PDA

View Full Version : 2009 Draft Lottery Discussion Thread



duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:37 PM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.fanhouse.com/media/2008/04/nba-draft-lottery.jpg



Well, here we are. Discuss.

Trophy
05-19-2009, 08:38 PM
We'll be picking 13th.

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:39 PM
We'll be picking 13th.
Heh.

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:39 PM
I think the most interesting scenario for this draft would be if the T-Wolves get the number 1 pick.

vnzla81
05-19-2009, 08:40 PM
lets see what is going to happen..........

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:40 PM
Chris Webber is representing the kings? :huh: :lol:

Los Angeles
05-19-2009, 08:41 PM
when is the announcement - any online stream?

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:42 PM
when is the announcement - any online stream?
Just go to ESPN.com. I'm sure they'll update as soon as it's announced on TV.

Trophy
05-19-2009, 08:43 PM
It's always good to see the legend, Larry Bird representing us.

idioteque
05-19-2009, 08:43 PM
I can't believe I am building up any hope whatsoever for this dumb thing. Just get it over with.

idioteque
05-19-2009, 08:44 PM
Larry Bird has no teeth.

count55
05-19-2009, 08:44 PM
Posted in another thread, but it's this convo


Hey, are you guys seeing Bruno's live blog on Pacers.com?

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/lottery_blog_090519.html

Check out some of these quotes from Bruno:


[Comment From Luke (Evansville, IN)]
I agree that SG and SF currently is thin, but wouldn't it be smarter long-term to just re-sign Stephen Graham for slightly above the minimum or a vet like Quentin Richardson than to spend a first round pick on a guy that we will probably only need until Dunleavy returns? I mean when I think about first round pick, I think about the big picture.
8:21

bruno: Keep in mind, there's no guarantee Dunleavy will return.
_________________

If the Pacers don't move up, do you think they will try to trade the pick away for a proven player like Boston did for Ray Allen?
8:22

bruno:Given what's likely to be on the board at No. 13 and their primary needs, I think if they don't move into the top three, they'll be likely to trade down.
_____________________

Bruno, do you think there's any room for some trade magic out of the Pacer's camp to get another young vet or proven star on the team? With Granger's recent rise in status, it seems we're one to two top players away from a deep playoff run.
8:29

bruno: I have no doubt Larry will be every bit as active, and successful, on the trade market this year as he was last summer. He's got more chips this time around and doesn't need to rebuild, just tweak.

Interesting

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:45 PM
This is a joke. Do we really need reps here? I mean Charlotte has DJ Agustine as their rep.

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:45 PM
Bruno just called Rush an all-star caliber player in 2-3 years.

idioteque
05-19-2009, 08:46 PM
I agree with Bruno, gotta love Dun but who knows how that is going to work out.

Trophy
05-19-2009, 08:47 PM
It's official we'll be picking 13th.

idioteque
05-19-2009, 08:47 PM
Well, ****.

count55
05-19-2009, 08:47 PM
Well, it was over quick.

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:47 PM
We have 13. Alright, nothing to see here. Everyone go home.

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:48 PM
13th shocker lol.

vnzla81
05-19-2009, 08:48 PM
that sucks

pianoman
05-19-2009, 08:48 PM
yup, it's rigged...

BoomBaby31
05-19-2009, 08:48 PM
we should of just tanked our season last year.

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:48 PM
Grizz jump to top 3.

idioteque
05-19-2009, 08:49 PM
Grizz in Top 3, Wizards totally ****ed. God, that franchise sucks ***.

Putnam
05-19-2009, 08:49 PM
We hate to say "We told us so," but "We told us so."


.

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:49 PM
Holy balls if the Thunder win this I'm calling B.S.

EDIT: Yes, I realize that is irrational.

vnzla81
05-19-2009, 08:50 PM
clippers, memphis and okc dawn

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:50 PM
Why is this a televised event!?

Why waste these guys' time by flying them out there for a 20 minute event??

vnzla81
05-19-2009, 08:51 PM
1 clippers
2 okc
memphis that is my order

Trophy
05-19-2009, 08:52 PM
1. Grizzlies
2. Clippers
3. Thunder

My order

idioteque
05-19-2009, 08:52 PM
Holy balls if the Thunder win this I'm calling B.S.

EDIT: Yes, I realize that is irrational.

If the Thunder win this or even get the 2nd pick they could have a ****ing dynasty out there.

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:52 PM
Well I just got an e-mail stating the obvious.

idioteque
05-19-2009, 08:53 PM
Oh, Blake Griffin, you poor *******.

count55
05-19-2009, 08:53 PM
Anybody else just hear a really loud "****" coming from Oklahoma?

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:53 PM
Hmm...LAC will get Griffin. Eh. His career is screwed.

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:53 PM
I wonder how the Clippers will screw this up.

idioteque
05-19-2009, 08:54 PM
Poor OKC. Rubio or Griffin there paired with Durant, Greene, and Westbrooke would have been ****ing unstoppable in a few years. Now they'll get the Jordan Hill or Hasheem Thabeet **** sandwich.

vnzla81
05-19-2009, 08:55 PM
Do the Clippers need another PF? they are pack:confused:

Los Angeles
05-19-2009, 08:55 PM
Well that was a thrill a minute.

Trophy
05-19-2009, 08:56 PM
Well that's that...

idioteque
05-19-2009, 08:56 PM
If I were Griffin the Clippers would be the last place I would want to go. I know it is a dick thing to do but I would probably refuse to play there.

d_c
05-19-2009, 08:56 PM
Do the Clippers need another PF? they are pack:confused:

Seeing as they don't have a starting level PF, I think they'll pick Blake Griffin.

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:56 PM
Griffin:

"I'm going to make the best out of any situation I'm in."

Translation:

"Well, whatever. I can't believe I am going to the Clippers. Son of a *****."

vnzla81
05-19-2009, 08:56 PM
Poor OKC. Rubio or Griffin there paired with Durant, Greene, and Westbrooke would have been ****ing unstoppable in a few years. Now they'll get the Jordan Hill or Hasheem Thabeet **** sandwich.

they are going to get thabeet, that is not bad

Trophy
05-19-2009, 08:57 PM
Do the Clippers need another PF? they are pack:confused:

They can always take Rubio. Similar to the Bulls turning down Michael Beasley.

count55
05-19-2009, 08:57 PM
Anybody else just hear a really loud "****" coming from Oklahoma?

Well, he was in NY, but...

he spent the last 10 days in SF working with Bob Hill...


I guess Isiah wasn't available.

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:57 PM
If I were Griffin the Clippers would be the last place I would want to go. I know it is a dick thing to do but I would probably refuse to play there.

He'll go. This kid doesn't have the sense of entitlement of a certain starting QB for the New York Giants.

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:57 PM
If I were Griffin the Clippers would be the last place I would want to go. I know it is a dick thing to do but I would probably refuse to play there.
Like this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/us_sport_us_sport0s_2004_in_pictures/img/4.jpg

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:58 PM
They can always take Rubio. Similar to the Bulls turning down Michael Beasley.

Rubio ain't Derrick Rose.

Major Cold
05-19-2009, 08:58 PM
Conely's job security just lessened

vnzla81
05-19-2009, 08:58 PM
Seeing as they don't have a starting level PF, I think they'll pick Blake Griffin.

they have camby and kaman? :confused:

Trader Joe
05-19-2009, 08:59 PM
Comely's job security just lessened

I think the Grizz shop that pick.

count55
05-19-2009, 08:59 PM
Do the Clippers need another PF? they are pack:confused:

It's never to soon to start looking for a replacement for Zach Randolph.

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 08:59 PM
Rubio ain't Derrick Rose.
You have a point.

idioteque
05-19-2009, 09:00 PM
He'll go. This kid doesn't have the sense of entitlement of a certain starting QB for the New York Giants.

Well San Diego is not a terrible franchise, so I agree with you on that point. The only two franchises (in different sports) that would scare me to death: Raiders and Clippers.

Shade
05-19-2009, 09:00 PM
Well, that was...unexpected. Stupid Clippers. At least a Griffin/Gordon duo should be fun to watch.

So...Clips shop Kaman? Grizz shop Conley? Thunder shop...uh...White?

vnzla81
05-19-2009, 09:01 PM
this means that there is going to be a chance that Kaman Zach or Camby are going to be trade, I would like to have Kaman

purdue101
05-19-2009, 09:01 PM
Sacramento and Memphis will work a swap. Kings need Rubio.

duke dynamite
05-19-2009, 09:02 PM
Well San Diego is not a terrible franchise, so I agree with you on that point. The only two franchises (in different sports) that would scare me to death: Raiders and Clippers.
Back when Eli was drafted, yeah, they were bad. Now, not so much.

Trophy
05-19-2009, 09:02 PM
Rubio ain't Derrick Rose.

True. I still see Los Angeles picking Griffin though. Camby will be traded this offseason to make room I'm sure.

Los Angeles
05-19-2009, 09:02 PM
I've got a shiny Dollar that says that Griffin isn't going to the Clippers. Either they trade the pick away or they pull an even dumber move and pick Ruby Tuesday.

I'll make the bet with the first taker only, no piling on.

LoneGranger33
05-19-2009, 09:03 PM
Memphis should take Rubio and pair him up with Marc Gasol. Hell, maybe Juan Carlos will come back.

MillerTime
05-19-2009, 09:04 PM
I wonder if the Clipps are willing to trade Kaman ... they're stacked with bigs now.

I wish we draft Henderson

QuickRelease
05-19-2009, 09:05 PM
Sacramento and Memphis will work a swap. Kings need Rubio.

If they think Rubio is better, I think there's a chance they move Conley...Portland anyone? I think, if for no other reason, than to see if that would motivate Oden.

d_c
05-19-2009, 09:06 PM
they have camby and kaman? :confused:

Both those guys are really centers and even if you want to call him a PF, I doubt a 35 year old Camby (in the final year of his contract) is going to make anyone pass on Blake Griffin.

edit: And superstar Zach Randolph won't be enough to keep Griffin out of LA either.

BRushWithDeath
05-19-2009, 09:51 PM
they are going to get thabeet, that is not bad

James Harden

avoidingtheclowns
05-19-2009, 10:28 PM
Well, that was...unexpected.

You know that sinking, soul-sucking feeling everyone felt when it became clear the Pacers would not be moving into the top three? That's how Shade feels all the time.

rexnom
05-19-2009, 10:48 PM
Poor OKC. Rubio or Griffin there paired with Durant, Greene, and Westbrooke would have been ****ing unstoppable in a few years. Now they'll get the Jordan Hill or Hasheem Thabeet **** sandwich.
I actually think Thabeet is kinda perfect for them. Toss him out there with Durant, Westbrook, and Green and he barely needs to score.

JB24
05-19-2009, 10:53 PM
Chad Ford has the Grizzlies taking Thabeet at two, and mentions that they would have considered him with the first overall ( he cites a league source).

MillerTime
05-19-2009, 10:57 PM
Chad Ford has the Grizzlies taking Thabeet at two, and mentions that they would have considered him with the first overall ( he cites a league source).

Grizz should take Rubio and shop Conley to Portland for Outlaw who would be perfect to come off the bench behind Gay and Mayo. Rubio would be nice beside his Spaniard counterpart, Marc Gasol,

Shade
05-19-2009, 10:58 PM
You know that sinking, soul-sucking feeling everyone felt when it became clear the Pacers would not be moving into the top three? That's how Shade feels all the time.

Yeah, pretty much.

Shade
05-19-2009, 10:59 PM
Chad Ford has the Grizzlies taking Thabeet at two, and mentions that they would have considered him with the first overall ( he cites a league source).

That is just dumb. I really don't get all this Thabeet love. Have I been watching a totally different player?

avoidingtheclowns
05-19-2009, 11:01 PM
I actually think Thabeet is kinda perfect for them. Toss him out there with Durant, Westbrook, and Green and he barely needs to score.

While I agree Blake or Rubio would be good, gotta go with Rex here. OKC has improved defensively since Brooks took over, but they won't make another step if they're still using the Krstic/Petro/Swift combo platter. I think Thabeet and Harden would be nice fits there.

I'm not sure what Memphis does exactly.
Sacto will probably go PG.
Washington... lolz.

JB24
05-19-2009, 11:06 PM
Yeah, i'm not all that impressed by Thabeet either. I can kind of understand them not taking Rubio, since Mayo needs the ball in his hands to be effective, but wouldn't they then try to trade down and take Hill ( who i think is a better fit next to gasol)?

And i have a hard time believing they'd consider Thabeet ahead of Griffin, so i'll have to assume that the source is off-base. If not, then all i can say is that top 3 picks are wasted on teams that make dumb decisions like that.

imawhat
05-19-2009, 11:59 PM
That is just dumb. I really don't get all this Thabeet love. Have I been watching a totally different player?

No, but if true, it makes you wonder how to apply for a Grizzlies front office job.

Brad8888
05-20-2009, 12:32 AM
I've got a shiny Dollar that says that Griffin isn't going to the Clippers. Either they trade the pick away or they pull an even dumber move and pick Ruby Tuesday.

I'll make the bet with the first taker only, no piling on.

I actually think you might have a chance to be right. Salary dumping, or reducing likelihood of big future salaries, wouldn't surprise me out of the Clippers going forward.

Los Angeles
05-20-2009, 01:07 AM
I can't believe I don't have a taker yet.

Roaming Gnome
05-20-2009, 01:36 AM
we should of just tanked our season last year.

I hope your joking because you see how well having the worst record worked out for the Kings last night...

If Sacramento was tanking games, which I doubt... Getting the 4th pick just isn't worth it. If you think I'm off on that, go to this thread on the KingsFans forum. (http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31889) It's clear they were expecting more!

Remember, before Boston landed Garnett, they admittedly tanked and for their troubles... The lottery rewarded them with the 5th pick.

Those are just a couple reasons why you don't tank for a top 3 pick in this league.

Tanking is stupidity at its finest!

VF21
05-20-2009, 01:56 AM
I hope your joking because you see how well having the worst record worked out for the Kings last night...

If Sacramento was tanking games, which I doubt... Getting the 4th pick just isn't worth it. If you think I'm off on that, go to this thread on the KingsFans forum. (http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31889) It's clear they were expecting more!

Remember, before Boston landed Garnett, they admittedly tanked and for their troubles... The lottery rewarded them with the 5th pick.

Those are just a couple reasons why you don't tank for a top 3 pick in this league.

Tanking is stupidity at its finest!

We didn't tank. We really were that bad.

While there are some hothead Kings fans who, for some reason, felt a sense of entitlement over the draft, a lot of us really don't understand the whole concept of whining about something over which we had no control.

I also find it interesting that some people are acting as though we lost out on the next Lebron James or Michael Jordan. Blake Griffin is the media darling right now, but his game isn't so good that he'll instantly take a cellar-dwelling team back deep into the playoffs.

To be honest, I was hoping - and still harbor a secret wish - that we'd find a way to get Ricky Rubio. He plays our style of ball and I think he'd be great with our young core.

But, to return to the topic at hand after a bit of a sojourn away, I'd like to emphasize that teams that tank deserve nothing but ridicule and scorn. The fans who faithfully put their butts in the seats deserve better.

NBA basketball is an ebb and flow game. Sometimes, if you're very lucky, you get to see your team win it all. Other times, you get to see them try their best but fall short. Still other times, you could be Laker fans who have such a sense of entitlement they chant "we want tacos!" and boo the national anthem because it contains the word "rockets"...

I'll take the lumps as they come. My Kings will draft the best player they can and Geoff Petrie will work with what he can get. And as long as they play with heart and hustle and leave it all out there every night, I'll support them with my dying breath. And they will not tank.

d_c
05-20-2009, 02:07 AM
But, to return to the topic at hand after a bit of a sojourn away, I'd like to emphasize that teams that tank deserve nothing but ridicule and scorn. The fans who faithfully put their butts in the seats deserve better.


FWIW, tanking works.....just not all the time. It absolutely worked for the Spurs, Magic and Cavs. Those teams wouldn't be in the positions they are in now if not for tanking.

And remember one thing: tanking isn't the same thing as throwing games. These are two completely different things. You'd be in a lot of hot water if someone found out you were intentionally throwing games.

Jose Slaughter
05-20-2009, 02:28 AM
I think you'll need to remind me how the Spurs, Magic & Cav's, tanked.

d_c
05-20-2009, 02:37 AM
I think you'll need to remind me how the Spurs, Magic & Cav's, tanked.

Spurs in 97' really could have brought back David Robinson (broken foot at the beginning of the year) towards the end of the year, but thought better of it. Robinson in reality was healthy enough to play near the end of the year.

Magic didn't do a heck of a lot to avoid the worst record in the league in the after starting the year 1-19. IIRC, they had just come off a playoff appearance the year before.

Cavs (before the season even started) traded their best player and a proven PG in Andre Miller for a guy who hadn't done a thing in Darius Miles and wound up with the worst record in the league.

VF21
05-20-2009, 02:46 AM
FWIW, tanking works.....just not all the time. It absolutely worked for the Spurs, Magic and Cavs. Those teams wouldn't be in the positions they are in now if not for tanking.

And remember one thing: tanking isn't the same thing as throwing games. These are two completely different things. You'd be in a lot of hot water if someone found out you were intentionally throwing games.

To each his own.

I'm sitting here looking at a #4 pick when we had the worst record in the league. The only consolation I have is that my team didn't tank; they actually were that bad.

If we had tanked in an effort to get the best pick in a less than stellar draft, I'd most likely be suicidal tonight instead of philosophical.

It's real easy to point to the few times tanking was successful since we all know that hindsight is 20-20...

Tanking in one season to potentially improve your lot in a subsequent season is a slap in the face to every player on your roster. It's an insult to the fans who pay their hard-earned money to see a good game and it's the reason the lottery was created in the first place.

I know there are a lot of people who don't have a problem with it. I do...so I guess we'll just "agree to disagree"...

Roaming Gnome
05-20-2009, 02:49 AM
Spurs in 97' really could have brought back David Robinson (broken foot at the beginning of the year) towards the end of the year, but thought better of it. Robinson in reality was healthy enough to play near the end of the year.

Magic didn't do a heck of a lot to avoid the worst record in the league in the after starting the year 1-19. IIRC, they had just come off a playoff appearance the year before.

Cavs (before the season even started) traded a proven PG in Andre Miller for a guy who hadn't done a thing in Darius Miles.

That's not all that convincing of known tank jobs.

It was "speculated" by the media (Peter Vecsey to be specific) during a game on an NBA on NBC telecast that Robinson could play towards the end of that season. For some reason, I actually do remember this. There was nothing that ever was clear that he was ready, but the Spurs held him back. Media speculation isn't enough to convince me that the Spurs were not erring on the side of caution. Personally, this isn't a tank job!!!

That Orlando team did start 1-19 for a reason...they were not that good. Stating that Orlando made the play-offs the year before doesn't say a whole lot when most of us lived through the Pacers taking Larry Bird and the Celtics to a 5th and deciding game in '91. Larry even said himself that, "There was no reason for them to not to win 50 games in '92". How'd that work out for us? "personally, this isn't a tank job"

That Cavs season... I'll agree with you, that was a tank job!!! The only saving grace for the Cavs was that their 25% chance worked. That is one hell of a gamble considering there was still a 75% chance of getting anyone not named LeBron James!

Anyway, good luck convincing your fan base that tanking is A-Ok. Just keep buying those season tickets. Look, I understand that the casuals are not coming out to see losing, but tanking is going to turn your STH's against you, also.

If the Pacers had a plan that looked like tanking... I know that they wouldn't get my money and I have stuck thru a lot of BS.

Bottom line...Tanking is not smart!

MillerTime
05-20-2009, 02:51 AM
Spurs in 97' really could have brought back David Robinson (broken foot at the beginning of the year) towards the end of the year, but thought better of it. Robinson in reality was healthy enough to play near the end of the year.

Magic didn't do a heck of a lot to avoid the worst record in the league in the after starting the year 1-19. IIRC, they had just come off a playoff appearance the year before.

Cavs (before the season even started) traded their best player and a proven PG in Andre Miller for a guy who hadn't done a thing in Darius Miles and wound up with the worst record in the league.

I think the same can be said about the Heat right before they got Beasley.

Roaming Gnome
05-20-2009, 03:22 AM
One other thing... I never want to support a team that thinks losing is ok. Losing happens, but it should never be...ok.

I sure as hell don't want the players that play for my team to ever think that management is doing less then they possibly can to put a winner on the court. If your players don't buy in...what good is that when you do get talent? Losing breeds losing.

Kemo
05-20-2009, 03:32 AM
13th shocker lol.

http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/shocker-2.jpg

d_c
05-20-2009, 04:34 AM
To each his own.

I'm sitting here looking at a #4 pick when we had the worst record in the league. The only consolation I have is that my team didn't tank; they actually were that bad.

If we had tanked in an effort to get the best pick in a less than stellar draft, I'd most likely be suicidal tonight instead of philosophical.

It's real easy to point to the few times tanking was successful since we all know that hindsight is 20-20...

Tanking in one season to potentially improve your lot in a subsequent season is a slap in the face to every player on your roster. It's an insult to the fans who pay their hard-earned money to see a good game and it's the reason the lottery was created in the first place.

I know there are a lot of people who don't have a problem with it. I do...so I guess we'll just "agree to disagree"...

If a team is bad in the NBA, it's not just bad. It's usually irrelevant. Most people really don't care if a bad team is trying hard or not. People generally don't remember much from 17 win seasons or that a bunch of scrubs played hard. Do Denver fans care right now whether or not those bad teams (which were tanking) from earlier this decade tried hard or not? It's probably not bugging them much either way.

My point is that people generally don't care about how good a bad team is. There is no reward for being the best bad team in the league (exception in 93', and the lotto odds were changed right after this).

Yes, the lottery was created in the first place to curb tanking. The fact that the lottery was created underscores the fact that teams recognize it's a players league, and that the best players can often single handedly change a franchise. The fact that teams still tank even with the lottery is a testament to that.

It's not hindsight that tanking was successful a few times. It's a fact that it's worked and it will work again for someone in the future.

Bottom line with tanking:
-It's ONE of many tactics that can be used by a GM to build a team.

-Has it worked at times? Yes.

-Is it the best way to build a team? No.

-Are there worse ways of building a team than tanking? Absolutely, and there are several examples of that.

Unclebuck
05-20-2009, 07:52 AM
I wish the NBA would just stop fixing these draft lotteries - enough with helpoing the Clippers


I will say this, the Clippers are a very talented team - in fact they have 3 big guys (Camby, Kaman and Randolph) who are all much better than anything the pacers have

Major Cold
05-20-2009, 08:40 AM
4 times in last 20 years the worst team won the #1 pick. The Spurs did not have the worst record that year. The Cavs did not have the worst record.

There is no certainty in the draft. There is only chances. Why stake your success in a weak draft on mere chance?

MillerTime
05-20-2009, 08:46 AM
I wish the NBA would just stop fixing these draft lotteries - enough with helpoing the Clippers


I will say this, the Clippers are a very talented team - in fact they have 3 big guys (Camby, Kaman and Randolph) who are all much better than anything the pacers have

I dont know if the Clips are one of the many team that are rumored to being moved, but I think that if the NBA fixes the lotteries wouldnt the NBA help a team like the Pacers, Grizz or Sac that have been rumored to being sold?

duke dynamite
05-20-2009, 09:37 AM
I am not going to speculate that the Lottery is fixed or rigged, but I do feel like it is a joke. At least the presentation is. This "event" wastes the time of team reps, and apparently players now!?

This is something that can be done in a matter of a minute or two, but they turn it into a 15-minute sideshow.

Geeze, none of those guys were at all interested in being there, especially when basically 9-14 were set as the order of the record. I saw a few guys shrug and give the expression, "Oh well, it's what I expected."

Unclebuck
05-20-2009, 09:47 AM
I dont know if the Clips are one of the many team that are rumored to being moved, but I think that if the NBA fixes the lotteries wouldnt the NBA help a team like the Pacers, Grizz or Sac that have been rumored to being sold?

I was being sarcastic

Unclebuck
05-20-2009, 09:49 AM
I am not going to speculate that the Lottery is fixed or rigged, but I do feel like it is a joke. At least the presentation is. This "event" wastes the time of team reps, and apparently players now!?

This is something that can be done in a matter of a minute or two, but they turn it into a 15-minute sideshow.

Geeze, none of those guys were at all interested in being there, especially when basically 9-14 were set as the order of the record. I saw a few guys shrug and give the expression, "Oh well, it's what I expected."

It used to be more exciting when they did the big envelopes and the odds weren't weighted.

duke dynamite
05-20-2009, 09:49 AM
I was being sarcastic
/sarcasm

count55
05-20-2009, 09:50 AM
I was being sarcastic

Yeah, I knew that, but this board could use a readable green font. ;)

duke dynamite
05-20-2009, 09:52 AM
It used to be more exciting when they did the big envelopes and the odds weren't weighted.
I'm not sure how any of this could be exciting. I mean c'mon, how much money is ESPN gaining or losing from this drivel? Sure, I wanted to know where we picked, but those guys sitting at those desks looked pathetic. It was like looking at a bunch of beggars waiting for a handout. That and having Augustin and Love there really didn't make this look any less cheesy.

Jonathan
05-20-2009, 09:56 AM
I think it would be funny if all teams in the lotto had their mascots show up to the drawing.

count55
05-20-2009, 09:58 AM
I think it would be funny if all teams in the lotto had their mascots show up to the drawing.

Make it a competition:

Jello wrestling among the dance teams for the draft order.

Jonathan
05-20-2009, 10:02 AM
Make it a competition:

Jello wrestling among the dance teams for the draft order.

If this happens the PD thread of the year contest would be shut down because Heywood's photos from the competition would easily win.

owl
05-20-2009, 10:15 AM
http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/shocker-2.jpg


Live long and prosper? :-)

Kuq_e_Zi91
05-20-2009, 10:24 AM
The Wizards might as well look to package the 5th with a young prospect like Young or Blatche and go for a proven vet, preferably defensive minded.

They still think they can beat anyone if they make the playoffs and I don't think the 5th pick is going to help them while this core is still in tact.

If they can remain healthy and add a defensive minded vet to Arenas/Butler/Jamison they could make some noise.

Kemo
05-20-2009, 10:41 AM
Live long and prosper? :-)



LMAO

What you are speaking of would be "The Spocker" haha


http://jann.is/daily/uploads/two-in-the-pink-one-in-the-stink.jpg


.

http://www.tshirtbordello.com/images/shocker-Spocker-lg.gif
.

:D

.
.
.

MyFavMartin
05-20-2009, 08:21 PM
Make it a competition:

Jello wrestling among the dance teams for the draft order.

I'd watch THAT!

(At least I'd DVR it and call in sick the next day and watch it while my wife goes to work...)

DrFife
05-21-2009, 09:55 AM
By the way, there's a lot of interesting draft-related stuff floating around now:

http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm

http://www.draftexpress.com/blog/Jonathan-Givony/#NBA-Draft-Roundup-May-20-3224

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090520

vnzla81
05-21-2009, 07:17 PM
The bulls want to package Thomas and Hinrinch for a big time PF? does Murphy qualify as a big time PF? I would trade him and Ford for them

BRushWithDeath
05-21-2009, 07:22 PM
The bulls want to package Thomas and Hinrinch for a big time PF? does Murphy qualify as a big time PF? I would trade him and Ford for them

Troy Murphy qualifies as a big time PF in the same sense that TJ Ford qualifies as a big time PG.

d_c
05-21-2009, 07:22 PM
The bulls want to package Thomas and Hinrinch for a big time PF? does Murphy qualify as a big time PF? I would trade him and Ford for them

I'm not going to get into a useless debate about how "big time" Murphy is, but he just doesn't address what they need. They've already got guys who can rebound and they've got guys who can shoot 3s.

They want a veteran up front who is either really good at scoring in the post or really good at defending it. They have no use for Ford. Not at his salary anyways. He'd just be a really expensive backup to Rose.

vnzla81
05-21-2009, 08:10 PM
I'm not going to get into a useless debate about how "big time" Murphy is, but he just doesn't address what they need. They've already got guys who can rebound and they've got guys who can shoot 3s.

They want a veteran up front who is either really good at scoring in the post or really good at defending it. They have no use for Ford. Not at his salary anyways. He'd just be a really expensive backup to Rose.

They need a big men that can score, that is the one reason why they got Brad, I am just asking because I would like to have those guys, but I understand that for them to do that they have to ad another team or teams and the Pacers would have to trade TJ. Another thing is that I think that the Pacers could get real value for Murphy now that his value is high.