Certain teams voting for NBA lottery reform is a hypocritical, bullshit joke

Joe Carter’s homerun off Mitch Williams. Patrick Kane’s shot sliding into the goal so innocently that it took even his own team time to realize they were about to celebrate on the Flyers’ home ice. Ronde Barber’s pick to close the Vet. And now…NBA lottery reform.

According to numerous reports, the NBA will pass lottery reform at the Board of Governors’ meetings tomorrow. Those other three moments will likely always burn more than what transpires Wednesday, but there’s no doubt that a vote that will change the process of the NBA’s draft lottery will be a defining moment in the Sam Hinkie era in Philadelphia.

The proposed changes aren’t exactly something we are just finding out about, but as a refresher of how badly the rest of the NBA is screwing the Sixers (and themselves), here’s how the new system will work.

Via Grantlland’s Zach Lowe

"The league’s proposal gives at least the four worst teams the same chance at winning the no. 1 pick: approximately an identical 11 percent shot for each club. The odds decline slowly from there, with the team in the next spot holding a 10 percent chance. The lottery team with the best record will have a 2 percent chance of leaping to the no. 1 pick, up from the the minuscule 0.5 percent chance it has under the current system."

That last wrinkle was thrown in just to make sure that if LeBron James has a career-ending injury this year, Cleveland can still get the number one pick next year.

Anyway, I was wondering why no one else was backing the Sixers, especially since it isn’t like there aren’t other teams who have built through, or are in the process of having to build through, the draft. It turns out one of the NBA’s elite, who acquired their entire core via the draft, is.

That’s what we call foresight. Within the next five years, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka could technically all leave the Thunder. They are among the NBA’s elite now, but it’s because of the draft. And if those three leave, they aren’t in a sexy market that would allow them to build through free-agency. So they could go and be irrelevant for 10 years (which is what landed them in OKC to begin with), or they could tank for three or so years in hopes of trying to build a new core. Huh, which one sounds better to you?

Live Feed

Sir Charles In Charge

So why are the Thunder the only team besides the Sixers that get that? Some teams, such as Michael Jordan’s Bobcats Hornets would rather annually compete for seeds five through eight than swallow their pride and tank. I can say that after watching the Sixers do that since the early 2000s, it literally accomplishes nothing. The NBA loves it because it keeps all the power with the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, etc., but why does the rest of the league love it?

The Cleveland Cavaliers franchise’s history is based on winning number one picks. They tanked games in the 2002-03 season to get in position to draft LeBron James. When LeBron left and they were left with a barren wasteland of talent, they began to rebuild with Kyrie Irving, another number one pick. This Summer, they were able to lure LeBron back partially because of Irving and because they had two more number one picks in Andrew Wiggins and Anthony Bennett, who they would later package for Kevin Love. You’re telling me this team doesn’t see the value in being able to suck for a few years to assure you land at least one number one pick? Do they think every ten years there is going to be a top ten all-time NBA player that happens to be from the area and wants to play in Cleveland?

The Lakers are yet to reap the rewards of a number one pick (at least recently), largely because they’ve been able to assemble a loaded team around Kobe Bryant for the better part of two decades. But as they wait for Kobe to fade out of L.A., what exactly is their plan? Julius Randle is a nice piece, but he isn’t the franchise cornerstone. He might be the third best player of a franchise core, but where do you get the rest of your core from? Just because Kobe goes away in a couple years and cap space opens up, doesn’t mean that players are going to want to play there. Yeah, L.A. is great and all, but imagine trying to sell a free-agent with four or five other offers on playing with Julius Randle and Swaggy P. Whether Kobe were to get hurt this year and you decide to start to move forward by tanking, or you realize it is your only option to return to immediate success in three or four years, why would you burn that bridge?

And then there’s the rest of the league. The Spurs have played in back-to-back NBA Finals and won five championships in the last 15 years, led by former number one pick Tim Duncan. I understand that a majority of their roster came from overseas and that Tony Parker was a draft diamond in the ruff, but they wouldn’t have won one of those titles without having had a number one pick. Even if they are too far removed from having the number one pick that landed Duncan in the 1997 draft, wouldn’t you think there would be other teams around the league that see that a former number one pick has led one of the NBA’s most long-spanning dynasties and want their shot at that? Or even numerous shots?

The Cavaliers built their team based off of number one picks. You’re telling me this team doesn’t see the value of loading up on number one picks?

Seriously, do the Bucks think they are set now just because they’ve paired Jabari Parker with Giannis Antetokounmpo? What if Parker turns out not to be the sure thing that he was touted to be in the draft lead-up and in four years they are still not a team good enough to even make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference? Even if Parker does turn out to be what they hoped, they are still another top three pick away from having a core that can do serious damage come playoff time.

Let me stop, because I’m sure someone reading this thinks that by having lottery reform, you could be a team like the Bucks and not have Parker work out and yet you get lucky and win another number one pick. But on the contrary to that, you could also go five seasons hoping something like that works out and never even get a pick in the top five, because you have the league’s sixth worst record. At least in tanking, there is some penalty to be paid for the reward, and there is a science to it.

Along those same lines, why should a team that is the sixth or ninth worst be rewarded with the number one pick? Obviously even with the changes, that’s not likely to happen, but why after the Cavs have won three number one picks in four years–despite only having the worst record once–are we trying to make it easier for the mediocre teams to win the number one picks? If you choose not to tank and try to compete, then that’s your franchise’s direction. You shouldn’t need a number one pick more than one of the worst teams in the NBA, by your own logic.

In the end, I’m biased. The last time the Sixers were in the NBA Finals was the Summer prior to me starting Kindergarten. I’m now a freshman in college. Free-agents aren’t coming here, and this is the way for the Sixers to finally get out of NBA purgatory. And the NBA isn’t completely going to eliminate that, but they are going to make it much more difficult for the Sixers, and nearly impossible for teams that aren’t already a couple years into a tanking plan. My bias shouldn’t make any difference, because this idea of tanking should be applicable to at least seven teams in the league. The Sixers are far from the only only team that being stuck in NBA purgatory with a fading fanbase applies to. But all of the other remaining teams in NBA purgatory are about to vote for reform that won’t stop teams from being bad, but rather prevent teams from ever stringing together enough high picks to get out of NBA purgatory. That’s great for the already big-market teams, but only eight votes are needed to prevent this from happening. Where are those six other teams, with no big free-agent signings in sight and a roster that will never come close to helping to making them a serious playoff contender?