"Breaking News" The NBA is Corrupt.

[Chris]

Honestly, I am not sure what the problem is.  The Lakers traded the second best center in the league, and a first round pick for the best center in the league.  It stinks, because its the Lakers, but they were able to do this largely because they were smart enough to draft Bynum, when plenty of other teams passed on him.

Yeah, there are other parts to it, but ultimately it comes down to the Lakers had the young star to make this trade happen.

I don't mind the Lakers part of it. It's Orlando's part in it that bothers me.

The type of trade package they accepted in return for Dwight. Turning down Andrew Bynum in order to win 10-15 less games next year so they can get themselves a better draft pick. Dumping Dwight Howard for Afflalo, A.Harrington and so-so first round draft picks. It;s an awful trade package.

When the system makes a trade like this a good option, then you have a problem with the system ... and more and more teams seem inclined to go down this road too. Frustrating.

Yeah, but I think this had more to do with the individual player, and particularly the trade and extend rules, than the draft.

They didn't want Bynum because he has health questions, and more importantly because he could walk at the end of the season and they would have nothing to show for it.

I think if Bynum was signed long term, they would have taken him, but since he is in the exact same situation as Dwight, they preferred the valuable of movable parts.

I also don't believe they are tanking.  I think they are collecting assets to rebuild on the fly.  Although we will see.

[wdleehi]

What bothers me is that the Lakers got the best players and didn't have to take back a bad contract. 



Orlando would have been better off waiting until the Nets could have gotten back into the race.  Even if they didn't want Lopez, the extra competition would have helped improve the return.

[Rondo2287]

What about adopting a modified baseball model where draft picks aren't tradeable, and if you loose a good free agent you receive that teams first rounder and a sandwhich pick between rounds

The players union would rally heavily against that as it would really hurt free agency.  Teams would shy away from signing mid-level and lesser type players or even older players for fear of losing picks.

That works in MLB because realistically the MLB draft sucks.  I read an article about the 2000 MLB draft.  14 of the 30 players picked in Round 1 never made it to MLB.  Imagine if half of the NBA Round 1 never made it to the NBA.

It is easy to give up picks when they'll never play anyway.  NBA 1st Round picks typically play.

Im not talking about any free agents though there would have to be some type of ranking system like there was in baseball.  But also keep in mind, you add a star pitcher to a baseball team and he can start every 5th day, you ad a star player to a basketball team he can immediately mean 20+ more wins.

The star player you are talking about never becomes a free agent without a trade anyway.

Cleveland received draft picks for LeBron. Phoenix received draft picks for Nash.  Toronto received draft picks for Bosh.  Cleveland did receive Miami's 1st Rounder, so that kind of makes your system moot.

Orlando traded Dwight before free agency.  Denver traded Carmelo before free agency.  Utah traded DeRon before free agency.

What stars are you actually speaking of that changed hands without a draft pick and helped a team win 20+ more games?  Shaq in 96?  That was 16 years ago man.

Right but those only occured because the star player said, im going there, sign and trade me so i can get paid more money and you can get something back.  This way they don't need to help out the player or opposing team, they will automatically get something back.

[celtsfan84]

What about adopting a modified baseball model where draft picks aren't tradeable, and if you loose a good free agent you receive that teams first rounder and a sandwhich pick between rounds

The players union would rally heavily against that as it would really hurt free agency.  Teams would shy away from signing mid-level and lesser type players or even older players for fear of losing picks.

That works in MLB because realistically the MLB draft sucks.  I read an article about the 2000 MLB draft.  14 of the 30 players picked in Round 1 never made it to MLB.  Imagine if half of the NBA Round 1 never made it to the NBA.

It is easy to give up picks when they'll never play anyway.  NBA 1st Round picks typically play.

Im not talking about any free agents though there would have to be some type of ranking system like there was in baseball.  But also keep in mind, you add a star pitcher to a baseball team and he can start every 5th day, you ad a star player to a basketball team he can immediately mean 20+ more wins.

The star player you are talking about never becomes a free agent without a trade anyway.

Cleveland received draft picks for LeBron. Phoenix received draft picks for Nash.  Toronto received draft picks for Bosh.  Cleveland did receive Miami's 1st Rounder, so that kind of makes your system moot.

Orlando traded Dwight before free agency.  Denver traded Carmelo before free agency.  Utah traded DeRon before free agency.

What stars are you actually speaking of that changed hands without a draft pick and helped a team win 20+ more games?  Shaq in 96?  That was 16 years ago man.

Right but those only occured because the star player said, im going there, sign and trade me so i can get paid more money and you can get something back.  This way they don't need to help out the player or opposing team, they will automatically get something back.

Right. So in Cleveland's case, LeBron would've signed with Miami as a free agent (since they had cap room).  Cleveland would've been awarded Miami's 1st Round pick instead of receiving multiple picks in the eventual sign-and-trade.  So in that case, you are hurting Cleveland and Toronto.

It would've cost LeBron a slight amount of money (he took less than the full max anyway, the sign-and-trade was more to add extra years to the contract).  This system would've hurt Toronto and Cleveland both.  I still fail to see the benefit.

And you'd also be costing them a huge trade exception.  It punishes the teams that lose star players, which seems counterproductive.

[Chris]

Orlando would have been better off waiting until the Nets could have gotten back into the race.  Even if they didn't want Lopez, the extra competition would have helped improve the return.

Maybe...or the fact they are only getting him for 2 months rather than an entire season will scare away even more suitors, and they won't even be able to get what they got from the Lakers.

[GreenEnvy]

The Magic are simply in tank mode.
Afflalo is an overpaid bum. So is Harrington.
Afflalo is a poor mans Sefalosha and has reached his ceiling.
The Magic will let him start for a season and then move him while his stock is high- he'll be one of the go to guys on that terrible roster.
They'll finish bottom in the East for a few years and go after Noel, Jarbrari Parker etc and cross their fingers.
Decent blow up strategy and perfectly understandable.

Lakers give up their future franchise player for another franchise player coming off back surgery. Big gamble but probably the right gamble.
Nothing corrupt about any of it.
Makes me laugh when people are 'disgusted' that the Lakers 'only' gave up the second best center in the NBA (who happens to be less than 25 years old). el oh el.

Lakers are stronger and it sucks that they'll have a great shot at overtaking our 17 banners. But we don't have to worry about them until the finals which is a positive.
We are still better than Philly and still better than the Nets, meanwhile Rose is injured.
It's us and the Heat. Over in the West there's the Grizzlies, Clippers, Nuggets, Mavs Spurs and OKC- it's not a cake walk by any means.

There's your el oh el.

Barring any injuries, it's either Lakers or Thunder out west. Nobody else.

The east is almost the same, with two teams (Celtics and Heat) clearly better than the rest, but there are more variables (Will NYK gel? Will Rose come back healthy? How will the Nets look?).

We know what those western conference playoff teams are. And they ain't the Lakers or Thunder.

[slamtheking]

I don't think it's corrupt but this would be one of those situations where Stern should have stepped in and vetoed it (assuming he has that authority). 

Lakers giving up Bynum and a late first rounder for Howard was too cheap for them but not veto-worthy itself.  It's the god-awful package Orlando accepted for the top center in the game and top 5 player in the game. 

They took players that are mediocre at best, a SF prospect that will need time to develop and might turn out to be starter quality and a few first round picks that will be very late in the first round (in a crappy draft no less).  The 2 best players in the deal other than Howard aren't even going to them. 
If they were getting Bynum and Iggy for Howard, this wouldn't be as much of an outrage.  If they had taken Houston's package of a number of solid prospects and picks for Howard, that wouldn't have been as outrageous either. 

Then again, maybe they're just blatantly tanking because their past history in the draft as landed them the #1 pick 3 times -- all in a year with a dominant player coming out (Shaq, Webber--swapped for Penny & change, Howard).  With their luck, they'll get #1 again and get that kid Noel that people are raving about.

[Moranis]

The NBA badly needs to re-think it's current lottery system.

Get rid of the for these "dump your star and blow up your team so you can lose 55-65 games next year and try to win the lottery" type trades.

What better alternatives are there?

I don't think the league is willing to give up cost controlled rookies, which means you can't go to a true FA system.

The best I have seen was that suggested one at the MIT conference where ... once teams are ruled out of the playoff picture, their W-L record is tracked from there and the team that wins the most games gets the first pick.

The theory being that teams are less inclined to tank to open a season than they are at mid-season (which makes sense) + that it will keep teams trying to win games late in the year rather than tanking games (which also makes sense).

It won't get rid of the problem completely but I do think it would help decrease it.

So what do you with a team that isn't ruled out of the playoffs until the last game of the year.

[AB_Celtic]

The NBA badly needs to re-think it's current lottery system.

Get rid of the for these "dump your star and blow up your team so you can lose 55-65 games next year and try to win the lottery" type trades.

What better alternatives are there?

I don't think the league is willing to give up cost controlled rookies, which means you can't go to a true FA system.

The best I have seen was that suggested one at the MIT conference where ... once teams are ruled out of the playoff picture, their W-L record is tracked from there and the team that wins the most games gets the first pick.

The theory being that teams are less inclined to tank to open a season than they are at mid-season (which makes sense) + that it will keep teams trying to win games late in the year rather than tanking games (which also makes sense).

It won't get rid of the problem completely but I do think it would help decrease it.

So what do you with a team that isn't ruled out of the playoffs until the last game of the year.

Then they're obviously a somewhat good team, so they don't get in the lottery.

[Chris]

I don't think it's corrupt but this would be one of those situations where Stern should have stepped in and vetoed it (assuming he has that authority). 

Lakers giving up Bynum and a late first rounder for Howard was too cheap for them but not veto-worthy itself.  It's the god-awful package Orlando accepted for the top center in the game and top 5 player in the game. 

They took players that are mediocre at best, a SF prospect that will need time to develop and might turn out to be starter quality and a few first round picks that will be very late in the first round (in a crappy draft no less).  The 2 best players in the deal other than Howard aren't even going to them. 
If they were getting Bynum and Iggy for Howard, this wouldn't be as much of an outrage.  If they had taken Houston's package of a number of solid prospects and picks for Howard, that wouldn't have been as outrageous either. 

Then again, maybe they're just blatantly tanking because their past history in the draft as landed them the #1 pick 3 times -- all in a year with a dominant player coming out (Shaq, Webber--swapped for Penny & change, Howard).  With their luck, they'll get #1 again and get that kid Noel that people are raving about.

Let's remember, Howard is a 1 year rental for anyone (at least from a guarantee standpoint).  I just am not sure there were any better offers out there, once they waited too long on Brooklyn.

And we don't know for sure what Houston offered. 

[bdm860]

The NBA badly needs to re-think it's current lottery system.

Get rid of the for these "dump your star and blow up your team so you can lose 55-65 games next year and try to win the lottery" type trades.

What better alternatives are there?

I don't think the league is willing to give up cost controlled rookies, which means you can't go to a true FA system.

The best I have seen was that suggested one at the MIT conference where ... once teams are ruled out of the playoff picture, their W-L record is tracked from there and the team that wins the most games gets the first pick.

The theory being that teams are less inclined to tank to open a season than they are at mid-season (which makes sense) + that it will keep teams trying to win games late in the year rather than tanking games (which also makes sense).

It won't get rid of the problem completely but I do think it would help decrease it.

So what do you with a team that isn't ruled out of the playoffs until the last game of the year.

They would get the last lottery pick, right?

I mean that seems to me like a system that would work, because a team that is eliminated on the last day is much better than a team that was eliminated in mid-March.

If it's based on wins once eliminated from the playoffs, it gives the bad teams a good chance.

Quick google search shows me the Bobcats were eliminated from playoff contention last year with 18 games left. 

The Nets were eliminated with 6 games left.

The Bucks were eliminated with 2 games left.

So if it's based on most wins (and not winning%), the Bobcats have the most opportunities to get the most wins.  Bad teams have the most opportunities while encouraging teams to play winning basketball, sounds like a system that could work.

[Lucky17]

The picks are coming in 2014 (Denver), 2015 (Philly), and 2017 (LA). All are protected, although we don't know yet what the protections are (probably lottery at most, top 3 at least).

Will be curious what that Lakers pick will be like. In 2017, will Kobe or Nash be out of the league? Will Dwight still be with the Lakers?