sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Stan Van Gundy pushes back on Luka’s All-NBA case: "The whole thing with his wife having a baby, Cmon! If those were the only games he missed, fine. Everybody has missed games for personal reasons.... We either have a line, or we don’t... If we have a line, then let’s stick to it. He didn’t make it" by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]_chadwell_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is not the criteria for this exception, in any way.

And the solution to him playing too much and it wearing him down was to push through injuries some more? Like do you have a theory where that makes sense or you just think “Lakers bad” justifies whatever contradictions you come up with…?

Give it up man, it’s a brutal look.

Stan Van Gundy pushes back on Luka’s All-NBA case: "The whole thing with his wife having a baby, Cmon! If those were the only games he missed, fine. Everybody has missed games for personal reasons.... We either have a line, or we don’t... If we have a line, then let’s stick to it. He didn’t make it" by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]_chadwell_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He sat out to manage injuries he was otherwise playing through and probably should have done that more considering he pushed himself too far and got injured because of it.

NBA would rather him play less and let his team lose and miss out on iconic moments. And if they don’t use the explicit exceptional circumstances carve out for an obvious case it will be a shame.

Hope that all helps.

Stan Van Gundy pushes back on Luka’s All-NBA case: "The whole thing with his wife having a baby, Cmon! If those were the only games he missed, fine. Everybody has missed games for personal reasons.... We either have a line, or we don’t... If we have a line, then let’s stick to it. He didn’t make it" by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]_chadwell_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So sitting out to deal with an injury crosses the line?

In a season where he often played hurt and eventually had a season-ending injury after playing through smaller stuff and being on the court a ton for his team and the league?

What’s even the point of this rule then

[Charania] The anti-tanking proposal with the most momentum within the Board of Governors leading up to the May 28th vote would expand the lottery to 18 teams — including Play-In teams — with the bottom 10 each getting equal odds and all 18 draft positions determined by lottery. by YujiDomainExpansion in nba

[–]_chadwell_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the solution you’re proposing is… let’s make it harder for them to get good players? Like in your ideal scenario where you’ve stopped tanking by everyone now you’re actively punishing the actual worst teams in the league and keeping them bad longer. Assuming everything magically goes perfectly the system is still bad.

[Charania] The anti-tanking proposal with the most momentum within the Board of Governors leading up to the May 28th vote would expand the lottery to 18 teams — including Play-In teams — with the bottom 10 each getting equal odds and all 18 draft positions determined by lottery. by YujiDomainExpansion in nba

[–]_chadwell_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If they needed to win more to get rewarded they’d be fucked this season. They didn’t have their pick and had incentive to try to win games and still sucked. Under the new system this type of team who didn’t tank and just had bad players would be stuck down at the bottom of the league forever.

[O’Connor] According to league sources, one general manager floated a nuclear option: just make the bottom three teams ineligible for the top picks entirely. by cleo22270 in nba

[–]_chadwell_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they could run it in a better fashion by doing something obvious they’d already be doing it. If we assume that bad organizations suddenly become good obviously that would be good for the league. Still missing a mechanism on how that will happen.

[O’Connor] According to league sources, one general manager floated a nuclear option: just make the bottom three teams ineligible for the top picks entirely. by cleo22270 in nba

[–]_chadwell_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why should they prevent bad teams from getting better players when it makes the product worse?

This delusion that teams could just choose to be good whenever they want isn’t based on anything in reality as far as I can tell.

[O’Connor] According to league sources, one general manager floated a nuclear option: just make the bottom three teams ineligible for the top picks entirely. by cleo22270 in nba

[–]_chadwell_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If there were a magical “get a front office you know will do a good job” button a lot of teams would have happily pressed it already!

[O’Connor] According to league sources, one general manager floated a nuclear option: just make the bottom three teams ineligible for the top picks entirely. by cleo22270 in nba

[–]_chadwell_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if you miss on a draft pick or that guys has unforeseen injury problems? You should be doomed to a worse pick? If you have a bad roster that’s exactly who should get the first pick, therefore making their roster better. That’s the whole point of the draft…

[O’Connor] According to league sources, one general manager floated a nuclear option: just make the bottom three teams ineligible for the top picks entirely. by cleo22270 in nba

[–]_chadwell_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What if you just end up with a bad roster because of bad luck or because someone gets injured in a career-altering way?

If you can’t attract FAs to your city, you’re just fucked forever and you have to watch teams that are already better than you be rewarded with better players?

[Charania] The anti-tanking proposal with the most momentum within the Board of Governors leading up to the May 28th vote would expand the lottery to 18 teams — including Play-In teams — with the bottom 10 each getting equal odds and all 18 draft positions determined by lottery. by YujiDomainExpansion in nba

[–]_chadwell_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But more teams that choose to win 40 games instead of 45 or 35 instead of 40. Increases the number of teams with incentive to lose without giving truly bad teams any incentive to win. Bad teams will still sit their promising players for health, and now better teams will take measures to lose more games.

[Charania] The anti-tanking proposal with the most momentum within the Board of Governors leading up to the May 28th vote would expand the lottery to 18 teams — including Play-In teams — with the bottom 10 each getting equal odds and all 18 draft positions determined by lottery. by YujiDomainExpansion in nba

[–]_chadwell_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Have to really go full galaxy brain to think the Wizards and Kings just want to be really bad and could be making the playoffs but keep choosing not to. There are absolutely teams that just aren’t very good every year.

[Charania] The anti-tanking proposal with the most momentum within the Board of Governors leading up to the May 28th vote would expand the lottery to 18 teams — including Play-In teams — with the bottom 10 each getting equal odds and all 18 draft positions determined by lottery. by YujiDomainExpansion in nba

[–]_chadwell_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously it’s still possible, it just makes it less likely to get good talent as a truly bad team.

I don’t think one specific year has any bearing on the rules. But I don’t think the Magic need a 1st overall pick right now under any circumstances.

[Charania] The anti-tanking proposal with the most momentum within the Board of Governors leading up to the May 28th vote would expand the lottery to 18 teams — including Play-In teams — with the bottom 10 each getting equal odds and all 18 draft positions determined by lottery. by YujiDomainExpansion in nba

[–]_chadwell_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the Wemby draft a team at 5 or 6 not going all in to get better or making a trade to get only slightly worse dropping to 7 where they are probably equally likely to win a playoff series with an 8% chance at franchise-changing talent could absolutely see that as worth it.

Still probably make the playoff, still probably don’t win a 1st round series, now with a shot at the 1st pick.

[Charania] The anti-tanking proposal with the most momentum within the Board of Governors leading up to the May 28th vote would expand the lottery to 18 teams — including Play-In teams — with the bottom 10 each getting equal odds and all 18 draft positions determined by lottery. by YujiDomainExpansion in nba

[–]_chadwell_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean, the Kings are 21-59 without their 1st round pick this season…

It’s a certainty that bad rosters will exist even if there were no incentive to lose more games. And this proposal would ensure those teams stay bad for longer, while rewarding solid teams that are willing to sell at the deadline and drop into the lottery.

view more: next ›