2014 NBA draft/off-season thread

Two of those three aren't seeing any action in their first year. Heck, Philly's second first-round pick this year isn't playing. So they don't have to suffer quite as much.

I guess the Together-We-Build idea can you top talent, but if it busts (or the league changes the rules on you), you've lost Russian Roulette.

 

One of the many problems with the NBA is that if you're not a primo free agent destination or hit the jackpot with a trade, you need to get really bad in order to get really good, at least at the level where you're winning or playing for titles.

Recent exceptions may be the 2004 Pistons and the 2011 Mavericks.

That Pistons team had two top 5 picks, but at that point, Billups was with his fifth team and Darko was a rookie and a bust.

The Mavericks had Jason Kidd, who was with his second stint with the Mavericks and Chandler, who was with his fourth team.

I think every other team that has won a title had some combination of (and sometimes more than one) a top 5 pick who was as good as expected, a huge free agent signing or had benefited from an uneven trade, usually a player forcing his way out.

 

It's too bad they couldn't put something in the next CBA which would lower the amount of years until your FA kicks in if you at least complete your junior year of college. Three years for juniors, four years for sophs, five years for frosh.
Teams would have a more complete idea of a player's ability, some players would benefit by developing late instead of washing out in the NBA. The only losers would be those who are going to bust in any event. It's amazing how many non-entities have been drafted in the top-half of the draft in the last five years.

 

I think that would be kind of fair - wiping off a year from your initial NBA contract for each year you play in college and/or Europe and/or the NBA D-League before declaring for the draft - so I think there's little chance it would happen. Plus, most of the research out there suggests that the younger you draft a player the better, and if you get a college freshman or HS product for five or six years, there would be even more of an emphasis on drafting them.

 

It's moot at this point, but I agree completely. Love Doc Rivers, but his outrage has been awfully late for someone who angled his way out of Boston to land the Clippers gig and the front-office clout that came with it. His power has only expanded since Sterling got his butt caught in the tape-recorded ringer. Ditto for any players who might have flexed the idea of boycotting, at least those who willingly signed as FAs or signed new contracts to play for that team and owner.

A lot of people work for bigots and that sort of outrage doesn't supersede contracts or work rules. Doc and the world knew plenty about Sterling from the lawsuits brought against him as a landlord. They all knew about his bizarre, creepy hospitality in inviting friends into the shower/locker room. Yet they chose to take his money, principle be damned.

Best for all now to get back to playing/coaching and stop trying to top each other on the outrage scale. Ballmer's money spends just fine.

 

For this reason, I don't know if its ever possible for the NBA to make its draft/lottery "tank proof" regardless of what changes it tries to make.

 

The Kings signed an undrafted free agent - Eric Moreland - to a three year deal after a strong showing in summer league.
I have to think this is kind of rare, considering he was playing against first-round picks from two years ago who are just hoping to stay in the league. Apparently the Kings weren't the only ones interested.

 

Bad teams frequently have to overpay if other teams are interested.

 

I'm not sure that every player (or even Doc) was researching Sterling's lawsuits. And if they had, they would have seen that he paid money but denied any wrongdoing. However, it didn't take a lot of due diligence to know that he was a strange one and that Doc especially came running for the best opportunity and the biggest paycheck.

 

This is true. I still like the old way, where the worst team in the East and the worst team in the West had a coin flip to see who picked No. 1 and who picked No. 2 better where with rare exceptions, bad teams are able to become competitive.

The Clippers, with all of the times they were in the lottery or had the No. 1 pick, didn't get competitive until they traded for Chris Paul, who coupled with some of the lottery picks they had, (Griffin, etc...) made them a contender.

The Kings after more than a decade of futility, were competitive briefly after trading for Webber and combining him with some of the picks they had stockpiled.

I think it's a safe bet to say the three best players in the league right now are LeBron, Durant and Paul.

I don't know who 4-10 would be and in what order, but it would probably include: Love, Curry, Harden, Howard, Parker, Lillard, Aldridge, Noah, Rose (if healthy), Westbrook, Griffin, Jefferson, Duncan, Anthony, Irving...

Considering of the consensus top 3 players, each has another top 10-20 player on the roster, and one may be about to add another, it's a safe bet the Cavaliers, Clippers and Thunder are the favorites for next season, along with the teams that have two of those players, which would be the Rockets, Spurs and Bulls.

And, according to Vegas Insider: Those are the six teams with the best odds to win next season's title.

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/

I'd be beyond stunned if next year's champion isn't from that group of six. That's how predictable the NBA has become and that's why, teams are willing to tank to have a shot at a top 5 or top 20 player. It's also proof that in order to have parity in the NBA, not only do you have to change how the draft lottery is done, you need to revamp free agency. Let teams have one "franchise player" and it could make all the difference in the world. Players might be more willing to make their situations with their current teams work rather than force their way out of town. Not counting sign-and trades, of the players listed above who have been dealt, the teams dealing them predictably ended up being worse off than they were if they had kept them. Harden may be the exception because he was dealt from a top team that didn't think it could afford to keep him, and he also went from being a good players to an elite player since he was dealt.

 

Become? It's always been that way, it's the nature of a sport where one guy can make such an incredible difference.