The Clippers' loss in Atlanta puts the Lakers in the 3rd seed, and locks in Memphis/Clippers in RD 1. Both are 40-25. Unknown if the Lakers will get Dallas or Denver and unknown who will have HCA in the Memphis/Clippers series.

Jazz looking good early, getting out on the break off of rebounds. I'm sorry for calling your team name stupid for all these years, Utah.

I don't think Utah has scored since 1402.

I would like to clarify that my points on the draft have nothing to do with Truehoop's little crusade about tanking. I don't care about the teams who stop caring about winning with 10 games to play. I do care about the teams that blow things up for years because they have to try to do well in the draft. And I care that the teams like the Rockets, probably above all others, are essentially screwing themselves by continuing to be a competitive team.

People claim to care about competitive balance, but then they spend time trying to change the cap or control player movement in ways that make little difference and probably are counter-productive. In my opinion, the one thing that could improve competitive balance in this league is if the NBA stopped making it so hard to build through the draft.

Bear with me for a second.

If you are a large market team, you have more options for putting together a good team. You have chances at the better free agents and you can more easily absorb a mistake or two. Most importantly, there is little to nothing that can change those facts. As long as the players have any free movement, the larger and more desirable markers will have those advantages. So where does that leave a smaller market team? They need to build through the draft. They've got to try to hit a home run in the lottery. The problem is that to get an opportunity to do that, you have to go the wrong direction. You have to be bad. You have to get rid of players who have value because they make you too good to get a high pick. And then, once you get your cornerstone, or what you think is your cornerstone, you have to turn on a dime and get your momentum going the other direction and start getting good. It is hard to do that. You have a team full of ####, and then you have a franchise guy and a team full of ####. There is little room for error, and if your cornerstone is only a triple and not a homer, you are in bad trouble.

I don't think it is a coincidence that several of the teams that have done the best out of the lottery were essentially one-year fluke losers or sucked out under long odds to win. The Thunder are probably the best example of a team that was truly bad and managed to build through the lottery. And they had to not only get high picks three years running, they had to nail all three of them. Some of that is good management. A lot of that is luck. They're even lucky in a ###### up way that Durant took some time to truly be a great player. They're even luckier that the Durant/Westbrook combo wasn't good enough in '08-'09 to win more than 23 games. Managing to draft 3 guys of the Durant/Westbrook/Harden caliber in the top 4 of the draft 3 straight years is a hell of a parlay. Most of the time, you either blow one of those picks, or the first guy or two make you too good to get the next guy.

I think there is a strong argument to be made that the NBA would be better served, and competitive balance would be improved, if bad teams had the ability to get their momentum moving upwards and still have a chance at the franchise level talent. That is a small market team's best chance at a championship. It is also much, much better for the fans. A 40 win team that is capable of beating anybody is pretty fun to watch. Especially when there's a chance they could continue to improve. But it sucks when you deal with the reality that being a competitive 40 win team means that you are seriously harming your chances at an actual championship down the road.

I don't really know what the answer is, but I think you could alter the draft to reward actually putting a decent team on the floor. And I don't think it would disadvantage bad teams or small market teams at all. Every team in the league can put together the beginnings of a contender. Getting the franchise player is the hard part. The NBA makes it even harder by making sure you can't have much of the rest of a contender in place unless you get very lucky.

Favors gets Utah off the schneid.

Celtics 78, Heat 66, eh?--[checks boxscore]--gotta wonder about the street value of those tickets an hour before game time.....

Suns haven't scored since my post...

Re: Maxwn's point:

Sure, I think that's a problem. It's sort of a problem for other people, since I'm a Lakers fan. The problem is caused by one thing: the scarcity of true superstars. The best way to remove the problem is to massively increase revenue sharing, to the extent that there is very little difference in revenue available per team (note: this is NOT the same as a salary cap), and to get rid of the max contract.

Until you get rid of the max contract, there is no way for a bad team in a bad market to acquire a true superstar except in the draft. The best you can do is overpay for guys like Nene or maybe get really lucky with a guy like Arenas for a couple of years.

There is little room for error, and if your cornerstone is only a triple and not a homer, you are in bad trouble.

And if he's a home run, its pretty quick that you're drafting out of the lottery, and don't have a lot of other options for team-building.

Which I guess Max addressed in the later part of his post.

The executive committee of the NBA Players Association sent a memo to its player representatives Tuesday night that presented NBPA president Derek Fisher as a rogue leader who has been delinquent in his duties since the end of the lockout.

ESPN.com obtained a copy of the memo from a source close to a player rep.

In addition to saying Fisher has failed to participate in executive committee conference calls, failed to make appearances on the union's behalf, and chosen not to cooperate with executive director Billy Hunter since January, the memo presents a timeline of recent events to support its decision last week to ask for Fisher's resignation.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7852526/nba-union-executive-committee-sends-memo-depicting-nbpa-head-derek-fisher-rogue-leader

"According to Jim" Buss, the Lakers were sharing 4-6M/year in revenue under the old CBA, and will be sharing around 50M:

The revenue sharing is what hurts us. The revenue sharing [from $4 million-6 million in the past to $50 million-80 million a year in the future] kicks in next year, and that’s not part of the new CBA, but you have to take that into consideration.People were throwing it back in our face with the new television deal, and it’s basically kind of wiped that out. Fifty million dollars extra per year just kind of went out the door...David Stern I thought did a fantastic job. I thought he tried to keep it calm and fair. I think most of the other teams were pointing at the Lakers. They were saying that the Lakers do this, it’s not fair. The Lakers do that, it’s not fair. But, in the end, I think David Stern kept it all calm and did the best he could.

Sure, I think that's a problem. It's sort of a problem for other people, since I'm a Lakers fan. The problem is caused by one thing: the scarcity of true superstars. The best way to remove the problem is to massively increase revenue sharing, to the extent that there is very little difference in revenue available per team (note: this is NOT the same as a salary cap), and to get rid of the max contract.

I don't really agree. I am agnostic on whether more revenue sharing does much at all other than shift money around between the owners. And I don't particularly care for creating very little difference in revenue available per team because that saps the incentive for an owner to improve his own product. I do think the max contract hurts smaller market teams, but I am skeptical that it matters that much. The more I argue this point, the more I think there is a good argument for making the draft order into a triangle. Give the best picks to those right around the playoff line descending in both directions. Give the worst picks to the very best teams and the next worst picks to the truly awful teams. Make a team have to put some effort into it before they get lucky and win the lottery. Undoubtedly there are problems with such a system, so I am not going to push that point very hard. I do think shifting more draft talent into the mid-tier teams and away from the abysmal is the way to go though.

Does getting rid of the max contract help? Garnett was worth every cent he was paid (I think his was the most notable large contract before the max salary rules?), but was Minnesota handcuffed by revenue, or by the salary cap? Or are you saying that increased revenue sharing changes the salary cap enough such that that's not an issue? Or that other teams would be equally handcuffed under it with their single superstar?

And I should really just stop talking for a while because Max is doing a fantastic job of expressing all of the things I'm feeling about the draft and competitive balance.

I don't know that there has to be a triangle. If a 40-win team had the same shot at the #1 pick as a 20-win team, everybody would try to be a 40-win team--because 40-win teams are more attractive to fans and free agents.

The more I think about it, the more I think that would be the way to go: treat all non-playoff teams evenly. If nobody can guarantee a significant shot at the #1 pick, nobody will game the system. The value of a playoff berth will reduce tanking at that margin; hardcore fans might want to bail on the #8 seed position, but you'll never get casual fans on board with it. And what NBA fan would complain if some hard-working 40-win team scores the #1?

The max contract hurts because a team like Memphis or Minnesota is not an attractive location for free agents. If one of those teams wanted to go after LeBron there is not a ####### chance in hell they would sign him because its Memphis or Minneapolis. He's going to sign in Miami because everyone can pay him the same and Miami is a better location. Or LA cause its the Lakers and LA is great. If there was no max contract, one of those teams could decide to go balls to the wall and pay him a ton of money. It might work. The other problem is that once a team in a desirable location gets a guy like Lebron, they wind up getting him cheap because there isn't any more they can pay him. If they had to pay market price, the team that got him would have to sink more resources into Lebron which would free things up down the line for your less desirable markets. There is very little chance that Miami would have all three of Wade, Lebron and Bosh if there wasn't a max contract.

So it does matter. I'm not totally sure that it matters a lot, but it definitely hurts the smaller market teams.

Edit: For that matter, Cleveland might have kept him if there was no max contract.

And I don't particularly care for creating very little difference in revenue available per team because that saps the incentive for an owner to improve his own product.

If you took right around 75% of increased revenue streams, it keeps the incentive at least partially intact.

Does getting rid of the max contract help? Garnett was worth every cent he was paid (I think his was the most notable large contract before the max salary rules?), but was Minnesota handcuffed by revenue, or by the salary cap? Or are you saying that increased revenue sharing changes the salary cap enough such that that's not an issue? Or that other teams would be equally handcuffed under it with their single superstar?

Increased revenue sharing would necessitate getting rid of the salary cap.

Right now, the salary cap means different things to different teams. For the Bucks, for instance, they're probably not profitable if they go above the cap. The Kings may not be profitable at the cap. However, the Knicks and the Lakers would be profitable at 150mm payrolls. Getting rid of the max contract and leaving the cap doesn't fix things. You have to dramatically increase revenue sharing as well. Right now, the only way to get off the treadmill is to get lucky. Imagine if you were the Rockets and you could have offered LeBron a 40 million dollar deal. Doesn't that team look attractive?

Honestly 1415 is probably actually the correct way to go. It's more plausible anyway, and at the margin it moves draft picks from the truly shitty teams to the better non-playoff teams. Just do a random draw spots 1-14 for the non-playoff teams.

So Houston says "Hey, we can pay you $40M and we're smart enough to build around you, because look what we've built without a superstar"?

So Houston says "Hey, we can pay you $40M and we're smart enough to build around you, because look what we've built without a superstar"?

Yes? I mean, I hope they say more than that, but mostly yeah, it's just the dump truck full of cash. Because $$$ = Respect. Superstar athletes want respect more than anything.

So Houston says "Hey, we can pay you $40M and we're smart enough to build around you, because look what we've built without a superstar"?

Something like that. And it might work or it might not, but at a minimum it would bid up the price of the true superstars to the point where teams that already have the advantage of good locations and more resources don't also get a franchise player for a fraction of his value. Honestly, just the bidding up of the top 15 players might go a long way towards creating more competitive balance.

If nobody can guarantee a significant shot at the #1 pick, nobody will game the system.

And really bad teams are that much more likely to stay really bad forever.

Does tanking really affect people's experience of the NBA this much? Granted, the Celtics have been good the last few years, but they were bad before that -- and even got accused of tanking quite a bit. Did it bother me? Not really. They were a bad team then. I mostly just wanted them to play the young guys, to see what they had, which in practice often equals tanking.

And really bad teams are that much more likely to stay really bad forever.

Why? Please explain why. The teams that are in the lottery now are at least as likely to continue to be bad as to get lucky and become good, partly because there is a strong incentive for them to be very bad before they get a lottery pick. Why would it be worse? Even if you went to a completely unweighted lottery, the worst team in the league would have an expected pick of 7, just like everyone else out of the playoffs. We're not talking about them picking 28th. And they wouldn't have any incentive to get rid of veteran guys who make you better but aren't franchise guys, so the picks they get would be coming into better situations.

Make good picks, make smart personnel decisions, gamble on some higher-upside vets, make a good trade. Get better. Or don't, in which case I don't care what happens to you.

Does tanking really affect people's experience of the NBA this much? Granted, the Celtics have been good the last few years, but they were bad before that -- and even got accused of tanking quite a bit. Did it bother me? Not really. They were a bad team then. I mostly just wanted them to play the young guys, to see what they had, which in practice often equals tanking.

This is the part that gets me. Bad teams are bad. Believe it or not, fans of bad teams know their teams are bad. I'm a fan of a bad team. I don't care one whit if they win four more games this year playing as hard as they can than if they tank and do not. Perhaps they finish 12th instead of 13th. Yay. I do care however whether they get a decent draft pick. I suspect I'm not alone and that the fans of other bad teams mostly feel the same because their team, as mentioned, is bad. They're probably going to lose the game the fan has scraped together their hard-earned cash to sit in the rafters for anyway. The anti-tanking brigade to me seems to be mostly made up of fans of the rich kids, who are apoplectic about all the poor kids who are gaming the system, ignoring the fact that the system is already heavily swung in their favor. (People here excluded - I'm thinking of your average Grantland writer who can afford to hate tanking, because none of their teams are involved. Man I like those guys less and less.) Draw your own analogies there.

The problem is caused by one thing: the scarcity of true superstars. The best way to remove the problem is to massively increase revenue sharing, to the extent that there is very little difference in revenue available per team (note: this is NOT the same as a salary cap), and to get rid of the max contract.

I agree with this. All the reverse draft idea does (without tinkering with revenue sharing or the max salary) is ensure that there will be a long-term underclass. How in this scenario are the Bobcats ever going to be good again? They can't attract a worthwhile free agent AND they're getting crappy draft picks because the team truly, non-tankingly sucks so they'd be picking 13th or 14th every time out. You're talking about throwing teams into almost automatic 10 or 15 year suck cycles. Monkeying with the draft doesn't change the fundamental problem (there aren't many superstars, and those there are are incentivized to join up 2-3 to a team b/c of the max contract and little revenue sharing). I don't see how you can change the draft order without also leveling the financial ground so bad teams have SOME way to try and dig their way out of it. And still those teams would be at a significant disadvantage, because all there just aren't that many meaningful free agents out there anyway.

Does tanking really affect people's experience of the NBA this much?

Not mine. My initial remark was mildly sarcastic. Other than here, I have read zero words on tanking.

And what NBA fan would complain if some hard-working 40-win team scores the #1?

Fans of a team that went 7-59 might not dig it, as you of course know.

I'm sorry for calling your team name stupid for all these years, Utah.

We forgive you. :) And we'll give New Orleans their name back as soon as the Lakers do the same for your Wolves.

Jazz in the playoffs!!! WOOOO HOOOO!!!!!!!

I really like our crunch time lineup. I'll take 57 points, 42 boards, and 8 blocks from our 3 bigs any day of the week.

Enjoy our draft pick, Minny. It was totally worth it. :)

Primer RT:

David Locke
Read this closely - In the first 18 minutes the Jazz had Millsap at the 3 with two bigs they allowed just 21 points = 56 pts per 48 mins

Favors was in beast mode the whole 1st half. Millsap being able to play the 3 makes this team so much better. Favors can anchor the defense and they don't lose offense since both Millsap and Big Al are out there. Entering early season STEAGLES mode, the Jazz will beat the Spurs in 6 due to their length and youth.

RE tanking: I think what Golden State is doing is awful, an embarrassment to the game, and they should have to give the Jazz their pick no matter what. And yes, this is due 100% to me being a Jazz fan.

1415 -- The NBA of course used to have this, where every non-playoff team had equal odds (the infamous frozen envelope Ewing lottery being the most famous example). 1985-89 to be precise. I was too young to pay attention to much of anything then, but I am curious if one of the old-timers can summarize the discussions around it and why they moved away from it to the weighted lottery. As far as I can tell, the lottery existed in the first place to discourage tanking, so it's surprising to me that they'd change it back.

RE tanking: I think what Golden State is doing is awful, an embarrassment to the game, and they should have to give the Jazz their pick no matter what. And yes, this is due 100% to me being a Jazz fan.

There is a very interesting race for lottery spots 3-8:

SAC 21-44
NOH 21-44
CLE 21-43
TOR 22-43
NJN 22-43
GSW 23-42

There isn't much difference between pick 3 and 8 in this draft IMO (except for the W's), but pick 1 is big and of course the better position you get the better chance you have at it. In addition, ties just split the ping-pong balls, so every game counts for all these teams.

Remaining games:
-- The Kings host the Lakers, who are locked into the 3 seed and will presumably be resting.
-- The Hornets play at Houston.
-- The Nets and Raptors face off in a big game.
-- Cleveland hosts the Wiz, then plays at a resting Chicago.
-- Golden State hosts the resting Spurs.

So, if the Warriors can manage to lose to the Spurs, they will be in a 2-way tie for 7th, so at the mercy of a coinflip for their pick. If Cleveland wins both of their remaining games (I would be surprised given this competition), it would be a 3-way tie for 6th.

The Nets-Raptors game should be on national TV.

And what NBA fan would complain if some hard-working 40-win team scores the #1?

If I remember correctly, the lottery was unweighted when Orlando won it in back to back years. There was enough complaining about a 40 win team with Shaq-sized upside scoring another top pick that they went to weighting.

I think that turned out to be a very short sighted decision.

My memory is not correct. They went to a weighted lottery in 1990. Then after Orlando won Webber's rights in 1993, they just increased the weights, so the best non playoff team had a 0.5% chance instead of 1.5% to win.

The more I think about it, the more I feel comfortable that unweighted is the way to go, for the reasons maxwn outlined.

Celtics get #4 seed because of the division thing, but #5 Atlanta has a better record (though they could still tie based on game #66.) Who gets HFA?

[1433] Atlanta does.

I just checked the standings and the only matchup locked in appears to be BOS-ATL. Can anyone think of another year where the playoffs start in...3 days and we don't know 7 of the 8 matchups?

1433: Team with better record does.

just checked the standings and the only matchup locked in appears to be BOS-ATL. Can anyone think of another year where the playoffs start in...3 days and we don't know 7 of the 8 matchups?

Grizzlies are locked in to the Clippers as well. HCA could still flip in that one though.

Idea: Instead of a draft lottery, hold a draft auction. Each team, each year, gets one draft 'chit' for each win they get after their team is eliminated (or whatever). Playoff teams get chits according to some formula.

Then, at the end of the season, two weeks before the draft, auction off the draft spots, starting with the #1 pick. Allow teams to accumulate and trade draft 'chits' rather than specific picks. If you want a top pick but are a middling team, you just save your chits for two or three years until you can afford it.

I really like that idea though Id go with a straight chit allocation based on record. (worst gets most)

RE tanking: I think what Golden State is doing is awful, an embarrassment to the game, and they should have to give the Jazz their pick no matter what. And yes, this is due 100% to me being a Jazz fan.

Same. I always disliked the idea of tanking, but I admit I never really gave it much thought until now, now that it has a big impact on my teams future. But yes, it's shameful what the Warriors are doing. To manipulate the system to screw another team out of a pick they deserve is pretty underhanded, IMO (and I know they're doing it to improve their own team and aren't deliberately doing it just to hurt the Jazz and I also know I wouldn't care if it was any other team being affected, etc, etc).

I really like that idea though Id go with a straight chit allocation based on record. (worst gets most)

Wouldn't bad teams still tank then to get more chits?

I folded my idea into the anti-tanking discussion but it's really independent of one's position on that issue.

If I remember correctly, the lottery was unweighted when Orlando won it in back to back years. There was enough complaining about a 40 win team with Shaq-sized upside scoring another top pick that they went to weighting.

No, it was weighted. Just not nearly as complicated. It was literal pinballs. I believe the best non-draft team had 1 ball, the next had 2, and so on and so on. Out of all the lottery weightings, I still think this the best way to do it. It made the lottery order totally random but still gave the worst teams a good shot.

The weighting now is so convoluted. You can move down only so many spots, the last team out of the playoffs has a tiny shot at the #1 pick which makes improving out of mediocrity very hard.

All of the doom and gloom hand-wringing over the idiotic Marko Jaric trade ended up costing the Wolves... about 7 likely spots in a deep draft. I'm going to keep cheering for Utah in the playoffs to thank them. Plus, their crowd was great last night, and I love Favors.

There seem to be two goals of the lottery in mind. The first is that one spot in the standings (or two or three) should not affect chances that much to discourage tanking. The second is that the bottom teams should have a better chance of getting top picks than the middling teams.

That shouldn't be too hard to fix. Just assign each team a certain portion of the chance by slot (probably linearly) and then assign each team a certain portion just for missing the playoffs (same for each team).

If you weigh both elements equally you get something like 10.2% for the first team, 9.8% chance for the second team and on down to 4% chance for the 14th team. You raffle off the top spot first, then remove the team that got it, recalculate, and raffle of the second spot, on down to the 14th,

So does New York even want to win this game tonight against the Clippers? Are they still alive to pass Orlando or can they only move down below the Sixers?

So does New York even want to win this game tonight against the Clippers? Are they still alive to pass Orlando or can they only move down below the Sixers?

They crushed the Magic twice last month, so they have the tiebreaker over them. It shouldn't matter though, as Orlando is playing Charlotte.

So does New York even want to win this game tonight against the Clippers? Are they still alive to pass Orlando or can they only move down below the Sixers?

i don't think new york matches up very well with chicago. do they really want to see what rose can do to baron davis? what boozer can do to amar'''e? and deng is just about the worst matchup that carmelo could come up against in the east.


that doesn't strike me as something that's worth tanking for.

So this year the Hawks are a middle-tier seed with a chance to win the first round, but unlikely to advance any further?

That's new.

i don't think new york matches up very well with chicago. do they really want to see what rose can do to baron davis? what boozer can do to amar'''e? and deng is just about the worst matchup that carmelo could come up against in the east.

For whatever its worth, I'm sure Shumpert would spend most of the time guarding Rose. I'm sure Baron would love chasing Rip around screens all day, though.

Interesting though that both of the top seeds seem to have really important guys banged up; Wade with the finger and I guess Bosh with the hamstring. Then you have Rose who seems to have been banged up all year, I guess Deng is healthier than he has been in a while though, right?

I don't think the Knicks match up particularly well with either team, which makes sense since those are the 2 best teams in the conference. I was somewhat optimistic regarding a Knicks-Bulls series after the game at the garden (and by that I mean I was thinking the Knicks could win 2 games or so) but the Bulls killed the Knicks 2 days later by crushing them on the glass, which is exactly how they beat them the first time they played in Chicago. I guess having Amare back would help on the glass, but then again, when you are counting on Amare to improve your rebounding, well that probably says a lot.

i don't think new york matches up very well with chicago. do they really want to see what rose can do to baron davis? what boozer can do to amar'''e? and deng is just about the worst matchup that carmelo could come up against in the east.


that doesn't strike me as something that's worth tanking for.

Shumpert will be defending Rose. Chandler will guard Noah and Boozer (Amar'e will stay back on O). It's not so much that NY matches up well with CHI (check out the rebounding margins in their games this year), but MIA is just a much, much, much worse team. The only "good" matchup for NYK is IND who I'm confident they would beat. Unfortunately, they only get IND if they beat a motivated LAC and have ORL lose to CHA. This is why it sucks to lose games you should have won.

EDIT: Coke, I suppose.

The executive committee of the NBA Players Association sent a memo to its player representatives Tuesday night that presented NBPA president Derek Fisher as a rogue leader who has been delinquent in his duties since the end of the lockout.

ESPN.com obtained a copy of the memo from a source close to a player rep.

In addition to saying Fisher has failed to participate in executive committee conference calls, failed to make appearances on the union's behalf, and chosen not to cooperate with executive director Billy Hunter since January, the memo presents a timeline of recent events to support its decision last week to ask for Fisher's resignation.

The counter:

The National Basketball Players Association, whose business practices are being questioned by President Derek Fisher, paid almost $4.8 million to Executive Director Billy Hunter’s family members and their professional firms since 2001, according to public records.
Fisher was asked to resign last week by the union’s leadership after he sought an outside review of finances. The request for him to step down came after the association’s executive committee spoke with Hunter on a conference call.

The quote from Maurice Evans is the first player I've seen chime in:

Evans told reporters on April 20 that Fisher declined an invitation from the executive committee to defend himself on a conference call with Hunter. Nepotism at the union was among the topics discussed on the call, Evans said.

“Billy answered those questions to our satisfaction, was very open and candid with us, and we were satisfied, and again, the players were disappointed because Derek has yet to address us,” he said.

Sounds like Evans trusts Hunter, but were I am I'd want more facts before I took sides. IMO, this still looks pretty bad for Hunter.

Sounds like Evans trusts Hunter, but were I am I'd want more facts before I took sides. IMO, this still looks pretty bad for Hunter.


Maybe. Fisher not even showing up looks bad. You can't just blow it off. You can come in and totally lay into them, but to not show up? Be professional.

I believe it was Stein or Simmons who said that Hunter's daughter's firm has been used since 2001. And it wasn't a secret, her name was in everything since then. If it's that known and no one cared, you can't really blame Hunter.

Maybe. Fisher not even showing up looks bad. You can't just blow it off. You can come in and totally lay into them, but to not show up? Be professional.

It's a war of words at this point. Who knows what exactly he blew off at what part of the process. The union is trying to discredit Fisher and by extension his claims by putting this stuff out there. I'm not taking this at face value.

From the Bloomberg article I linked:

While Hunter isn’t breaking any law or violating association rules, having so many relatives making money from the union is enough for an independent examination, said Robert Barbato, a business ethics professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

“The involvement of so many family members who are receiving significant economic benefits raises enough of an ethical concern that an independent review seems required,” Barbato said in an e-mail. “Unless there is a reasonable explanation for calling for his resignation, I’m especially concerned that the executive committee has tried to silence Derek Fisher.”

This is exactly my position.

So this year the Hawks are a middle-tier seed with a chance to win the first round, but unlikely to advance any further?

That's new.

At least they're paying Joe Johnson enough that this Groundhog Day scenario is their longterm ceiling. That should be nice consolation.

Honestly, it could be worse. A lot worse.

There seem to be two goals of the lottery in mind. The first is that one spot in the standings (or two or three) should not affect chances that much to discourage tanking. The second is that the bottom teams should have a better chance of getting top picks than the middling teams.

Sorry if I sound reactionary when I say this, but I'm unconvinced that the league should be going out of its way to help the moribund teams. I understand the argument that they don't want teams to flounder because it will be bad for attendance, tv ratings, and general fan interest. On the other hand, the nature of the league is zero sum and competitive; there will ALWAYS be bad teams. What you really want is to make sure that when teams are good, fan interest is high. Is there any evidence that one team being bad for three years is a net revenue loss compared to three teams each being bad for one year? Anecdotally, the Wolves were ok this year after being wretched for about five, and the fans happily came back and filled the seats. ISTM that fans will come see good teams, so the league should not concern itself too much with making sure the worst teams get better instead of the semi-bad ones.

This is exactly my position.


Probably not a bad one.

I've read nothing of this story. Maybe I'll read up on it. Maybe not, there's a lot more stuff going on that's a ton more interesting

While Hunter isn’t breaking any law or violating association rules, having so many relatives making money from the union is enough for an independent examination, said Robert Barbato, a business ethics professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

“The involvement of so many family members who are receiving significant economic benefits raises enough of an ethical concern that an independent review seems required,” Barbato said in an e-mail. “Unless there is a reasonable explanation for calling for his resignation, I’m especially concerned that the executive committee has tried to silence Derek Fisher.”


This is exactly my position.

There are allegations that Hunter hired his daughter's firm to do some sort of consulting (?) work. That warrants an investigation into whether he violated his fiduciary duty of good faith. I doubt the union has a competitive bid process, but they can at least surmise whether he overpaid for the work that was actually done. If they find that to be the case, he should out.

At the same time, it seems almost incontrovertible that Fisher skipped required NBPA appearances, which on its face makes him delinquent in his duties- also a fireable offense in an executive position.

Sorry if I sound reactionary when I say this, but I'm unconvinced that the league should be going out of its way to help the moribund teams. I understand the argument that they don't want teams to flounder because it will be bad for attendance, tv ratings, and general fan interest. On the other hand, the nature of the league is zero sum and competitive; there will ALWAYS be bad teams. What you really want is to make sure that when teams are good, fan interest is high. Is there any evidence that one team being bad for three years is a net revenue loss compared to three teams each being bad for one year? Anecdotally, the Wolves were ok this year after being wretched for about five, and the fans happily came back and filled the seats. ISTM that fans will come see good teams, so the league should not concern itself too much with making sure the worst teams get better instead of the semi-bad ones.

It's partly a question of individual preference, but I far prefer the NFL system where any team is potentially one year away from the playoffs, and two years away from the Super Bowl. It generates huge interest in the off-season (NFL draft vs. NBA playoffs -- who wins?) and helps energize fanbases. And as a fan with rooting interest, hope is the most valuable commodity out there. Now, the NBA will never be able to match that, due to the superstar factor, but hope is what the NBA needs to market.

Is there any evidence that one team being bad for three years is a net revenue loss compared to three teams each being bad for one year?

For the league? Probably not. For the one franchise that sucks? Totally different story.

Shocker, Larry Brown was on Dan Patrick this morning and threw someone under the bus. This morning? Jordan.

It's not so much that NY matches up well with CHI (check out the rebounding margins in their games this year), but MIA is just a much, much, much worse team.

Do you really think Miami is "much, much, much worse" than the Bulls? Really?

Also, Indiana is pretty good. I'd call a Knicks/Pacers series a toss up at best, and would probably pick the Pacers by a nose due to homecourt. I know the Knicks have played well of late, but so have the Pacers. What would make you so confident in that (albeit highly unlikely) scenario?

Shocker, Larry Brown was on Dan Patrick this morning and threw someone under the bus. This morning? Jordan.

Not really. He threw the hangers-on around Jordan under the bus. He praised Jordan (My hero!) to the moon.

I agree w/andrew's take on the Hunter-Fisher thing.

Do you really think Miami is "much, much, much worse" than the Bulls? Really?

I assumed he meant as a matchup for NYK.

Sorry if I sound reactionary when I say this, but I'm unconvinced that the league should be going out of its way to help the moribund teams

but I far prefer the NFL system where any team

I think that means you like football more than you like basketball, although I do know older hard-core NFL fans who say they miss the more dynastic teams/"orderly" league of the 1970s and 1980s.

Like I said right at the end of the lockout, MSM site comments seemed to reflect a lot of grassroots resentment towards the Heat, the Lakers, and (somewhat amusingly) the Knicks. So, if there is any validity in that, people are more concerned with the league keeping the bling markets "under control" and from "dominating too much" than they are with raising the small markets and bad teams up. I am very biased, but I don't like it, in that it ISTM that what it mostly means is that people don't want any team to be awesome and go 65-17 a few times, particularly if that team plays in a bling market--unless, of course, it is their team winning the 65, in which case it's OK. I personally enjoy watching truly great teams that smoke everyone from time to time and think it is good for the league to have them.

I think it is worth noting that contrary to what we were told would happen, and to what a few non-regulars said on this thread after LeDecision, Miami has not emerged as a mind-numbing, league-ruining 57-9 juggernaut, and I still think that overall the Three Amigos thing has been a plus, not a minus, for the league.

I assumed he meant as a matchup for NYK.

Thanks, JC, that makes waaaaay more sense. I should have another cup of coffee.

I agree w/andrew's take on the Hunter-Fisher thing.

And once again, Gather is ignored. It's a viable means of subsistence, too!

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/5-on-5-120425/nba-best-nba-players-2011-12

5 on 5 with guys picking their All-NBA first teams.

In the first two years in the NBA the Magic rolled former #1 pck Dwight Howard out each night and he played 30 plus minutes. The Jazz have done it differently with Favors playing less minutes with the presence of Millsap and Jefferson.

If you dig into the per minute production, equalizing due to the different amount of time on the floor, Favors again is not quite Dwght Howard but he is in the ball park

David Locke

Locke overrates Favors and doesn't value the extra minutes and efficiency for Howard, but I do think Favors' upside is a poor man's Howard. He is close to a top defensive stopper already IMO, and his moves in the post have improved quite a bit already.

And once again, Gather is ignored. It's a viable means of subsistence, too!

Fortunately, I was just barely able to keep my laughter silenced. I'm glad I didn't have to explain that I was laughing at a most excellent joke in a basketball thread on a baseball site... while I'm supposed to be working.

Hollinger's stuff is Insider, but his first team is:

Paul
James
Durant
Love
Bynum

Says Howard is still better than Bynum on the metrics, but he can't go first-team with a guy who was "clearly uncommitted to his team" and "backstabbed the coach."

Hollinger had Al Jefferson on his third team. As you can see, he goes point/wing/wing/big/big rather than the old way.

I am very biased, but I don't like it, in that it ISTM that what it mostly means is that people don't want any team to be awesome and go 65-17 a few times, particularly if that team plays in a bling market--unless, of course, it is their team winning the 65, in which case it's OK.

From personal experience as a small market fan and from talking to many other small market fans, I think people mainly just want to be able to believe that every team has an equal chance of being the one that goes 65-17 and smokes everyone for a few years, and that's not the case. I don't think dominance itself bothers small market fans so much as the fact that it always seems to be the SAME teams that end up doing it. Some of that is good management (and bad management on the part of the teams that don't). But a lot of it isn't.

Not all teams have the opportunity to just pick up two superstars in the offseason via trade or free agency and instantly go from a middling team (Miami) or a terrible team (Boston) to a Finals squad overnight the way the Heat and Celtics did. It's no coincidence that the Heat's big 3 joined Wade in Miami rather than LeBron in Cleveland or Bosh in Toronto.

So no, I don't think the issue is really that people don't want to see dominance, period. It's that they want everyone to have an equal opportunity to be dominant. It wouldn't bother me at all if say, Memphis or Indiana or Minnesota plowed through the league with 3 straight super awesome championship winning seasons. It would bother me if the Heat did it, for the reasons I explained above.

Not all teams have the opportunity to just pick up two superstars in the offseason via trade or free agency and instantly go from a middling team (Miami) or a terrible team (Boston)

I don't see what's preventing teams from doing what Boston did. Kobe's the only one that has a no-trade clause, so if you can swing trades for superstars, there's nothing preventing you from doing it.

Hollinger had Al Jefferson on his third team. As you can see, he goes point/wing/wing/big/big rather than the old way.

Obviously I'm biased, but why did Jefferson get so little consideration (as far as I heard) for the all star game? The Jazz were in the playoff hunt for the entire year and there aren't many centers this season with better numbers than him. Just wondering...

Not all teams have the opportunity to just pick up two superstars in the offseason via trade or free agency and instantly go from a middling team (Miami) or a terrible team (Boston) to a Finals squad overnight the way the Heat and Celtics did. It's no coincidence that the Heat's big 3 joined Wade in Miami rather than LeBron in Cleveland or Bosh in Toronto.

To expound on Jimmy's point, I think people harp on Miami too much and fail to see what a once in a lifetime situation it really was*. I don't think the Boston situation is that similar, because they still had to compile the assets necessary to trade for KG and Allen. And they also had better supporting pieces - Rondo and Perkins - than Miami does now; without the 2 of them, Boston likely wasn't a contender even with those 3.

*As evidenced by the Knicks not getting an equivalent big 3.

I don't see what's preventing teams from doing what Boston did. Kobe's the only one that has a no-trade clause, so if you can swing trades for superstars, there's nothing preventing you from doing it.

Except that they're probably not going to re-sign if they're traded to a team they don't want to play for, so it's a pretty big gamble to give up your entire core for a guy that's gonna be gone in a year or two. Jersey, for example, could easily end up getting screwed for rolling the dice on DWill.

It wouldn't bother me at all if say, Memphis or Indiana or Minnesota plowed through the league with 3 straight super awesome championship winning seasons. It would bother me if the Heat did it, for the reasons I explained above.

Sure, but that is just about your own emotions and biases, sort of like when Simmons talked about how awesome it would have been if James had signed in New York. And if one of those franchises "plowed through the league", people would start resenting their players and fanbases after a while, just as a lot of people wouldn't like the Cavaliers right now if James, Wade and Bosh had all signed there. The juxtaposition of the cities of Cleveland, Toronto, and Miami added a bit to the resentment, but the fact that a lot of people have hard-ons about NY or MIA or LA or BOS or wherever shouldn't really affect league policy.

The league has increased revenue sharing, allowed teams to pay more to keep their own guys, has tightened the rules on the MLE, and has implemented a harsher tax, and what that is going to do is make it a little harder in some ways for teams--all teams--to keep large concentrations of talent together. You may think that's a good idea, but it will eventually affect all good teams--not just the ones that happen to piss you off because of the cities they play in.

And, of course, it may have some unintended consequences that drive guys to big markets.

Look at it this way: Deron Williams is in a bling market and may well bail on it because the team sucks. Meanwhile, Utah is in post-season with a lot of good young players.

Locke overrates Favors and doesn't value the extra minutes and efficiency for Howard, but I do think Favors' upside is a poor man's Howard. He is close to a top defensive stopper already IMO, and his moves in the post have improved quite a bit already.

Favors at the moment has all of the rosy hopefulness of a young Tyrus Thomas without any of the morbid disappointment of a current Tyrus Thomas.

*As evidenced by the Knicks not getting an equivalent big 3.

Which I should note you correctly predicted way back.

A few analysts pointed out that what made the Miami thing the Miami thing was in many respects simply how good James is. There just aren't that many guys, ever, who have that kind of impact, so even hypothetical future "Big 3s" probably won't be on the same level.

To expound on Jimmy's point, I think people harp on Miami too much and fail to see what a once in a lifetime situation it really was*. I don't think the Boston situation is that similar, because they still had to compile the assets necessary to trade for KG and Allen. And they also had better supporting pieces - Rondo and Perkins - than Miami does now; without the 2 of them, Boston likely wasn't a contender even with those 3.

What Boston did to aquire their big 3 didn't bother me quite as much as what Miami did for theirs, other than the Garnett trade (which has already been discussed).

*As evidenced by the Knicks not getting an equivalent big 3.

Well, teams don't REALLY need a big 3 to win. The Knicks got two supposed superstars in less than a year, without having to give up any big stars of their own, and they did it without even having a recent winning tradition to entice players to come there. It was the act itself that bothered people (well, me at least), not the results. It's not really relevant IMO that Melo and Amare aren't really as good as people thought they were or that the Knicks still aren't anything special even with them. I think some of the overall anger towards the Knicks is fading anyway, as people are starting to realize they're still not contenders. Complaining about first round playoff teams seems like a waste of breath.

Billy Hunter sought union investment for bank with ties to son:

Hunter had sought a $7 million to $9 million investment from the union into Interstate Net Bank of Cherry Hill, N.J., a financial institution that federal and state banking regulators had slapped with debilitating "cease-and-desist" orders, sources said.

Sure, but that is just about your own emotions and biases

Of course. But so are the opinions of big market fans that like things the way they are. Some people think the bling teams with the bling stars playing in the Finals for big ratings would be the best possible thing that could happen to the NBA, whereas I feel the exact opposite. What's "good for the league" is and has always been nothing more than opinion and personal biases from all sides.

And, of course, it may have some unintended consequences that drive guys to big markets.

Most rules seem to in the end, unfortunately.

Look at it this way: Deron Williams is in a bling market and may well bail on it because the team sucks. Meanwhile, Utah is in post-season with a lot of good young players.

Oh, don't think I haven't noticed this and aren't feeling a little bit of vindictive pride over it. :)

(I actually still like Williams and wish him future success...eventually. But if he didn't want to play for us or if he really had as much to do with Sloan's departure as some people believe, well, a few seasons in the NBA wilderness seems just about right to me)

Todd Hunter is also a vice president for Prim Capital, which has a consulting contract with the NBPA that has paid the company in excess of $2.5 million since 2006, according to U.S. Department of Labor filings.
"Why didn't you disclose any of this?" Garrity asked Hunter several times at the 2009 meeting, witnesses told Yahoo! Sports.

Hunter really does seem like a scumbag, but this is comical.

They found out about the investment based on a DOL disclosure... SO WHY DIDN'T HE DISCLOSE IT!?

Except that they're probably not going to re-sign if they're traded to a team they don't want to play for, so it's a pretty big gamble to give up your entire core for a guy that's gonna be gone in a year or two. Jersey, for example, could easily end up getting screwed for rolling the dice on DWill.

New Jersey made the choice knowingly. You know, they could also put out a team that isn't one of the worst 5 or so in the league.

Guys rarely leave winning teams.

And, of course, it may have some unintended consequences that drive guys to big markets.


I wouldn't say big as much as desirable.

(I actually still like Williams and wish him future success...eventually. But if he didn't want to play for us or if he really had as much to do with Sloan's departure as some people believe, well, a few seasons in the NBA wilderness seems just about right to me)

Would you want him back if you had max cap space this summer and could also keep Hayward, Burks, Favors, Millsap, Al, and Kanter?

Some people think the bling teams with the bling stars playing in the Finals for big ratings would be the best possible thing that could happen to the NBA, whereas I feel the exact opposite.

You think bad ratings would be best for the league?

(I actually still like Williams and wish him future success...eventually. But if he didn't want to play for us or if he really had as much to do with Sloan's departure as some people believe, well, a few seasons in the NBA wilderness seems just about right to me)

Sloan denied it, and he has no reason to cover for Deron.

But so are the opinions of big market fans that like things the way they are

I would actually like it better if the family-owned Lakers were the 1 seed, instead of being stuck behind the mighty juggernauts in Oklahoma City and San Antonio, while also trying to compete with the bottomless bank accounts of the Mavs and Blazers billionaire owners and the Commissioner-aided bling-market sleazeball-owned Clippers.

If you are just saying, "I don't like it when bling markets win all the time" then, cool. But you seem to be saying that things are really unfair, that there are real structural problems, etc. Not really seeing that argument.

I know the Knicks have played well of late, but so have the Pacers. What would make you so confident in that (albeit highly unlikely) scenario?

Tyson Chandler's ability to handle Roy Hibbert with single coverage. NYK played IND 3 times post Woodson and beat them soundly twice (once in IND, once in NY) and lost the 3rd time in IND after being up ~20 in the 4th. I would be shocked if the Pacers beat the Knicks in the unlikely scenario that the two teams faced each other. This is not saying I think the Knicks are better than the Pacers, because I don't, but the matchup favors them IMO.

Hollinger picked Chandler as his DPOY BTW.

New Jersey made the choice knowingly. You know, they could also put out a team that isn't one of the worst 5 or so in the league.

Oh I know. I don't have any sympathy for their plight. They took a gamble and lost. Such is life.

Guys rarely leave winning teams.

I don't know about that. LeBron, Melo, Amare, Boozer, and Williams (assuming he really was going to leave like Jazz management thought) all left teams that were winning 50+ games a year. And that's just last season. Dwight Howard is going, and the Magic were winning.

Would you want him back if you had max cap space this summer and could also keep Hayward, Burks, Favors, Millsap, Al, and Kanter?

Absolutely. I think that'd be a kick ass core.

You think bad ratings would be best for the league?

No, I just wish it was possible for the league to get good ratings without needing a Jordan, Kobe, or LeBron in the Finals to do it. A 1998 Jazz/Pacers or a 2000 Pacers/Blazers finals probably would have been ratings disasters. But they would've been awesome series, IMO.

Sloan denied it, and he has no reason to cover for Deron

Sloan was never one to throw someone under the bus.

If you are just saying, "I don't like it when bling markets win all the time" then, cool. But you seem to be saying that things are really unfair, that there are real structural problems, etc. Not really seeing that argument.

There are several things that lead to the bling markets winning a disproportionate amount of the time that I think are unfair; some of them the league could probably fix a little bit and others they can't. As for the latter, it is "unfair" to teams like Milwaukee or Charlotte that stars would rather play in Miami or LA, but there's only so much the league can do about it. Doesn't mean that fans of those teams don't have a right to blow off some steam on an internet Newsblog from time to time. :)

I don't know about that. LeBron, Melo, Amare, Boozer, and Williams (assuming he really was going to leave like Jazz management assumed) all left teams that were winning 50+ games a year. And that's just last season. Dwight Howard is going, and the Magic were winning.

I guess if depends on how you definite "winning". If winning means actually competing for a title, only LeBron qualifies and even there he went to a situation where he thought he had a better chance (the Cavs may have topped out with that group and their cap situation). Part of the reason the Cavs and Magic weren't contenders at the time they left/leave is the players fault though - be it demanding to play with certain players or what have you.

Even if Deron was going to leave, he definitely doesn't belong on that list.

LeBron, Melo, Amare, Boozer, and Williams

Lebron was the team.

I'm pretty sure Amare wasn't going to be offered by Phoenix, right?

Was Boozer offered by Utah? And if he was, was it the money level that he was offered in Chicago?

Williams isn't gone yet. He never got the chance to leave Utah, and he hasn't left the Hipsters.

I thought it was established Melo wasn't a superstar and the best way to improve was to be rid of him?

This part bugs me from the link in 1479:

Finally, witnesses said, Hall – who died on May 11, 2011 – told Garrity that he was a retired player, no longer welcome on the executive committee, and that security would be called to remove him unless he left on his own. With executive committee members Keyon Dooling and Adonal Foyle appearing uncomfortable – and NBPA president Derek Fisher refusing to use his authority to demand Garrity be allowed to speak over Hall's yelling – Garrity left the room, left the NBPA and never returned again. Fisher declined comment.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Fisher is totally in the right here

No, I just wish it was possible for the league to get good ratings without needing a Jordan, Kobe, or LeBron in the Finals to do it. A 1998 Jazz/Pacers or a 2000 Pacers/Blazers finals probably would have been ratings disasters. But they would've been awesome series, IMO.

All I know, Booey, is that when the Grizzlies are playing in the finals in June, you better be watching on TV.

They found out about the investment based on a DOL disclosure... SO WHY DIDN'T HE DISCLOSE IT!?

Based on the sentence, it's not clear what the DOL disclosure was actually disclosing. It may have simply disclosed how much was paid to Prim Capital, and not that Todd Hunter worked for Prim Capital. Based on the description of Garrity's "discovery-" it would appear he did not know the Todd Hunter connection. And Garrity was the Treasurer of the NBAPA- if he didn't know, I'm guessing the rank and file had no clue.

Much more importantly, from the perspective of union members, the fact that a form within the DOL may have had that information is pretty much irrelevant. If Hunter was trying to start a "bank project" with NBAPA funds, the fact that his son (and his daughters firm it would appear) was mixed up in it should have been completely clear to the membership. It may be that the Executive Committee is who actually fell down on this (or some mix of both) but if that info (son's involvement) isn't getting to the membership, that doesn't sound like a reasonable effort.

I'm pretty sure Amare wasn't going to be offered by Phoenix, right?

I thought that he was? I could be wrong.

Was Boozer offered by Utah? And if he was, was it the money level that he was offered in Chicago?

I think the Jazz didn't bother making an offer to Booz since he'd made it pretty clear he was leaving. Our management has never seemed to be the type to sweet talk players into staying when they don't really want to. Boozer is one that I do think wanted to play in a larger market.

Williams isn't gone yet. He never got the chance to leave Utah, and he hasn't left the Hipsters.

No, but see comment above. I think it was widely believed he wanted to play elsewhere.

I thought it was established Melo wasn't a superstar and the best way to improve was to be rid of him?

That's my opinion of him, but it wasn't MSM or casual fan opinion.

Lebron was the team.

Indeed. I wrote about this right after the Boston/Cleveland series in '10 and Moses re-posted a month or two ago. Guys stay if they feel the team is championship-ready and/or championship-run/near-ready, particularly if they have been there through two deals, 6-8 years, already. Duncan stayed; Durant is an earlier phase, but he re-upped. Westbrook re-upped.

Orlando OTOH right now is a bit like Cleveland was in 2010: capped out, a lot of mediocrity on the 15-man, questionable FO, good mostly due to Howard.

Anthony is different in that he did specifically want to play in New York. But I think Paul just wanted to be on a legit contender; ditto Williams and Howard.

I recall after the Lakers wiped out the Jazz in four straight in 2010, Williams was quoted as saying, "They're just better" or some such, so I think he was probably in the same place--didn't see a title run in the offing with him and that group.

All I know, Booey, is that when the Grizzlies are playing in the finals in June, you better be watching on TV.

I absolutely will be, Max. And I'd root for them in every series except the second round when they'll be playing the Jazz. :)

Favors at the moment has all of the rosy hopefulness of a young Tyrus Thomas without any of the morbid disappointment of a current Tyrus Thomas.

What was Thomas' problem anyway? Favors isn't a sure thing to be a star, but he's at least shown pretty consistent growth IMO both on his moves on offense and his defensive ability. He still makes too many dumb fouls, but again he's improved significantly as well.

I do like Favors' build a lot more than Thomas', and I think Favors this year was quite a bit better than Thomas (at least offensively) at 20. Still, I thought Thomas would become a very good player, and he is a good example for Favors' downside.

Hollinger picked Chandler as his DPOY BTW.

So did Simmons. From memory he had LeBron as MVP, Pekovic/Ilyasova as MIP, Irving as ROY, Harden as 6th MOY, and Pop as COY.

I recall after the Lakers wiped out the Jazz in four straight in 2010, Williams was quoted as saying, "They're just better" or some such, so I think he was probably in the same place--didn't see a title run in the offing with him and that group.

The Lakers certainly were better in 2010, but they were also older. If the Jazz had been able to keep their 2010 core together, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to think they could've still been contenders when the Lakers started to go downhill a little bit and the west started to balance out (which actually ended up happening just the following year). The 2011 Lakers had a similar regular season and an identical postseason as the 2010 Jazz. Deron may have thought the Jazz were done cuz he knew Booz wasn't coming back.

flip