# Stern is an anti-Celtics



## andy787 (Jun 9, 2003)

It is not I'm a sore loser. But there are proofs :
1997 - boston have best chances at the lottery, but San Antonio won it. ( he was guilty, that is why he have to run the lottery dry run twice. twice ???? why ???
2007 - boston have the 2nd best chance at the lottery, This time, it was portland. another team in the west? coincidence ? 

This guy really doesnt want us to win no. 17. maybe he is connivance with some teams. pay off ?

Chances ? come on, twice ? 

Well Mr. Stern, your evil deeds will turn back to you soon.


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*

Portland got #1 and Greg Oden. That alone shows the lottery is not rigged in any way.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



andy787 said:


> It is not I'm a sore loser. But there are proofs :
> 1997 - boston have best chances at the lottery, but San Antonio won it. ( he was guilty, that is why he have to run the lottery dry run twice. twice ???? why ???
> 2007 - boston have the 2nd best chance at the lottery, This time, it was portland. another team in the west? coincidence ?
> 
> ...


The Celtics had sub 40% chances to win the lottery/get the top two picks twice and a 60 % chance not to.


----------



## andy787 (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*

If you're rigging something, you must be careful not to show it.

last year, they got aldridge. now oden. it is a simple process of favoring portland.

hey, stern. how much did portland dole out


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



andy787 said:


> If you're rigging something, you must be careful not to show it.
> 
> last year, they got aldridge. now oden. it is a simple process of favoring portland.
> 
> hey, stern. how much did portland dole out


Here's the thing.

You can blame David Stern for making the league a joke. You can blame him for overexpanding the league. You can blame him for costing the Suns game five vs the Spurs.

You *cannot* blame him for the Celtics' shortcommings. He did not kill Bias and/or Lewis. He did not give the Celtics Pitino over Larry Bird. He did not sell the team to Wyc and Co instead of Belkin. He did not trade for Vinny Baker, Raef LaFrentz or Wally Szczerbiak. He did not draft Kedrick Brown and Jerome Moiso, so let's stop blaming the guy who did not _give_ us the pick we wanted instead of the guys that have been running this joke of a franchise for the past 20 years.


----------



## andy787 (Jun 9, 2003)

I dont blame anybody for the misfortune of the celtics. But I can see between the lines.

So, you said this yourself. He's been running this league for the past 20 years. Anybody holding the position this long have all the access to do anything right or wrong. A lottery run by computers is definitely an easy thing to manipulate.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

andy787 said:


> I dont blame anybody for the misfortune of the celtics. But I can see between the lines.
> 
> So, you said this yourself. He's been running this league for the past 20 years. Anybody holding the position this long have all the access to do anything right or wrong. A lottery run by computers is definitely an easy thing to manipulate.


the lottery isn't run by computers...


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

andy787 said:


> It is not I'm a sore loser. But there are proofs :
> 1997 - boston have best chances at the lottery, but San Antonio won it. ( he was guilty, that is why he have to run the lottery dry run twice. twice ???? why ???
> 2007 - boston have the 2nd best chance at the lottery, This time, it was portland. another team in the west? coincidence ?
> 
> ...


Maybe he doesn't want Seattle to win #2. I mean, we've only had one top 5 pick in the past half-decade. That must mean he is an anti-Sonics.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

As a Blazers fan... I say sorry. I mean that, but I don't......because it sucks to be a Celtic fan right now, but I certainly wouldn't take back what happened...hehe

But, you have to remember that Portland was in a very similar situation last year. They had the worst record in the league and ended up with the
4th pick. It happens. What did Portland do? They went out and traded for the number two, and the rookie of the year who was drafted at the 6 spot....but, I am sure you guys know about that little deal......
So, yeah, you guys didn't get the luck, and I know this year's draft is a lot different than last year's, but the Celts can still get a great player/players from this. 

by the way, I wasn't trying to rub anything in with this post. In fact, I was trying for quite the opposite. The Celtics are not screwed. And, I just wanted to point out that teams with the best odds don't always win the lottery, with last year's Blazers as an example. 

Anyways, good luck. With a healthy Pierce, Jefferson, Rondo, Gomes, Allen, Green and whoever the Celts end up with in the draft/or a traded player, you guys could be much much better next year.

Just my two cents. Once again. Sorry.

prunetang


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Get a dictionary and look up the word *Lottery*.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

handclap problematic said:


> As a Blazers fan... I say sorry. I mean that, but I don't......because it sucks to be a Celtic fan right now, but I certainly wouldn't take back what happened...hehe
> 
> But, you have to remember that Portland was in a very similar situation last year. They had the worst record in the league and ended up with the
> 4th pick. It happens. What did Portland do? They went out and traded for the number two, and the rookie of the year who was drafted at the 6 spot....but, I am sure you guys know about that little deal......
> ...


We're run by the biggest bunch of clowns this side of Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus. Ergo we're ****ed nine ways from nowhere.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

handclap problematic said:


> As a Blazers fan... I say sorry. I mean that, but I don't......because it sucks to be a Celtic fan right now, but I certainly wouldn't take back what happened...hehe
> 
> But, you have to remember that Portland was in a very similar situation last year. They had the worst record in the league and ended up with the
> 4th pick. It happens. What did Portland do? They went out and traded for the number two, and the rookie of the year who was drafted at the 6 spot....but, I am sure you guys know about that little deal......
> ...


Great post in a ridiculous thread.

Hey, at least you guys have the Patriots! :biggrin:


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> We're run by the biggest bunch of clowns this side of Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus. Ergo we're ****ed nine ways from nowhere.


You have Al Jefferson. Smile.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

you guys are being sore losers, if the draft was rigged, yall would have got a top 2 pick. Theres still player you can get, look at Brendan Wright, and Yi jianlian, one of those will be there at 5.


----------



## MiNCED (May 24, 2006)

Its nobody's fault. Its just rotten luck. Now lets just draft Yi and go home.


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

This thread is funny. The lottery isn't rigged. It's just karma coming back to you guys. Memo next time you guys want a #1 pick for a future franchise big guy such as Duncan/Oden. Don't tank like you obviously did both times. The basketball God's don't like it, and it's bad karma.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

The lottery is not rigged, but it is a ****ed up system.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

What's a better system then to avoid teams tanking while still making bad teams better? In my opinion, not all 14 teams should have a chance. They should probably give the worst 3 teams a shot at #1 and nobody else, and as you go further down, you start including more teams.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Something has to, and will, change.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Causeway said:


> The lottery is not rigged, but it is a ****ed up system.


Amen, and to add on to this post Jerry West also made a good point when he stated changes are needed in terms of the lottery system. All hope is not lost, because you can probably get an impact player if you can make some wheelings and dealings with that pick, Ainge's just has to be creative on this one, and may come up with a steal at that position.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

USSKittyHawk said:


> Amen, and to add on to this post Jerry West also made a good point when he stated changes are needed in terms of the lottery system.


They should just move over to an NHL-style lottery, where only one team wins, and moves up in the draft (I believe the NHL makes it four spots, but five is probably a better number). It's the only remotely fair lottery system I've seen. And, frankly, I've never agreed with the lottery system in the first place, it's apparently not cured the problem it was meant to cure, the old system worked far better, in my opinion. Reinsdorf whined and whined about the '84 Rockets, but frankly they were legitimately that bad. Just as the 97 Celtics were. Tanking is rewarded more often than not, San Antonio deliberately shelved Robinson for the year (wouldn't let him come back) to avoid hurting their lottery chances in '97, and Seattle & Atnalta were as bad as Boston and Milwaukee in that department.



USSKittyHawk said:


> All hope is not lost, because you can probably get an impact player if you can make some wheelings and dealings with that pick, Ainge's just has to be creative on this one, and may come up with a steal at that position.


Unfortunately for us that creativity is likely to end with Wally & #5 going for Kenyon Martin and a future second round pick.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

Causeway said:


> The lottery is not rigged, but it is a ****ed up system.


Funny, it wasn't a ****ed up system when the Celts had the chance to get a top-2 pick. 

Also, more on topic: Stern is not anti-Celtics. Don't be stupid. (Not you, Causeway, but the original poster.)

I agree with the poster who said that the Celts have been run by clowns for 20 years. Because it's true. I can't see how anyone can defend Ainge's moves and Rivers's coaching at this point. The only thing to do is fire the management and coaching staff and blow the roster up. Why can't Ainge make any trades involving his "promising talent"? Because nobody believes they have that much promise (outside of Jefferson and Green and, perhaps, Rondo if he learns how to shoot).

The Celtics are on the road to ruin and the back pages of the sports section. And that's sad.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

andy787 said:


> I dont blame anybody for the misfortune of the celtics. But I can see between the lines.
> 
> So, you said this yourself. He's been running this league for the past 20 years. Anybody holding the position this long have all the access to do anything right or wrong. A lottery run by computers is definitely an easy thing to manipulate.


So you think accounting firms, which are MUCH larger then the NBA as a whole, are going to go along with these ploys in a highly visible, high risk (if it was not on the up and up), but very low $ engagement.

I apologize in advance for presenting a concept that will likely be to hard for you ro understand.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

If someone rigged the lottery, Portland and Seattle would not have won the top two selections.

Any thought otherwise is ridiculous.


----------



## Tommy_Heinsohn (May 29, 2003)

Edit aqua. Please make yourself familiar with the rules again. Link :curse:


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



andy787 said:


> If you're rigging something, you must be careful not to show it.
> 
> last year, they got aldridge. now oden. it is a simple process of favoring portland.
> 
> hey, stern. how much did portland dole out


Huh? We had the worst record in the league in 2006 and ended up with the #4 spot. How is that favortism to Portland? But did we whine and cry to the media about how unfair the lottery is? No, we traded up to #2 and then traded Telfair and garbage to you guys for Brandon Roy.

The lottery was designed to discourage a little thing called TANKING. I hope Danny Ainge and Doc Rivers have learned their lesson.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

The lottery blows. The results of this lottery blew. However this thread is pretty ridiculous. For Stern to actually rig the lottery all teams would have to be in on the scam. There's too much money at stake with these picks for Stern, behind some curtain somewhere, to control what's going on. And if the whole league was in on the fix, it'd be leaked and we'd know. So forget about the conspiracy theory's and deal with the fact that it's a lottery, which means not a guarantee, and the odds were still against us. We had better odds than Portland or Seattle, but they still had a shot.

Dumb thread.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



Yega1979 said:


> Huh? We had the worst record in the league in 2006 and ended up with the #4 spot. How is that favortism to Portland? But did we whine and cry to the media about how unfair the lottery is?


No one's crying and whining, especially to the media. We're just saying that the lottery is garbage.



Yega1979 said:


> No, we traded up to #2 and then traded Telfair and garbage to you guys for Brandon Roy.


If anyone wants to even try to trade up to the #2 pick this year, they'd be the laughing stock of the NBA.



Yega1979 said:


> The lottery was designed to discourage a little thing called TANKING. I hope Danny Ainge and Doc Rivers have learned their lesson.


This little thing called TANKING has existed since the draft has been established. Don't come in here and try to blame Ainge and Rivers for inventing that term. Even San Antonio tanked to get Duncan in 97. The Cavs did, too. This year at least five teams tanked, mostly seen by Memphis and the Bucks.

To be entirely truthful, the Celtics did not start taking until about two weeks to go when they sat down Al Jefferson against key games vs the Bucks.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I think some fans of the other teams need to get a grip. Teams that lose a lot of games are not necessarily throwing them (which is what tanking actually means). Some of them just flat out suck, like the Celtics.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



aquaitious said:


> No one's crying and whining, especially to the media. We're just saying that the lottery is garbage.


Where was this opinion before the Celts got boned?

The original poster said Stern is anti-Celtics. That's patently false. As JuniorNoboa pointed out, KPMG or PWC would never risk their reputations to rig the NBA lottery. Is the lottery perfect? No. Is any lottery system perfect? No. Every team knew the risks of tanking for lottery position. Every team knew the limits of the lottery. Every team knew that a team with a 5% chance still had a chance to win.

You want reasons why the Celtics are on the road to ruin? Look no further than Danny Ainge, Doc Rivers, and Wyc Grousbeck.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I don't know about you, but I've been saying that the lottery system sucks since they implemented it. In many ways it's resulted in more tanking as teams look to maximise their chances to win. Tanking wasn't a problem under the old system, what happened was Jerry Reinsdorf whining and whining and whining about being "cheated". It was a bad solution then it's a bad solution today. The only remotely fair lottery system is the NHL's.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

I don't think anyway is stating that the current state of the Celtics is due to the lottery system. Simply that the current lottery system blows, which is why it will be changed.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*

Stern wants Oden and Durant to go to semi-functional teams, not the East Coast.

BTW it's RANDOM!!!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

As a west coaster I'm a little bothered by the idea that geography determines entitlement.... Would people be complaining about Oden or Durant coming west if they were bound for LA? Same time zone ya know. We area a global media market now so size of community is irrelevant anymore.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Also I drummed up some info... The current system of 25% to the worst team and 19% to the 2nd worst team has only been in place for 11 Lotteries. Prior to that the worst team had a 16% chance going back to 1989. Before that only a 14% chance as all Lotto teams had equal shot.

Now in that 11 Lotto Span the worst team has landed the #1 pick 2 times. 18%. 25% of 11 is 2.75. SO if the worst team had one again then it would be a 27% success rate or higher than the statistical odds. Numbers are great aren't they?


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

the worst possible scenario happenbed, the nba wants oden and durant in the eastern time zone cause that were everyone is at.


----------



## Ainge for 3 (May 23, 2007)

Making the Celtics a franchise that had star power/national interest would be in Stern's best interest, financially. It's only if his hatred toward the Celtics has more importance to him does the conspiracy make sense. He'd love having stronger teams in the major media markets of the East. It's a big market for TV ratings and merchandising.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

Pain5155 said:


> the worst possible scenario happenbed, the nba wants oden and durant in the eastern time zone cause that were everyone is at.


Ever heard of TiVo? Or satellite dishes? It's not like people can't watch west coast games now. Granted, the NBA should make sure they get as many early TNT games and ABC Sunday afternoon games as possible. It's not 1985 where you get your local games and that's it anymore.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

Causeway said:


> I don't think anyway is stating that the current state of the Celtics is due to the lottery system. Simply that the current lottery system blows, which is why it will be changed.


What, in your (or anyone else's) opinion, would constitute a fair, tanking-proof system? There isn't one. The NFL goes with straight reverse order (except for playoff teams, who are seeded according to when they exit the playoffs, which is a system I like) which didn't prevent tanking for Reggie Bush 2 years ago. (Even though Houston stupidly didn't pick him - let that be a lesson to the Blazers and Sonics.)

I don't know that there is a fair lottery. I suppose the most fair, in agreement with one of the above posters, is the NHL's after the lockout. Everyone gets X balls, with one removed for each year they've made the playoffs and had the number 1 pick. Would that be an acceptable solution? (As an aside: I simply cannot believe the NHL is the model for the NBA. I hope the world isn't ending...)


----------



## Ainge for 3 (May 23, 2007)

narrator said:


> Ever heard of TiVo?


Who watches NBA games after they are over? 



narrator said:


> Or satellite dishes? It's not like people can't watch west coast games now.


The problem is that people on the East Coast won't watch NBA games with any regularity that begin at 10:30 at night, if they are employed.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



andy787 said:


> If you're rigging something, you must be careful not to show it.
> 
> last year, they got aldridge. now oden. it is a simple process of favoring portland.
> 
> hey, stern. how much did portland dole out



:lol: Yea, Stern rigged it so Portland, who had the worst record last year, got the #4 pick and made Chicago trade LMA to us. :laugh:


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



narrator said:


> Where was this opinion before the Celts got boned?


Message boards, people opinions? This has nothing to do with the Celtics getting "boned."



narrator said:


> You want reasons why the Celtics are on the road to ruin? Look no further than Danny Ainge, Doc Rivers, and Wyc Grousbeck.


I think I pretty much summerized it all a few days ago when I said this franchise has been run by idiots for the past 20 years.

I'm not blaming Stern or the NBA, nor is anyone else except the topic starter. I'm not sure where you're getting all that from.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

I don't think the three worst teams should all move down three, the worst record (non-expansion regulations) should get no. 2 at worst.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

The lottery is not rigged that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The lottery system does need an overhaul, however.

As for the Celts tanking, we didn't tank....maybe the last few games they did but that's it. They sucked because litterally half the team was injured all year. Had they been healthy they would not have sucked nearly as bad, just half as bad.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



andy787 said:


> If you're rigging something, you must be careful not to show it.
> 
> last year, they got aldridge. now oden. it is a simple process of favoring portland.
> 
> hey, stern. how much did portland dole out


Come on now, Portland had the best shot at nabbing the number one pick last year. They had the worst record in the league and they were awarded the forth pick in the draft. They got Aldridge because of the trade with Chicago. Let's not forget that Portland also traded S. Telfair to your Boston for the seventh pick to get Foyle, which they then turned into B. Roy. Maybe instead of blaming Stern for rigging the lottery you should blame Danny Ainge for his scouting and ablity to not get things done for Boston.

Portland took what was given out last year in the draft and did pretty good. Sure I bet they would have liked to have the first pick and with you arguement they should have had it. The Lottery is what it is, Portland got lucky. Danny Ainge should work the phones and make that 5th pick count for something. Kevin Pritchard would at the very least turn it into the 3rd pick.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

whiterhino said:


> The lottery is not rigged that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The lottery system does need an overhaul, however.
> 
> As for the Celts tanking, we didn't tank....maybe the last few games they did but that's it. They sucked because litterally half the team was injured all year. Had they been healthy they would not have sucked nearly as bad, just half as bad.



yea sure they were injured.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> yea sure they were injured.




i gotta agree with this one whiterhino...sure we had some legit injuries like tony allen etc...but pierce sat 20 games with a runny nose...then when he was about ready to come back he mysgteriously hurt his left pinky toe haha...pierces injuries were all suspect


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



HOWIE said:


> Kevin Pritchard would at the very least turn it into the 3rd pick.


That is a gross overstatement.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



Premier said:


> That is a gross overstatement.


You think? Which GM would you want running your draft, Danny Ainge or Kevin Pritchard if you didn't have a top three pick? Pritchard moved from 4th to 2nd last year to nab Aldridge, why is it so hard to believe that Ainge can't move up to the third pick giving Atlanta something in return?

You might think it is a overstatement, but that is the difference between GM's knowing what they are doing and those riding on what they did as players.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



HOWIE said:


> You think? Which GM would you want running your draft, Danny Ainge or Kevin Pritchard if you didn't have a top three pick? Pritchard moved from 4th to 2nd last year to nab Aldridge, why is it so hard to believe that Ainge can't move up to the third pick giving Atlanta something in return?
> 
> You might think it is a overstatement, but that is the difference between GM's knowing what they are doing and those riding on what they did as players.


He isn't arguing that Ainge is better than Pritchard, by now it's painfully obvious to just about everyone that Ainge is one of the worst GMs in the NBA. _However_, there's a giant talent drop-off after Brandan Wright. The cost of trading up is prohibitive. In 2006, a very mediocre draft pool, the difference between 1st and 10th wasn't very much, and teams were willing to trade down. But how much success do you think teams had trying to trade into the top 3 in 2003 or 2004? That's the case this year. If Pritchard were sitting on the 5th pick, he'd have a heck of a time trying to parlay that into the third pick in a deal that made sense for Portland.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

Ainge for 3 said:


> Who watches NBA games after they are over?


Lots of people, apparently. (NB: I don't because I don't have TiVo. Though I do have League Pass and catch as many games as I can, esp. Raptors and Suns games. I also like tuning into Celtics games to watch Heinsohn's dementia close up.)



Ainge for 3 said:


> The problem is that people on the East Coast won't watch NBA games with any regularity that begin at 10:30 at night, if they are employed.


Hence, the wonderfulness of TiVo.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



aquaitious said:


> Message boards, people opinions? This has nothing to do with the Celtics getting "boned."


I'm referring to the original statement itself. I'm saying that, prior to the Celtics losing the lottery, nobody on the Celtics board (absurd generalization, I know, but I'm not going through each and every thread) was complaining about the lottery. It was only _after_ the Celtics lost that people on this board started with the opinion that the lottery was a "****ed up system". That may not be a fact but it is my perception and, as they say in TV, perception is reality. The Celtics losing is a statistical anomaly. It happens. Watch next year as the lottery will shake out exactly as teams finished.



aquaitious said:


> I think I pretty much summarized it all a few days ago when I said this franchise has been run by idiots for the past 20 years.
> 
> I'm not blaming Stern or the NBA, nor is anyone else except the topic starter. I'm not sure where you're getting all that from.


Re: the first part: I never meant to personally attack your posting with regard to that because I agree with you. From what I've read, you're a thoughtful poster. I apologize for any perceived slight.

Re: the second part: I, too, think the topic starter is way off base. To say that David Stern would fix the lottery to screw the Celtics is, on its face, idiotic.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*

I don't recall ever stating that Ainge was the superior general manager. In fact, I strongly dislike Ainge, but I think no general manager is cunning enough to convince another team to move down two spots in the high first-round without any meaningful compensation, which is what you said Pritchard was capable of in your previous post.

Now, any general manager can move from fifth to third if packaging the selection with another commodity of some interest. It doesn't take much front office knowledge to trade the Celtics' high second round pick and Gerald Green with the fifth selection for the third selection, but you made it seem like Pritchard was of some higher intelligence by stating that he would be able to "turn (the 5th pick) into the 3rd pick" as if by magic.

Ainge will not move up to the third selection, but it is not because he is incapable of doing so. It is because he is under the impression that he can select the best player of the draft at the fifth selection, a dumb philosophy.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



Premier said:


> I don't recall ever stating that Ainge was the superior general manager. In fact, I strongly dislike Ainge, but I think no general manager is cunning enough to convince another team to move down two spots in the high first-round without any meaningful compensation, which is what you said Pritchard was capable of in your previous post.
> 
> Now, any general manager can move from fifth to third if packaging the selection with another commodity of some interest. It doesn't take much front office knowledge to trade the Celtics' high second round pick and Gerald Green with the fifth selection for the third selection, but you made it seem like Pritchard was of some higher intelligence by stating that he would be able to "turn (the 5th pick) into the 3rd pick" as if by magic.
> 
> Ainge will not move up to the third selection, but it is not because he is incapable of doing so. It is because he is under the impression that he can select the best player of the draft at the fifth selection, a dumb philosophy.


I guess moving from 4th to 2nd last season was luck then. Sure Portland had to give up something, but when you look at the move, which all the people covering the draft where ripping Portland apart for the move, now appears to look brilliant. I in no way meant that he would wave his magic wand and turn the 5th into the 3 pick, he would have to give up something in return, remember Portland also holds 4 second rounds and a lot of young talent, Jack is a player that Atlanta has asked about, I'm sure he'd be involved if Portland had to move up.

Remember, you're dealing with Atlanta; a team most people think are looking to trade down and nab Conley. If Ainge worked it right he could make a deal with Atlanta. 

Pritchard does have more young talent to work with than Boston, which is way I don't see any problem with him making a move to move to the 3rd pick had Portland been given the 5th pick. Do I think he could do it, yeah, in a heartbeat? Just like Magic. :biggrin: 

You say it is an overstatement, I say it would be Kevin Pritchard doing his thing. The guy has a keen sense when it comes to talent; just ask Chicago or even Boston. Clearly got two of the better players from the draft last season and only had the 4th pick in the first round after the lottery. I'm saying it can be done, maybe not by Ainge, but it can be done.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*

A good offer is a good offer is a good offer. A bad offer is a bad offer is a bad offer. No general manager can take the same offer and improve it without adding a player, selection, or cash quantity. Though Pritchard is a better general manager than Ainge, his offer of the fifth and thirty-second selection for the third selection is just as bad as Ainge's offer of the fifth and thirty-second selection. Now, if you are saying that Pritchard would devise a crafty offer to entice Atlanta, I think you're overrating the difficulty of a general manager's job. Any basketball intellect with some knowledge of trade value and the CBA can think of the same offer as the best of general managers. Pritchard would not make an offer that someone did not think of.


----------



## Ainge for 3 (May 23, 2007)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



narrator said:


> I'm referring to the original statement itself. I'm saying that, prior to the Celtics losing the lottery, nobody on the Celtics board (absurd generalization, I know, but I'm not going through each and every thread) was complaining about the lottery.


I'm new to this particular Celtics forum, but I can't believe that Celtics fans didn't (a.) believe the Celtics "deserved" to get one of the top three picks and (b.) realized it was not a high enough probability after playing with ESPN's lottery generator toy. Complaining about the lottery process may not have had enough immediacy to posters until it actually unfolded, but I believe the sentiment was there before then. Also, part of the "outrage" about the results is that none of the 3 worst teams got a Top 3 pick, which strikes me and others as proof positive of a totally broken system. Stern said that the lottery wasn't necessarily designed to help bad teams become good teams, so what is it for, then? A cheap thrill from the suspense of the event? Why does the NBA not just use a reverse standings order or something? Does anyone know the history?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



HOWIE said:


> I guess moving from 4th to 2nd last season was luck then. Sure Portland had to give up something, but when you look at the move, which all the people covering the draft where ripping Portland apart for the move, now appears to look brilliant. I in no way meant that he would wave his magic wand and turn the 5th into the 3 pick, he would have to give up something in return, remember Portland also holds 4 second rounds and a lot of young talent, Jack is a player that Atlanta has asked about, I'm sure he'd be involved if Portland had to move up.
> 
> Remember, you're dealing with Atlanta; a team most people think are looking to trade down and nab Conley. If Ainge worked it right he could make a deal with Atlanta.
> 
> ...


Look, mate, how many times do teams give up the right to select franchise players in the draft? Trading from fourth to second in the worst draft pool in a decade isn't hard, there's no drop-off in talent to make the second pick intrinsically more valuable than the fourth. To go from fifth to third in a year where there's a huge drop-off after two and another after three isn't quite so simple. There comes a point where you have to trade more talent than the pick's worth to you, and that's generally the cost. As for Atnalta looking to trade down and draft Conley, it's highly doubtful. In first the only place I've seen this rumour is here and the RealBM boards. It's idle speculation, probably by Memphis & Boston fans praying that a good player slides to them. Conley is the opposite of a Billy Knight kind of point guard. Knight likes big, strong 1 guards that can shoot. Conley is the exact opposite. Ergo it ain't likely.



Ainge for 3 said:


> I'm new to this particular Celtics forum, but I can't believe that Celtics fans didn't (a.) believe the Celtics "deserved" to get one of the top three picks and (b.) realized it was not a high enough probability after playing with ESPN's lottery generator toy. Complaining about the lottery process may not have had enough immediacy to posters until it actually unfolded, but I believe the sentiment was there before then. Also, part of the "outrage" about the results is that none of the 3 worst teams got a Top 3 pick, which strikes me and others as proof positive of a totally broken system. Stern said that the lottery wasn't necessarily designed to help bad teams become good teams, so what is it for, then? A cheap thrill from the suspense of the event? Why does the NBA not just use a reverse standings order or something? Does anyone know the history?


Blame Jerry Reinsdorf. He *****ed and moaned that the Bulls were "cheated" by the Houston Rockets in 1984. He had this idea that the '84 Rockets were tanking, when in reality they were simply awful. They were the mediocre 80-82 Rockets without Moses Malone (if they had managed to beat the Celtics in 1981, they would have been the first losing team to ever win an NBA title). They added Ralph Sampson in 1983, but he wasn't enough to turn a 14 win team into a powerhouse. Ironically enough, the lottery would never have been born if the Rockets had just selected local hero Clyde Drexler with the third pick (Instead they drafted one of the awful McCray brothers, I can't remember which). Drexler would have started in Houston and would have been enough to edge the Rockets over the Bulls in the standings, and Jerry Reinsdorf wouldn't have called the commissioner's office 27 times a day to "stop the evil tanking". 

The original (pre-lottery) system worked fine. The lottery actually encourages tanking by holding out hope to bad, but not truly awful, teams. Years ago the top 2 picks were given to the last place finishers in each conference (with a coin flip determining the top spot), and you might have occasionally seen the bottom two teams in each conference jostling if they were particularly bad. But beyond that the other teams all tried because there was no real reward for losing unnecessarily. Under the lottery the worst ten teams jostle for position every year because finishing in the bottom six or seven affords one a shot at a top three selection. Which sort of defeats the stated purpose of the lottery (i.e. to prevent tanking). As evidence look at the number of teams that deliberately tossed this year (Milwaukee being the worst example); Atlanta, Seattle, Milwaukee, Memphis, Minnesota. Boston and Portland were probably the only two that didn't. Now Portland will be a title contender in a couple of years and Boston can look forward to riding out the Grousbeck regime in mediocrity. If the NBA must use a lottery system, then it should be the NHL one. It's really only the remotely fair one. The fact is that the draft is supposed to be a means of encouraging parity, by helping the worst teams acquire more talent. If the league is now arguing that that isn't what the draft is for, why bother having it? It makes just as much sense to abolish it at that point.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Not haveing a lottery would ENCOURAGE tanking. Having a lottery straight across the board isn't really fair to the worst teams. The current lottery situation is the perfect compromise. What do you people want?


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Not haveing a lottery would ENCOURAGE tanking. Having a lottery straight across the board isn't really fair to the worst teams. The current lottery situation is the perfect compromise. What do you people want?


Simple, the NHL's set up :biggrin:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> Not haveing a lottery would ENCOURAGE tanking.


Then why is tanking an epidemic now? It wasn't before the lottery. (Hint, it's because there's now a reward for finishing in the bottom 6, and more teams than ever tank.)


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

First... Stern is anti-Celtics and for the ratings killing Northwest? Yeah...



ehmunro said:


> If Pritchard were sitting on the 5th pick, he'd have a heck of a time trying to parlay that into the third pick in a deal that made sense for Portland.


Atlanta needs another forward like they need more humidity and thats who most everyone projects as the best players available at 3. What they do need is a PG and Portland has two quality young guys on their rookie deals in Jack and Sergio Rodriguez. That Jack went to Georgia Tech would give him a local angle as well. I'm sure that the Blazer board would be discussing various potential packages with ATL right now had they not moved up to #1 as the respective team's needs seem to line up.

As a Blazer fan of course I'm absolutely thrilled with the bounce of the ping pong balls and the clubs down the road prospects. If I were a Celts fan I'd be pretty bummed on missing out on the known prizes but that opportunity is gone and it would be time to look at other possibilities. I think ya'll will be in position to land an excellent starting player at #5 and of course there are always other ways to improve a roster. 

Chin up and good luck on the 28th!

STOMP


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

*Re: Stern is an anti-celtics*



Ainge for 3 said:


> I'm new to this particular Celtics forum, but I can't believe that Celtics fans didn't (a.) believe the Celtics "deserved" to get one of the top three picks and (b.) realized it was not a high enough probability after playing with ESPN's lottery generator toy. Complaining about the lottery process may not have had enough immediacy to posters until it actually unfolded, but I believe the sentiment was there before then. *Also, part of the "outrage" about the results is that none of the 3 worst teams got a Top 3 pick, which strikes me and others as proof positive of a totally broken system.* Stern said that the lottery wasn't necessarily designed to help bad teams become good teams, so what is it for, then? A cheap thrill from the suspense of the event? Why does the NBA not just use a reverse standings order or something? Does anyone know the history?


Wouldn't the fact that the statistically improbable outcome of this lottery - none of the top 3 teams having the top 3 picks - prove the lottery works? This is just a freakishly important year because of Oden and Durant, hence artificially increasing a team's dependence on the lottery. You could do the lottery a thousand times and 25% of the time (or whatever it was) Memphis will get the first pick. To use the actual result as proof of a broken system is wrong, in my opinion.

The lottery, in my view, is designed to prevent tanking and, while it's obviously failing at that because Milwaukee, Memphis, and Boston so clearly tanked last season, it does show that tanking does not guarantee a draft position. And that's the point, in my eyes. It's heavily weighted in favor of the worst teams, whether people admit it or not. The lottery is just that - a lottery. It's not a coronation or a definite proposition.

Re: the end of your post: the NBA went to a lottery to prevent tanking. I've no idea of the entire history so I can't help you there. Sorry. :biggrin:

And, yes, the system needs to be tweaked. Just so we're all clear on that. :biggrin:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Atlanta needs another forward like they need more humidity and thats who most everyone projects as the best players available at 3.


Atnalta has one of the worst 4/5 rotations in the NBA. They _desperately_ need help there. They have a #11 pick to grab a combo guard for the backcourt. Brandan Wright>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any 4/5 available at 11. They'll probably grab Al Horford, anyway. But the last thing they need is another mediocre point guard.



STOMP said:


> What they do need is a PG and Portland has two quality young guys on their rookie deals in Jack and Sergio Rodriguez. That Jack went to Georgia Tech would give him a local angle as well. I'm sure that the Blazer board would be discussing various potential packages with ATL right now had they not moved up to #1 as the respective team's needs seem to line up.


Jarrett Jack for #3? :lol: 

Sorry, guys. Atnalta can't take Randolph off your hands due to the legal fight surrounding the franchise. That leaves you with what, spare parts to trade? Atnalta needs the talent far more than they need a(nother) backup point guard that can't penetrate and can't defend. Do you seriously think that a former #21 pick gathering dust is worth a top 3 selection? I mean, really?



STOMP said:


> If I were a Celts fan I'd be pretty bummed on missing out on the known prizes but that opportunity is gone and it would be time to look at other possibilities. I think ya'll will be in position to land an excellent starting player at #5 and of course there are always other ways to improve a roster.


That would require a competent GM, the one thing Boston doesn't have.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> *Jarrett Jack for #3? :lol:
> 
> Sorry, guys. Atnalta can't take Randolph off your hands due to the legal fight surrounding the franchise. That leaves you with what, spare parts to trade? Atnalta needs the talent far more than they need a(nother) backup point guard that can't penetrate and can't defend. Do you seriously think that a former #21 pick gathering dust is worth a top 3 selection? I mean, really?*


not too hot with reading comprehension are you? I said various packages with Jarrett Jack involved not JJ for the #3. Those various packages could include the big that you allude to and that Portland has a spare of (namely Joel or Zach) or the #6 that Portland would have held had they not moved up. Of course salaries exchanged would have to match as well. 

It always strikes me as odd when a poster blasts a player that they are clueless on, and it's pretty obvious you don't know bleep about Jack... basically why pretend? Coming out of college he was pretty severely injured with an ankle and fell to the 22nd pick missing most of his rookie year. He showed enough for management to deal both of the PGs ahead of him and give him the starting job. This past season instead of gathering dust, he started 79 games averaging over 33 minutes. Dude definitely defends and takes it to the hole pretty regularly. I'm not looking to dump him, I'm just taking on your point that Portland's GM wouldn't have the ability to put together a trade worthy of the #3.

I also said that had Portland not moved up that they'd be discussing those possibilities right now... well since I posted that a new thread appeared over on the Blazer board. 

http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/360779-trade-atlanta.html

STOMP


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

STOMP said:


> not too hot with reading comprehension are you? I said various packages with Jarrett Jack involved not JJ for the #3. Those various packages could include the big that you allude to and that Portland has a spare of (namely Joel or Zach) or the #6 that Portland would have held had they not moved up. Of course salaries exchanged would have to match as well.


My reading comprehension is just fine. The problem is that someone thinks that the #22 pick in a weak draft is a great centerpiece in dealing for a franchise power forward. It isn't. Portland's biggest trade asset, Randolph, is useless in this case because Atlanta can't take him. What's left? Sergio Rodriguez? Not going to cut it. Atnalta can't take back salary from you. That leaves you guys trying to trade marginal kids (Outlaw, Jack, Rodriguez) and a devalued pick for a franchise forward. I guess in your little universe Pritchard uses his magic powers and makes it happen. In the real world trading away potential franchise picks is the surest route to the unemployment line. Fans will wait for prospects to develop, when you trade them they expect the players coming in to satisfy their expectations for the prospect (which, as you've demonstrated admirably, are always incredibly unrealistic). As for you puzzling bit about trading #6, you were speaking of all the things you guys had to offer Atnalta as a means of getting Conley to go along with Oden, so I'm not sure why you're changing tack here.



STOMP said:


> It always strikes me as odd when a poster blasts a player that they are clueless on, and it's pretty obvious you don't know bleep about Jack... basically why pretend? Coming out of college he was pretty severely injured with an ankle and fell to the 22nd pick missing most of his rookie year. He showed enough for management to deal both of the PGs ahead of him and give him the starting job. This past season instead of gathering dust, he started 79 games averaging over 33 minutes. Dude definitely defends and takes it to the hole pretty regularly. I'm not looking to dump him, I'm just taking on your point that Portland's GM wouldn't have the ability to put together a trade worthy of the #3.


Any Portland game I've watched Jack spends more time hoisting jumpers than driving. Now, as Boston has (outside of Rondo) some of the worst defensive point guards on the planet, I assume that he should have been able to get to the hole at will. But, I thought, hey, maybe I've just had bad timing. Maybe you're right, and the Portland games I watch have been an aberration. But, no, a quick check of the numbers shows that nearly three quarters of his shots are jumpers, that's not a "dude that takes it to the hole regularly". That's a jumpshooter, that is. And he was a terrible defender last year. Maybe he just had a really down year, maybe he was feeling irregular and it made him a step slow on the defensive end, or maybe playing against NBA starters, rather than backups, exposed him as a defender. Whatever the reason, he was terrible last year. Argue it if you want, but I bet if I pull his PER and point differentials they'll come up negatives. As for beating out Sebastian Telfair & Steve Blake, let's just say that that isn't exactly impressive. It's the equivalent of beating out Orien Greene and Dan Dickau.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> My reading comprehension is just fine. The problem is that someone thinks that the #22 pick in a weak draft is a great centerpiece in dealing for a franchise power forward. It isn't. Portland's biggest trade asset, Randolph, is useless in this case because Atlanta can't take him. What's left? Sergio Rodriguez? Not going to cut it. Atnalta can't take back salary from you. That leaves you guys trying to trade marginal kids (Outlaw, Jack, Rodriguez) and a devalued pick for a franchise forward. I guess in your little universe Pritchard uses his magic powers and makes it happen. In the real world trading away potential franchise picks is the surest route to the unemployment line. Fans will wait for prospects to develop, when you trade them they expect the players coming in to satisfy their expectations for the prospect (which, as you've demonstrated admirably, are always incredibly unrealistic). As for you puzzling bit about trading #6, you were speaking of all the things you guys had to offer Atnalta as a means of getting Conley to go along with Oden, so I'm not sure why you're changing tack here.


My little universe??? Dude, your logic, knowledge of the league, and reading comprehension sucks. Your own stupid scenario was that Portland's GM couldn't turn the #5 pick (not sure how they would have had that pick, but whatever...) into the #3, when it's entirely plausible that he could. I didn't even throw in that having the richest owner in all of sports backing the GM's decisions can open some options as well (see last years Blazer-Celts deal). And where in your crosseyed world did you come up with me wanting Conley for the Blazers? I didn't even mention his name. Maybe it's the voices in your head that are changing tack? 



> Any Portland game I've watched Jack spends more time hoisting jumpers than driving. Now, as Boston has (outside of Rondo) some of the worst defensive point guards on the planet, I assume that he should have been able to get to the hole at will. But, I thought, hey, maybe I've just had bad timing. Maybe you're right, and the Portland games I watch have been an aberration. But, no, a quick check of the numbers shows that nearly three quarters of his shots are jumpers, that's not a "dude that takes it to the hole regularly". That's a jumpshooter, that is. And he was a terrible defender last year. Maybe he just had a really down year, maybe he was feeling irregular and it made him a step slow on the defensive end, or maybe playing against NBA starters, rather than backups, exposed him as a defender. Whatever the reason, he was terrible last year. Argue it if you want, but I bet if I pull his PER and point differentials they'll come up negatives. As for beating out Sebastian Telfair & Steve Blake, let's just say that that isn't exactly impressive. It's the equivalent of beating out Orien Greene and Dan Dickau.


In the few games you've watched Jack against the Celts he didn't impress you... got it. I watch most every Blazer game and see someone who is a decent starting talent and showed a lot of promise for a young PG in his first healthy season in the league. Definitely a step up to whats been in place since PIP was manning the Blazer point. Taking it to the hole and defense are two of the things he does well and are pretty much never mentioned in complaints about him by those that do watch him regularly. .. but what do people who watch games know compared to you and your blind guesses?

Oh and thanks for informing me that where a guy is drafted determines how well their career will go. I guess Brandon Roy should give the ROY to it's rightful owner Bargnani... someone should tell Paul Pierce he's not as good as Olowokandi. What nonsense...

STOMP


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

STOMP said:


> My little universe??? Dude, your logic, knowledge of the league, and reading comprehension sucks. Your own stupid scenario was that Portland's GM couldn't turn the #5 pick (not sure how they would have had that pick, but whatever...) into the #3, when it's entirely plausible that he could.


You know, for someone that's so insulting of other people's reading comprehension, you're not exactly aces up, are you? In other words, you either haven't been reading the thread or reading it and not understanding what you read. As you can't even keep the names of the posters straight. Let's have a look at the record, shall we?



Howie said:


> Pritchard moved from 4th to 2nd last year to nab Aldridge, why is it so hard to believe that Ainge can't move up to the third pick giving Atlanta something in return?





Premier said:


> Now, any general manager can move from fifth to third if packaging the selection with another commodity of some interest. It doesn't take much front office knowledge to trade the Celtics' high second round pick and Gerald Green with the fifth selection for the third selection, but you made it seem like Pritchard was of some higher intelligence by stating that he would be able to "turn (the 5th pick) into the 3rd pick" as if by magic.





Howie said:


> I guess moving from 4th to 2nd last season was luck then. Sure Portland had to give up something, but when you look at the move, which all the people covering the draft where ripping Portland apart for the move, now appears to look brilliant. I in no way meant that he would wave his magic wand and turn the 5th into the 3 pick, he would have to give up something in return, remember Portland also holds 4 second rounds and a lot of young talent, Jack is a player that Atlanta has asked about, I'm sure he'd be involved if Portland had to move up.





Premier said:


> A good offer is a good offer is a good offer. A bad offer is a bad offer is a bad offer. No general manager can take the same offer and improve it without adding a player, selection, or cash quantity. Though Pritchard is a better general manager than Ainge, his offer of the fifth and thirty-second selection for the third selection is just as bad as Ainge's offer of the fifth and thirty-second selection. Now, if you are saying that Pritchard would devise a crafty offer to entice Atlanta, I think you're overrating the difficulty of a general manager's job. Any basketball intellect with some knowledge of trade value and the CBA can think of the same offer as the best of general managers. Pritchard would not make an offer that someone did not think of.





ehmunro said:


> If Pritchard were sitting on the 5th pick, he'd have a heck of a time trying to parlay that into the third pick in a deal that made sense for Portland.





STOMP said:


> Atlanta needs another forward like they need more humidity and thats who most everyone projects as the best players available at 3. What they do need is a PG and Portland has two quality young guys on their rookie deals in Jack and Sergio Rodriguez. That Jack went to Georgia Tech would give him a local angle as well.


Do you understand now? I know that's a lot of reading, but I'm sure you can do it. I have confidence in you.



STOMP said:


> I didn't even throw in that having the richest owner in all of sports backing the GM's decisions can open some options as well (see last years Blazer-Celts deal).


Atnalta doesn't need Portland to eat salary to keep them under the luxury tax line. So Paul Allen's really irrelevant in the discussion of Pritchard's magic powers.



STOMP said:


> And where in your crosseyed world did you come up with me wanting Conley for the Blazers? I didn't even mention his name. Maybe it's the voices in your head that are changing tack?


Insulting moderators is against the ToS here, mate. So please tone down your language, thanks.



STOMP said:


> In the few games you've watched Jack against the Celts he didn't impress you... got it. I watch most every Blazer game and see someone who is a decent starting talent and showed a lot of promise for a young PG in his first healthy season in the league. Definitely a step up to whats been in place since PIP was manning the Blazer point. Taking it to the hole and defense are two of the things he does well and are pretty much never mentioned in complaints about him by those that do watch him regularly. .. but what do people who watch games know compared to you and your blind guesses?


So, his defense got worse because he was finally healthy? Sure enough, I doublechecked and the numbers bore out my observations, he was outscored and outproduced at both the 1 & 2, and not because he's Eric Snow. His own scoring and production were fine. His opponents on the other hand, scored with relative ease. 

Let's review your claims, shall we?

"Dude definitely defends and takes it to the hole pretty regularly."

Nearly three quarters of his shots are jumpers and he's regularly outproduced by the guys he's guarding. So maybe your observational skills aren't as good as you assume? 



STOMP said:


> Oh and thanks for informing me that where a guy is drafted determines how well their career will go. I guess Brandon Roy should give the ROY to it's rightful owner Bargnani... someone should tell Paul Pierce he's not as good as Olowokandi. What nonsense...


I'm sorry, I was unaware that Jarrett Jack was already an All-Star. My apologies, if I had known he was already one of the top 6 PGs in the NBA I would have viewed your statements differently. :lol: 

Jack is a prospect. Maybe one day he'll be a decent starter, maybe not. If he were as good as you seem to think he is, Portland wouldn't be looking to replace him. So even the Blazers disagree with you.



I know some things were said that weren't meant, but let's move forward and try to keep arguments in a civilized manner. Meaning members don't insult mods and mods don't insult regular members.

Thanks, aqua.


----------

