CP3 debacle showed that the NBA offices is not exactly a neutral party in this.
The difference with the CP3 situation was that the league owned the Hornets at the time, which meant that each of the 29 owners in the league were technically part-owners of the Hornets as well. Not only did that trade lower the current value of the Hornets, but it also lowered the future potential value of the franchise.
It was a totally unique situation that is unlikely to be repeated.
Anyone know the statistical odds of getting 3 #1 picks in 4 years? It has to be quite astronomical. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:15 am Post subject:
improper wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
CP3 debacle showed that the NBA offices is not exactly a neutral party in this.
The difference with the CP3 situation was that the league owned the Hornets at the time, which meant that each of the 29 owners in the league were technically part-owners of the Hornets as well. Not only did that trade lower the current value of the Hornets, but it also lowered the future potential value of the franchise.
It was a totally unique situation that is unlikely to be repeated.
Plus the CP3 situation was all about the newly ratified CBA. It was the fact that the Lakers were not only rebuilding with one deal, but that they were cutting payroll so drastically that got the small markets upset. They had just had a lockout to suck more cash from the big markets, and here the Lakers were throwing it in their faces and slowing down the gravy train. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
CP3 debacle showed that the NBA offices is not exactly a neutral party in this.
The difference with the CP3 situation was that the league owned the Hornets at the time, which meant that each of the 29 owners in the league were technically part-owners of the Hornets as well. Not only did that trade lower the current value of the Hornets, but it also lowered the future potential value of the franchise.
It was a totally unique situation that is unlikely to be repeated.
Plus the CP3 situation was all about the newly ratified CBA. It was the fact that the Lakers were not only rebuilding with one deal, but that they were cutting payroll so drastically that got the small markets upset. They had just had a lockout to suck more cash from the big markets, and here the Lakers were throwing it in their faces and slowing down the gravy train.
Indeed. It should be counted as a championship in and of itself the way Mitch and Co. destroyed the league with that deal
CP3 debacle showed that the NBA offices is not exactly a neutral party in this.
The difference with the CP3 situation was that the league owned the Hornets at the time, which meant that each of the 29 owners in the league were technically part-owners of the Hornets as well. Not only did that trade lower the current value of the Hornets, but it also lowered the future potential value of the franchise.
It was a totally unique situation that is unlikely to be repeated.
Plus the CP3 situation was all about the newly ratified CBA. It was the fact that the Lakers were not only rebuilding with one deal, but that they were cutting payroll so drastically that got the small markets upset. They had just had a lockout to suck more cash from the big markets, and here the Lakers were throwing it in their faces and slowing down the gravy train.
The CP3 situation was about the Hornets walking away in the best position to be sold and build their team, which is what happened. Since the league owned the team and were giving away the best player their #1 goal should have been to put NO in the best position post trade, which is what they did. Sure, other owners may have been upset because LA was winning, but at the end of the day it was about how NO was impacted first and foremost.
Like he said, a unique situation that is unlikely to be repeated.
I applaud the thread Jeggs!! Keep up the good work! Your facts and logic are fine. It's impossible to prove, but the question is perfectly reasonable.
Here's one to chew one:
Lakers get the #1 pick (Worthy) right after winning the championship. LOL!! If that happened to Miami after they won, I would have probably tossed a chair through my window.
The lakers got Worthy in a trade with Cleveland in 1980. It would not be a problem if Miami had acquired a pick years before that turned out to be the number one pick. The difference would be that when worthy was drafted their was a coin flip to determine who got the the top pick between the two worst teams and it wasn't done behind closed doors. If Miami got a pick from a team in the seventh position and it turned out to be the number one pick the conspiracy buffs would come out. Their needs to be some transparency in the process.
My idea is limit the number of teams to five. Go the ping pong ball route. The top team gets 15 balls the next 12 then 9 ,6 and 3. The first team to have three balls come up gets the top pick and so on until the top five is determined. It would make the process more transparent and would add a little drama to the process. Imagine two or three teams with two balls drawn and everybody waiting to see which one comes up next
...No joke I literally didn't read any of the posts in this topic at all. That being said, I'm not stupid. I know that three number 1 picks in a four year span isn't "luck" at all. I'm practically done watching WWE Basketball outside of our non-Cav related games and won't even bother clicking any links regarding the Cavs as well. This ish became personal when Comic Sans Dan decided to help Veto a legal trade so he could build a superteam later. Screw the NBA until this LeBron storyline is over. _________________ Whenever the Lakers benefit all of a sudden rules need to be changed and trades need to be blocked.
Anyone know the statistical odds of getting 3 #1 picks in 4 years? It has to be quite astronomical.
...About the same odds as me hitting the Powerball jackpot twice in my lifetime. That ish was rigged. Only a fool would see otherwise. _________________ Whenever the Lakers benefit all of a sudden rules need to be changed and trades need to be blocked.
For this premise to even remotely begin to work you would have to believe that the majority of owners in the NBA are engaging in illegal activities that are blackmailable in the first place.
Then you'd have to believe that Dan Gilbert is the only one holding all the evidence.
It's extremely doubtful that either is the case.
It kills me that these people think that there is obvious fixing going on and teams are just sitting back and letting it happen. There is literally zero thought put into the conspiracy theories. If picks were given out for the league's self interest, the Lakers would have won the lottery.
The NBA wants Lebron to win, they could care less about the Lakers at this point in time.
Nike and ESPN too. This is bigger than the league. Charles Barkley (a ESPN/TNT and Nike staple) practically begged LeBron to go back to Cleveland on-air. It's ridiculous how much they want to re-create the 90's Jordan era with LeBron. The problem with that is that they are attempting this in the "internet era" where people are not as easily brainwashed and info is readily available 24/7. _________________ Whenever the Lakers benefit all of a sudden rules need to be changed and trades need to be blocked.
...No joke I literally didn't read any of the posts in this topic at all. .
I guess you mean except for the posts you responded to.
...After I made the initial post Sherlock/Barnaby/Batman. _________________ Whenever the Lakers benefit all of a sudden rules need to be changed and trades need to be blocked.
It is interesting to note that a good majority of franchise owners who got the number one draft pick since the early 80's have all been Freemasons _________________ IM THE GREATEST HITTER IN THE WORLD!!!1!
The lakers got Worthy in a trade with Cleveland in 1980. It would not be a problem if Miami had acquired a pick years before that turned out to be the number one pick. The difference would be that when worthy was drafted their was a coin flip to determine who got the the top pick between the two worst teams and it wasn't done behind closed doors. If Miami got a pick from a team in the seventh position and it turned out to be the number one pick the conspiracy buffs would come out. Their needs to be some transparency in the process.
The reason they do the lottery drawing behind closed doors is because it could be really boring to do it live. The drawings for the second and third pick could take forever depending on how the ping pong balls drop for the first pick.
Also worth noting that the drawing is done by a private firm that has absolutely no incentive to rig the draft, and that there is a representative from every team in the room when the actual drawing happens. This year the NBA put the drawing online right after the lottery special aired. I don't know if they've done this in years past or not.
Regardless, why would any of the other 29 teams, or the private firm, consent to rig the drawing in one owner's favor? And if you're of the opinion that they don't know, well, can you give us an example of how they could rig it? Or, for that matter, what would be in it for the private firm? The NBA is just one of their many clients, and getting caught could ruin their reputation. Further, the NBA is just too big a business now to risk rigging the lottery, especially for a small market team.
I applaud the thread Jeggs!! Keep up the good work! Your facts and logic are fine. It's impossible to prove, but the question is perfectly reasonable.
Here's one to chew one:
Lakers get the #1 pick (Worthy) right after winning the championship. LOL!! If that happened to Miami after they won, I would have probably tossed a chair through my window.
The lakers got Worthy in a trade with Cleveland in 1980. It would not be a problem if Miami had acquired a pick years before that turned out to be the number one pick. The difference would be that when worthy was drafted their was a coin flip to determine who got the the top pick between the two worst teams and it wasn't done behind closed doors. If Miami got a pick from a team in the seventh position and it turned out to be the number one pick the conspiracy buffs would come out. Their needs to be some transparency in the process.
My idea is limit the number of teams to five. Go the ping pong ball route. The top team gets 15 balls the next 12 then 9 ,6 and 3. The first team to have three balls come up gets the top pick and so on until the top five is determined. It would make the process more transparent and would add a little drama to the process. Imagine two or three teams with two balls drawn and everybody waiting to see which one comes up next
No matter how they do it, no matter how much video they take, people will claim it was a conspiracy if they don't like the results.
People would claim the balls were of different weights or slightly different sizes or that magnets were used. Some people will just never be happy. I'm not going to give this nonsense any credibility until the TEAMS start crying foul. They have millions of dollars on the line and they hire independent firms to oversee the process. If they arent suspecting any funny business, why should I?
No matter how they do it, no matter how much video they take, people will claim it was a conspiracy if they don't like the results.
People would claim the balls were of different weights or slightly different sizes or that magnets were used. Some people will just never be happy. I'm not going to give this nonsense any credibility until the TEAMS start crying foul. They have millions of dollars on the line and they hire independent firms to oversee the process. If they arent suspecting any funny business, why should I?
If the balls were different weights, wouldn't the same number combination come up every time? They have to run the machine at least three times, as they draw for the top three picks. They could theoretically run it dozens of times if the team that owns the numbers for the first and second picks keeps winning again.
Anthony Davis is worth more than the other 3 #1 picks combined, so the nba certainly did their fix job in a really convoluted manner.
Yeah, that's always been my take. If Dan Gilbert had some sort of dirt where he could get number one picks at will, why wouldn't he ask for the one that would get him the best player to be a consensus number one pick since LeBron?
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Here's one to chew one:
