Would you rather . . .

[Moranis]

depends what you mean by lottery.  I mean if you are talking the 14th pick for 5 straight years, I'd rather be in the playoffs and lose, but if you are talking top 5 picks for 5 straight years, I'd rather do that.

[Lightskinsmurf]

Lottery definitely, neither is any fun but at least the lottery you have a CHANCE at landing big and getting back on top.

[Celtics18]

Interesting responses.  There seems to be a relatively even split between those who would rather be in the lottery or rather be a solid, but non legitimately contending playoff team. 

For me, I simply hate the "tanking" culture that has become viewed as an acceptable way to run an NBA franchise over the course of the last decade or so.  I feel like the league helps to promote the idea that it's worse to be a competitive bottom level playoff team than an absolute league bottom dweller.  They use the NBA lottery as the big pie in the sky for fans of perennially awful teams.  To me, it seems that this is a good way for either stingy owners or owners in less lucrative markets to justify running their teams on the cheap.

I don't know how I want to see the league fix this issue, but I do want to see it fixed.  I suggested doing away with the lottery in a thread a while back, but was met with staunch opposition to that idea. 

There has to be a practical way to eliminate the mindset that having a really bad team is something worth striving for as an NBA franchise.  I hope that the next commissioner tries to come up with some solutions to what I see as the major problem with the NBA today.   

[Lightskinsmurf]

Interesting responses.  There seems to be a relatively even split between those who would rather be in the lottery or rather be a solid, but non legitimately contending playoff team. 

For me, I simply hate the "tanking" culture that has become viewed as an acceptable way to run an NBA franchise over the course of the last decade or so.  I feel like the league helps to promote the idea that it's worse to be a competitive bottom level playoff team than an absolute league bottom dweller.  They use the NBA lottery as the big pie in the sky for fans of perennially awful teams.  To me, it seems that this is a good way for either stingy owners or owners in less lucrative markets to justify running their teams on the cheap.

I don't know how I want to see the league fix this issue, but I do want to see it fixed.  I suggested doing away with the lottery in a thread a while back, but was met with staunch opposition to that idea. 

There has to be a practical way to eliminate the mindset that having a really bad team is something worth striving for as an NBA franchise.  I hope that the next commissioner tries to come up with some solutions to what I see as the major problem with the NBA today.

Nobody strives to be a really bad team. That being said, being middle of the pack is the absolute worst spot to be in basketball.

[Moranis]

Interesting responses.  There seems to be a relatively even split between those who would rather be in the lottery or rather be a solid, but non legitimately contending playoff team. 

For me, I simply hate the "tanking" culture that has become viewed as an acceptable way to run an NBA franchise over the course of the last decade or so.  I feel like the league helps to promote the idea that it's worse to be a competitive bottom level playoff team than an absolute league bottom dweller.  They use the NBA lottery as the big pie in the sky for fans of perennially awful teams.  To me, it seems that this is a good way for either stingy owners or owners in less lucrative markets to justify running their teams on the cheap.

I don't know how I want to see the league fix this issue, but I do want to see it fixed.  I suggested doing away with the lottery in a thread a while back, but was met with staunch opposition to that idea. 

There has to be a practical way to eliminate the mindset that having a really bad team is something worth striving for as an NBA franchise.  I hope that the new commissioner tries to come up with some solutions to what I see as the major problem with the NBA today.

The thing is a lot of teams in the lottery year in and year out, actually aren't run on all that much of the cheap.  Some are, certainly, but there are a lot of teams that have no cap flexibility any time soon that are bad.  I mean Orlando has the third highest payroll in the league this year behind the Lakers and Nets.  Philadelphia is 5th.  Portland is 7th.  Dallas and Cleveland are 13th and 14th.  While Houston has the lowest payroll in the league and is the 7th seed in the much deeper conference.  Memphis is 26 out of 30 and the 5th seed out west.  Indiana is 21 out of 30 and the second best team in the East.

Payroll isn't indicative of how good or bad a team is.  It really is all about management.

[KGs Knee]

Those options suck.  I'd rather win the title every year.

[Celtics18]

Interesting responses.  There seems to be a relatively even split between those who would rather be in the lottery or rather be a solid, but non legitimately contending playoff team. 

For me, I simply hate the "tanking" culture that has become viewed as an acceptable way to run an NBA franchise over the course of the last decade or so.  I feel like the league helps to promote the idea that it's worse to be a competitive bottom level playoff team than an absolute league bottom dweller.  They use the NBA lottery as the big pie in the sky for fans of perennially awful teams.  To me, it seems that this is a good way for either stingy owners or owners in less lucrative markets to justify running their teams on the cheap.

I don't know how I want to see the league fix this issue, but I do want to see it fixed.  I suggested doing away with the lottery in a thread a while back, but was met with staunch opposition to that idea. 

There has to be a practical way to eliminate the mindset that having a really bad team is something worth striving for as an NBA franchise.  I hope that the next commissioner tries to come up with some solutions to what I see as the major problem with the NBA today.

Nobody strives to be a really bad team. That being said, being middle of the pack is the absolute worst spot to be in basketball.

That attitude is my problem with the NBA.  I would never say that being middle of the pack is worse than being truly awful.  With your mindset being so prevalent among NBA followers, what's the motivation for the worst teams in the league to truly work to improve?

Let's take the Wizards, for example.  They look like a team that could be on the rise and maybe even be a playoff team next year.  However, they don't project to be a legitimate contender for a title.  Would they be better off spending yet another year getting into the draft lottery?

[PhoSita]

Lottery.  Getting bounced in the first or second round for the next five years doesn't get us anywhere.  We'd be exactly where we are right now, only five years from now.

Should I put you down as being willing to swap rosters with the Bobcats, if it were permitted?

Not by any means.  We have more young talent on the roster right now than the Bobcats have now.

You'll notice I said "draft well," among other things.

Players the Bobcats could have taken in the last few drafts:

1. Damian Lillard / Andre Drummond (2012)
2. Brandon Knight / Klay Thompson / Kawhi Leonard / Kenneth Faried (2011)
3. Jrue Holiday / Ty Lawson / Taj Gibson (2009)
4. Brook Lopez / Jason Thompson / Roy Hibbert / Javale McGee / JJ Hickson / Ryan Anderson / Serge Ibaka / Nic Batum (2008)

That's five years of missing a number of much better players in the draft.

Not to mention that the Bobcats have only been truly committed to rebuilding for the past couple of years, so it's not even really fair to point at the Bobcats' roster.


However, I'd say the Bobcats are in a position to potentially get a lot better sooner than this Celtics team, if the Celtics were to try to stay the course for another few seasons, clinging to playoff "revelance," while the Bobcats stockpile top 10 draft picks.  The 'cats actually have a competent GM now, and they do have a few decent prospects on the roster.

[PhoSita]

Let's take the Wizards, for example.  They look like a team that could be on the rise and maybe even be a playoff team next year.  However, they don't project to be a legitimate contender for a title.  Would they be better off spending yet another year getting into the draft lottery?

Well, I think that stockpiling assets can only take you so far.  The Wizards have been stockpiling assets for a number of years now, and for a season or two now they've been at a point where they have more young players than they have minutes to play.

The Wizards have their young potential franchise guy, and a handful of other decent young guys.  At this point I'd say it'd be more beneficial for them to focus on slowly building the roster towards being competitive.  Don't overpay for role players, and prioritize younger players who can be valuable for a while.  Then get them to gel together around Wall.  Beyond that, they must hope that Wall delivers on his promise.

In short, trying to win and giving their young guys playoff experience at this point is probably more valuable than selecting between 8 and 15 again and getting a young guy who will just compete for minutes with all the other prospects on that roster.

Rebuilding doesn't mean tanking season after the season until one day you are a contender.  But it does generally require dipping into the doldrums for a season or two in order to get the assets you need to build back up.

[LooseCannon]

Nobody strives to be a really bad team. That being said, being middle of the pack is the absolute worst spot to be in basketball.

Perpetual loser is a worse spot.

I'd argue that the Celtics are not a team in danger of being hopelessly stuck in the middle of the pack because the team has a very natural blow-up date built into the roster and a solid philosophy about team-building.

The Nuggets would be my idea of the perfect example of a team stuck in the middle, slightly above-average, with no reason to believe they'll be better anytime soon.

The Rockets have been in the middle, a bit worse than the Nuggets, but much healthier in how they are trying to build a team, although I am not enthusiastic about their style of play.

[Fafnir]

Rebuilding doesn't mean tanking season after the season until one day you are a contender.  But it does generally require dipping into the doldrums for a season or two in order to get the assets you need to build back up.

Most teams that rebuild via lottery blow up don't ever seem to climb back out.

You yourself documented all the misses the Bobcats have made, that's far more typical of lottery teams compared to what OKC pulled off with its picks.

[Celtics18]

Interesting responses.  There seems to be a relatively even split between those who would rather be in the lottery or rather be a solid, but non legitimately contending playoff team. 

For me, I simply hate the "tanking" culture that has become viewed as an acceptable way to run an NBA franchise over the course of the last decade or so.  I feel like the league helps to promote the idea that it's worse to be a competitive bottom level playoff team than an absolute league bottom dweller.  They use the NBA lottery as the big pie in the sky for fans of perennially awful teams.  To me, it seems that this is a good way for either stingy owners or owners in less lucrative markets to justify running their teams on the cheap.

I don't know how I want to see the league fix this issue, but I do want to see it fixed.  I suggested doing away with the lottery in a thread a while back, but was met with staunch opposition to that idea. 

There has to be a practical way to eliminate the mindset that having a really bad team is something worth striving for as an NBA franchise.  I hope that the new commissioner tries to come up with some solutions to what I see as the major problem with the NBA today.

The thing is a lot of teams in the lottery year in and year out, actually aren't run on all that much of the cheap.  Some are, certainly, but there are a lot of teams that have no cap flexibility any time soon that are bad.  I mean Orlando has the third highest payroll in the league this year behind the Lakers and Nets.  Philadelphia is 5th.  Portland is 7th.  Dallas and Cleveland are 13th and 14th.  While Houston has the lowest payroll in the league and is the 7th seed in the much deeper conference.  Memphis is 26 out of 30 and the 5th seed out west.  Indiana is 21 out of 30 and the second best team in the East.

Payroll isn't indicative of how good or bad a team is.  It really is all about management.

I'm not saying that there's a direct correlation between payroll size and winning.  That's obviously not the case, but I still think that the acceptability of going with a "rebuilding team" that saves money, gets under the cap, and shoots for the lottery gives owners an excuse to try to save money instead of trying to win. 

Also, if you look at teams like Philadelphia and Orlando, they are listed as having higher payrolls on some sites than on others.  Hoopshype counts amnestied players like Gilbert Arenas for Orlando and Elton Brand for Philly as on their payrolls, while BasketballReference doesn't.  Yes, I guess they are still paying for those players, but having amnestied them certainly saves the owners money in payroll taxes.  This means that their payrolls don't end up costing them as much as is claimed on a site like Hoopshype.   

[aporel#18]

1.  The playoffs.  Celtics don't belong in the lottery.  We belong in the playoffs.  If we lose our culture, what's left?  There is a reason KG was signed for the next  years.  We only accept winners here. 

2.  The Celtics have better youth with potential than most lottery teams.  Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sullinger and Melo are better than any 5 players from the Bobcats, Kings, Suns, Magic etc.

3.  I find any scenario hard to imagine where there are eight better teams in the eastern conference than the Celtics even if Paul, KG and Terry all retire today.  As long as Rondo is healthy we are guaranteed at the absolute worst the eighth seed. 

4.  Let's say you get an amazing talent and 4 decent players in the lottery.  Congratulations! you are now the Cleveland Cavaliers.  You need talent, but without the right culture nothing will come of it.

TP. You need an identity, a winning culture. Losing is bad, and the worst part is you get used to it. Remember 2006-2007 Celtics, that wasn't pretty.

[wdleehi]

Sort of depends.



If it is playoffs with a younger team, then there is hope to improve.




If it is playoffs with a bunch of in their prime vets that are maxing out their talent, well that calls for drastic moves and a probable step back.




If it is a team of stars on the way down, enjoy the ride.

[PhoSita]

Rebuilding doesn't mean tanking season after the season until one day you are a contender.  But it does generally require dipping into the doldrums for a season or two in order to get the assets you need to build back up.

Most teams that rebuild via lottery blow up don't ever seem to climb back out.

You yourself documented all the misses the Bobcats have made, that's far more typical of lottery teams compared to what OKC pulled off with its picks.

I think teams often have trouble climbing out because they have bad ownership or bad management -- that's how they got there, and that's what makes it doubly hard to get out.  On top of that, many of these teams are in small markets, so it's exceedingly hard for them to stay on the necessary course, with the necessary discipline, to really do it right.

I don't think that outright tanking is necessary in order to rebuild.  The Rockets are a great example of that.  But you need to be smart, and you need to forgo win-now, or even win-two-years-from-now sort of moves in order to win 4 or 5 years in the future.