornets are currently 3-22 or 0.120 winning percentage, worst record in the league. They were essentially forced to trade away (lose) Chris Paul because he didn't want to resign with them. The NBA clearly wants to help the Hornets have a bright future with Stern stopping the first LA trade (Lakers) in which it would've netted them some main guys on the downslide of their careers that would've helped them stay in mediocrity for a while, probably make the playoffs for a couple of years, then eventually plummetting with no chance at an attractive, marketable franchise player like Chris Paul through the draft for a while.

The NBA obviously is looking for an Owner for the Hornets. Looking at recent history, the last team to lose an attractive, young, yet-to-reach-his-prime, star-player was Cleveland with his infamous "Decision" in 2010. In the very next draft, Cleveland lands picks #1 and #4. How much do you want to bet that New Orleans will get the top pick of the 2012 NBA Draft knowing this information? 

Also do they own any other teams picks for the 2012 Draft? Maybe they'll get 2 of the top 4 picks in the NBA Draft like Cleveland did.

[PosImpos]

They own the T-Wolves pick, but that's probably going to be a late lottery pick considering they're over .500 at the moment.

If you're a conspiracy theorist, then, yeah, it probably makes sense that the Hornets would win the #1 pick. 

Good chance they get a top 3-4 pick, though.

[LarBrd33]

The NBA doesn't fix the lottery.  

I've documented several times why that Hornets/Lakers trade would have been absolutely MORONIC for the Hornets.  Locking up long-term salary with ho-hum players.  Terrible.  Made sense why the ownership of the Hornets rejected the trade.

The Eric Gordon trade made a lot more sense.  He's on his rookie contract still.  He's injured right now, but they'll come out of this with Gordon, likely a top 5 pick and a cheap payroll.  GOod way to entice future buyers.  Nothing to do with conspiracy... all to do with no-brainer ownership decisions.  That's the proper way to rebuild a franchise.  Kind of like when I was spitting on the "Pierce for Granger" trade ideas and praising the "Pierce for cap space and draft picks" trades.  You rebuild a franchise properly by trading for draft picks, young talent on rookie contracts and freeing up cap space.  That's something Dell Demps apparently didn't get when he presented that joke of a Laker trade to his ownership team.

[action781]

Looking at the NBA Standings, the New Orleans Hornets are currently 3-22 or 0.120 winning percentage, worst record in the league. They were essentially forced to trade away (lose) Chris Paul because he didn't want to resign with them. The NBA clearly wants to help the Hornets have a bright future with Stern stopping the first LA trade (Lakers) in which it would've netted them some main guys on the downslide of their careers that would've helped them stay in mediocrity for a while, probably make the playoffs for a couple of years, then eventually plummetting with no chance at an attractive, marketable franchise player like Chris Paul through the draft for a while.

The NBA obviously is looking for an Owner for the Hornets. Looking at recent history, the last team to lose an attractive, young, yet-to-reach-his-prime, star-player was Cleveland with his infamous "Decision" in 2010. In the very next draft, Cleveland lands picks #1 and #4. How much do you want to bet that New Orleans will get the top pick of the 2012 NBA Draft knowing this information? 

Also do they own any other teams picks for the 2012 Draft? Maybe they'll get 2 of the top 4 picks in the NBA Draft like Cleveland did.

Re-read the bold print above.  You're saying that stopping a trade that would have helped them stay in mediocrity for a while is evidence of fixing?  I say that's evidence of wise ownership.  Stern made a wise move there regardless of what draft pick they get.  If they have the worst record in the NBA, it's guaranteed to be top 4, so that's great.

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

Looking at the NBA Standings, the New Orleans Hornets are currently 3-22 or 0.120 winning percentage, worst record in the league. They were essentially forced to trade away (lose) Chris Paul because he didn't want to resign with them. The NBA clearly wants to help the Hornets have a bright future with Stern stopping the first LA trade (Lakers) in which it would've netted them some main guys on the downslide of their careers that would've helped them stay in mediocrity for a while, probably make the playoffs for a couple of years, then eventually plummetting with no chance at an attractive, marketable franchise player like Chris Paul through the draft for a while.

The NBA obviously is looking for an Owner for the Hornets. Looking at recent history, the last team to lose an attractive, young, yet-to-reach-his-prime, star-player was Cleveland with his infamous "Decision" in 2010. In the very next draft, Cleveland lands picks #1 and #4. How much do you want to bet that New Orleans will get the top pick of the 2012 NBA Draft knowing this information? 

Also do they own any other teams picks for the 2012 Draft? Maybe they'll get 2 of the top 4 picks in the NBA Draft like Cleveland did.

Re-read the bold print above.  You're saying that stopping a trade that would have helped them stay in mediocrity for a while is evidence of fixing?  I say that's evidence of wise ownership.  Stern made a wise move there regardless of what draft pick they get.  If they have the worst record in the NBA, it's guaranteed to be top 4, so that's great.

No; I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that the NBA wants young talent, potential franchise player who can sell tickets and get TV Viewers in order to make the Hornets more attractive to buyers. The NBA stopping the trade verifies that, and that's the reasoning David Stern used.

I understand how a franchise is rebuilt and have stated so in my previous posts, including 1 with the guy who's infatuated with the "Rebuilding Process". I'm not saying that there's evidence that the Lottery is fixed or not, however if the Hornets follow the same pattern that Cleveland did (top pick even if they mathematically have the best chance at it and/or 2 of the top 4 picks) , it will be interesting.

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

The NBA doesn't fix the lottery.  

What makes you so sure? Do you work for the NBA and participate in the hands-on process of the Lottery?

I've documented several times why that Hornets/Lakers trade would have been absolutely MORONIC for the Hornets.  Locking up long-term salary with ho-hum players.  Terrible.  Made sense why the ownership of the Hornets rejected the trade.

I agree; so this proves that could be incentive$/motive$ to "luck the Hornets" into a top lottery pick or two of four, like Cleveland, best percentage chance or not. Good, young players on the cheap, locked in long-term and can develop to be better players, maybe a chance at another as good as Chris Paul, serving as a nice Chris Paul replacement.  

I have no idea what will happen and don't like or want to believe the lottery is fixed, however, I'm keeping my eyes peeled; I'm watching you. (the NBA)

[LooseCannon]

Given the presence of independent auditors and representatives from each team when they do the lottery, I think they draw ping pong balls in a fair manner.

[action781]

Looking at the NBA Standings, the New Orleans Hornets are currently 3-22 or 0.120 winning percentage, worst record in the league. They were essentially forced to trade away (lose) Chris Paul because he didn't want to resign with them. The NBA clearly wants to help the Hornets have a bright future with Stern stopping the first LA trade (Lakers) in which it would've netted them some main guys on the downslide of their careers that would've helped them stay in mediocrity for a while, probably make the playoffs for a couple of years, then eventually plummetting with no chance at an attractive, marketable franchise player like Chris Paul through the draft for a while.

The NBA obviously is looking for an Owner for the Hornets. Looking at recent history, the last team to lose an attractive, young, yet-to-reach-his-prime, star-player was Cleveland with his infamous "Decision" in 2010. In the very next draft, Cleveland lands picks #1 and #4. How much do you want to bet that New Orleans will get the top pick of the 2012 NBA Draft knowing this information? 

Also do they own any other teams picks for the 2012 Draft? Maybe they'll get 2 of the top 4 picks in the NBA Draft like Cleveland did.

Re-read the bold print above.  You're saying that stopping a trade that would have helped them stay in mediocrity for a while is evidence of fixing?  I say that's evidence of wise ownership.  Stern made a wise move there regardless of what draft pick they get.  If they have the worst record in the NBA, it's guaranteed to be top 4, so that's great.

No; I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that the NBA wants young talent, potential franchise player who can sell tickets and get TV Viewers in order to make the Hornets more attractive to buyers. The NBA stopping the trade verifies that, and that's the reasoning David Stern used.

I understand how a franchise is rebuilt and have stated so in my previous posts, including 1 with the guy who's infatuated with the "Rebuilding Process". I'm not saying that there's evidence that the Lottery is fixed or not, however if the Hornets follow the same pattern that Cleveland did (top pick even if they mathematically have the best chance at it and/or 2 of the top 4 picks) , it will be interesting.

Of course it makes sense for him to make the Hornets more attractive to buyers.  He will always have worry about making sure things don't "appear" shady even if they really aren't as long as the NBA owns the Hornets.  So yes, of course he wants young players to entice buyers.

And call me weird, but I don't see what will be "interesting" about the Hornets landing the number 1 pick if they mathematically have the best chance.  I would find that rather uninteresting actually.

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

Looking at the NBA Standings, the New Orleans Hornets are currently 3-22 or 0.120 winning percentage, worst record in the league. They were essentially forced to trade away (lose) Chris Paul because he didn't want to resign with them. The NBA clearly wants to help the Hornets have a bright future with Stern stopping the first LA trade (Lakers) in which it would've netted them some main guys on the downslide of their careers that would've helped them stay in mediocrity for a while, probably make the playoffs for a couple of years, then eventually plummetting with no chance at an attractive, marketable franchise player like Chris Paul through the draft for a while.

The NBA obviously is looking for an Owner for the Hornets. Looking at recent history, the last team to lose an attractive, young, yet-to-reach-his-prime, star-player was Cleveland with his infamous "Decision" in 2010. In the very next draft, Cleveland lands picks #1 and #4. How much do you want to bet that New Orleans will get the top pick of the 2012 NBA Draft knowing this information? 

Also do they own any other teams picks for the 2012 Draft? Maybe they'll get 2 of the top 4 picks in the NBA Draft like Cleveland did.

Re-read the bold print above.  You're saying that stopping a trade that would have helped them stay in mediocrity for a while is evidence of fixing?  I say that's evidence of wise ownership.  Stern made a wise move there regardless of what draft pick they get.  If they have the worst record in the NBA, it's guaranteed to be top 4, so that's great.

No; I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that the NBA wants young talent, potential franchise player who can sell tickets and get TV Viewers in order to make the Hornets more attractive to buyers. The NBA stopping the trade verifies that, and that's the reasoning David Stern used.

I understand how a franchise is rebuilt and have stated so in my previous posts, including 1 with the guy who's infatuated with the "Rebuilding Process". I'm not saying that there's evidence that the Lottery is fixed or not, however if the Hornets follow the same pattern that Cleveland did (top pick even if they mathematically have the best chance at it and/or 2 of the top 4 picks) , it will be interesting.

Of course it makes sense for him to make the Hornets more attractive to buyers.  He will always have worry about making sure things don't "appear" shady even if they really aren't as long as the NBA owns the Hornets.  So yes, of course he wants young players to entice buyers.

And call me weird, but I don't see what will be "interesting" about the Hornets landing the number 1 pick if they mathematically have the best chance.  I would find that rather uninteresting actually.

I said it'd be 'interesting' in that scenario because teams with the best chance or worst record with a 25% chance to win have a 75% chance of not getting the top pick. 4 out of 17 Worst records from the lottery won since 1985, including a tie. That's about average considering the chances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Draft_Lottery

C's had a ridiculous 36.31% chance (most by far -- 11.31% chance to Vancouver's 25%) at the 1997 NBA Draft's top pick and a 19.9% (2nd most) in the 2007 NBA Draft top pick. C's get the picks 3 and 6 in 1997 and pick 6 in 2007. So in the C's high probability years we're Oh-For-Two in picks 1 and 2, and One-For-Two in pick 3. That's 1 for 6! Guess the C's were 'unlucky'.

[LooseCannon]

C's had a ridiculous 36.31% chance (most by far -- 11.31% chance to Vancouver's 25%) at the 1997 NBA Draft's top pick and a 19.9% (2nd most) in the 2007 NBA Draft top pick. C's get the picks 3 and 6 in 1997 and pick 6 in 2007. So in the C's high probability years we're Oh-For-Two in picks 1 and 2, and One-For-Two in pick 3. That's 1 for 6! Guess the C's were 'unlucky'.

Using the numbers 36.3% and 19.9%, there was a 51.0% that the Celtics had no #1 picks, a 7.2% probability that they got two #1 picks, and a 41.7% chance that they ended up with exactly one #1 pick.  (Numbers may not add up to exactly 100% due to rounding.  So, the Celtics ended up with the most likely outcome, in terms of #1 overall picks.

You're on your own if you are curious about probabilities beyond that.

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

For what it's worth, I predicted this likely scenario. Although the Hornets had the worst record at the time, they actually won 6 of last 10 (nice anti-tanking karma there) to finish with tied for 3rd worst record. All I had to do was look at what happened with Cleveland and LeBron and applying that to NO and Chris Paul situations. (team for sale was added incentive)

If/when Orlando loses Dwight, then makes the lottery, especially with a top 6 choice, watch for them and their potential #1 pick.