Well it looks like we are looked in with 2nd or 3rd best odds in the NBA Draft

[cardsunsfan]

I wish they had changed the odds a few years down the line... us getting Zion or even the second pick is quite small.... Only 14% chance for 1st, 13.4% chance for second (27.4% overall) we have a better chance combined of getting the fifth pick which is a major drop off. Any other position we are in besides top 2 probably has less than a 50% chance of ending up being our third best player (Ayton Booker, Oubre) and we stink... I really hope the basketball gods give us a little luck..

TEAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 AVG

You must be registered for see images attach

New York
14.0 13.4 12.7 12.0 47.9 3.7

You must be registered for see images attach

Phoenix
14.0 13.4 12.7 12.0 27.8 20.1 3.9

You must be registered for see images attach

Cleveland
14.0 13.4 12.7 12.0 14.8 26.0 7.0 4.1

You must be registered for see images attach

Chicago
12.5 12.2 11.9 11.4 7.2 25.7 16.8 2.2 4.4

 

[Sunburn]

My mistake.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Its because of tanking of course. There has to be a balance. No team should be rewarded for not trying to be competitive.

 

[elindholm]

Yeah, it's depressing that the Suns' chances of getting into the top two (27.4%) are barely better than their chances of getting #1 a year ago (25.0%). But they beat the odds once, so maybe they can do it again.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Its because of tanking of course. There has to be a balance. No team should be rewarded for not trying to be competitive.

Ostensibly it's because of tanking but the league has shown it could care less about true competitive balance IMO. All they are worried about is big markets and enough quality teams to keep their TV partners happy. And this current lottery won't last long IMO. AFAIC, it probably reduces the incentive to enter a season with a plan to tank but if they stay with it I suspect it will entice more teams to tank the moment their playoff hopes begin to dim.

 

[Mainstreet]

I'm ready to give all teams diminishing odds starting with the top ranked team based on record for the number 1 pick and subsequent picks.

It's time to stop the tanking.

 

[cardsunsfan]

I agree, unless its us

 

[AzStevenCal]

I'm ready to give all teams diminishing odds starting with the top ranked team based on record for the number 1 pick and subsequent picks.

It's time to stop the tanking.

I think they could stop it instantly if they really wanted to. Do away with the lottery, go back to reverse order of finish. Penalize any team 10 draft spots if there is evidence that they did not try to compete. Other than that, I really don't know how you stop something like tanking given that teams should have the right to do what they feel is necessary to build a winning team (within the rules that is).

 

[Mainstreet]

I think they could stop it instantly if they really wanted to. Do away with the lottery, go back to reverse order of finish. Penalize any team 10 draft spots if there is evidence that they did not try to compete. Other than that, I really don't know how you stop something like tanking given that teams should have the right to do what they feel is necessary to build a winning team (within the rules that is).

My guess proving teams did not try to compete would be tricky and difficult to prove. We went to the lottery system to lessen the reward for tanking teams. I do not think doing away with the lottery would help.

I would include every team in the lottery with lessened odds for the best teams. The odds would gradually improve for the worst teams but not significant enough to reward being bad.

The flaw of course the better teams could still win in the lottery but it would take away a lot of the incentive to lose.

 

[AzStevenCal]

My guess proving teams did not try to compete would be tricky and difficult to prove. We went to the lottery system to lessen the reward for tanking teams. I do not think doing away with the lottery would help.

I would include every team in the lottery with lessened odds for the best teams. The odds would gradually improve for the worst teams but not significant enough to reward being bad.

The flaw of course the better teams could still win in the lottery but it would take away a lot of the incentive to lose.

Not really. This wouldn't be for a court of law and it's not like it would be if it were a player. They can just inform all the teams that they will not tolerate tanking and that there will be penalties. Since all medical stuff is available to the NBA already, it should be pretty easy. It won't completely stop what Philly did, that has to be allowed, or at least much of what they did. But they can step in if they are intentionally trading away veterans for throw away players and things like that. And if there's doubt it wouldn't take much of an investigation to clear the air. The end of the season "tanking" won't completely go away either but most of it will.

 

[Mainstreet]

Not really. This wouldn't be for a court of law and it's not like it would be if it were a player. They can just inform all the teams that they will not tolerate tanking and that there will be penalties. Since all medical stuff is available to the NBA already, it should be pretty easy. It won't completely stop what Philly did, that has to be allowed, or at least much of what they did. But they can step in if they are intentionally trading away veterans for throw away players and things like that. And if there's doubt it wouldn't take much of an investigation to clear the air. The end of the season "tanking" won't completely go away either but most of it will.

Teams will find a way to lose if this is their intent. For example, it's hard to override medical decisions. My guess is there is probably a legitimate reason to sit a number of players at any given time. Players play with pain all the time but a number of them could use treatment. There will always be players who can be legitimately sit for things like back pain, sprained ankles, sore knees, minor surgery, etc.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Teams will find a way to lose if this is their intent. For example, it's hard to override medical decisions. My guess is there is probably a legitimate reason to sit a number of players at any given time. Players play with pain all the time but a number of them could use treatment. There will always be players who can be legitimately sit for things like back pain, sprained ankles, sore knees, minor surgery, etc.

I don't think so. You're right in that it's that way in the current environment but if the league says don't do it and pay the price if you do, doing so would give the "injured" players too much leverage with the organization. How do you lowball or release or trade a player that can rat you out for something like that?

 

[Yuma]

Congratulations Suns! You locked in an 86% chance of NOT getting Zion!

 

[BC867]

Congratulations Suns! You locked in an 86% chance of NOT getting Zion!

Perhaps the odds of not getting the #1 pick for a second consecutive year will convince the owners to start hiring General Managers and Head Coaches for skill instead of relying on luck.

The kind of leadership who, for example, would have known how to make Ayton more of a factor in the growth of the team and not just produce statistics.

Who am I kidding? Luck is the only thing the Suns and their fans have to cling to.

Next season's team will be the end of the decade. An embarrassing decade. We shall see what we shall see.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Ostensibly it's because of tanking but the league has shown it could care less about true competitive balance IMO. All they are worried about is big markets and enough quality teams to keep their TV partners happy. And this current lottery won't last long IMO. AFAIC, it probably reduces the incentive to enter a season with a plan to tank but if they stay with it I suspect it will entice more teams to tank the moment their playoff hopes begin to dim.

I have to disagree with this. The issue isn't that the league doesn't want more parity, but that they just suck at making it happen. If they didn't want competitive balance than they wouldn't have things like restricted free agency or bird rights or the ability to pay your own free agencts much more than anyone else. Probably their biggest hurdle to getting balance is the players union not wanting to relinquish any control from the players being able to decide their own destiny.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I have to disagree with this. The issue isn't that the league doesn't want more parity, but that they just suck at making it happen. If they didn't want competitive balance than they wouldn't have things like restricted free agency or bird rights or the ability to pay your own free agencts much more than anyone else. Probably their biggest hurdle to getting balance is the players union not wanting to relinquish any control from the players being able to decide their own destiny.

All of which occurred under Stern's tenure and I'm not sure how much of that was done for balance. It was the big deal franchises that wanted and needed Bird Rights so that spending a lot of money on FA's wouldn't prevent them from retaining the players they wanted to keep.

The small markets pushed hard for the financial advantage in dealing with their own stars but I'd say that was more about keeping teams solvent than competitive balance (keeping teams solvent became a non-issue thanks to the windfall from the last TV contract). And if those small to mid sized market teams were able to be truly competitive they wouldn't have needed as much help hanging onto their best players (IMO). But I agree they have their hands tied to a certain extent by the Players Union.

 

[Western Font]

Proving an outright rank might not be so difficult, but proving moves that allow a team to “gain” a few more crucial losses would be. If the top teams and players can “load manage,” why should the worst teams be forced to burn out their players to prove no tanking?

Some team or other will push it, and the more the league enforces it the more ineffective it will appear to be.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I think RJ Barrett could be a good compliment to the pieces we already have in place. Especially if we play him at the 4.

If we are outside of the top 3........ We will suck again.

God I hate Robert Sarver.

 

[taz02]

The only way to eliminate tanking is to randomly select the first 10 picks from every team in the league, with no weight given to the teams record. Teams not chosen to pick in the top 10 can have their odds of being drawn increased each year until the receive a top 10 pick.

Of course this wouldn't increase parity in the league because good teams could consistently receive high picks, which brings us to the underlying problem. As long as the league rewards teams for being bad, some teams will try and win whatever reward the league is offering.

Tanking is bad for players on the tanking team but not necessarily for the fans. The bottom 3-4 teams in the standings have had a horrible season of unwatchable basketball anyway. The race to the bottom gives hope to the fans, sort of a championship for losers...And the Suns happen to be pretty good at this.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The only way to eliminate tanking is to randomly select the first 10 picks from every team in the league, with no weight given to the teams record. Teams not chosen to pick in the top 10 can have their odds of being drawn increased each year until the receive a top 10 pick.

Of course this wouldn't increase parity in the league because good teams could consistently receive high picks, which brings us to the underlying problem. As long as the league rewards teams for being bad, some teams will try and win whatever reward the league is offering.

Tanking is bad for players on the tanking team but not necessarily for the fans. The bottom 3-4 teams in the standings have had a horrible season of unwatchable basketball anyway. The race to the bottom gives hope to the fans, sort of a championship for losers...And the Suns happen to be pretty good at this.

Not true. If you are willing to ignore the purpose of the draft in the first place, there are many ways to eliminate tanking. Big market teams would love your suggestion, it would further their opportunities to get and stay basketball rich. It's a given that certain markets will always have a built in advantage when it comes to signing and keeping players. Equalizing the draft throughout all the teams takes away one of the few benefits available for teams at the other end of the financial spectrum.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I'm not convinced tanking as it's currently being done is really harmful all that harmful for the league. I don't like it and I'm not alone but that's because I like watching basketball, real basketball. A lot of fans will just take a break for a few years while waiting for their team to rejoin the NBA. But I think it's becoming more and more obvious that tanking is typically NOT a prescription for success; most years there isn't a Lebron on the draft board nor is it always easy to identify the Antetokounmpo's before they pop. Anyway, IMO, as long as the bucks keep rolling in, the attempts to resolve tanking are more done more for perception than resolution.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Not true. If you are willing to ignore the purpose of the draft in the first place, there are many ways to eliminate tanking. Big market teams would love your suggestion, it would further their opportunities to get and stay basketball rich. It's a given that certain markets will always have a built in advantage when it comes to signing and keeping players. Equalizing the draft throughout all the teams takes away one of the few benefits available for teams at the other end of the financial spectrum.

I think what they have done to the lottery is a pretty effective method to at least minimize tanking. Sure there will be some pretty obvious tanking late in the season as teams try to get into the bottom 3, but you won't be seeing teams outright tank for full or even half seasons as they once did.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I think what they have done to the lottery is a pretty effective method to at least minimize tanking. Sure there will be some pretty obvious tanking late in the season as teams try to get into the bottom 3, but you won't be seeing teams outright tank for full or even half seasons as they once did.

Sure and I've said it several times. It will help stop the Philly style of tanking but really, how often have we seen that? Just twice that I can think of (Philly and maybe Cleveland), unless you want to throw us into it. I'd say we fall into the half season group and I'm unconvinced the new rule will have any impact on our kind of tanking. But yeah, Philly traded away anyone of value and intentionally signed G League level players to keep their win totals down, I can't see anyone taking that risk after this recent draft change.

 

[Mainstreet]

I don't think so. You're right in that it's that way in the current environment but if the league says don't do it and pay the price if you do, doing so would give the "injured" players too much leverage with the organization. How do you lowball or release or trade a player that can rat you out for something like that?

The decision to sit a player would be made by the teams medical staff and trainer. Sure the player has some input but the team ultimately makes the decision if a player can play. It's a process to do what is best for the player and team.

If a team really wants to tank there are other ways as well such as player rotations, minutes played and coaching.

All I'm saying if a team wants to be bad, they will find a way.

 

[Mainstreet]

I think what they have done to the lottery is a pretty effective method to at least minimize tanking. Sure there will be some pretty obvious tanking late in the season as teams try to get into the bottom 3, but you won't be seeing teams outright tank for full or even half seasons as they once did.

It's helped for sure. This end of the season jockeying for draft position drives me crazy. There must be a way to improve it.