cabs
All-Star
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2018
- Messages
- 6,583
- Reaction score
- 8,686
- Points
- 113
I’m saying it would have been better for them to lose, hence the season should not count at all...The Warriors legitimately sucked and had little chance this season after Durant left and those injuries happened. Without Durant, Curry, and Thompson, Draymond Green was basically bad. It is akin to when Robinson went down for the Spurs and missed the entire 96-97 season, which led to them getting Duncan with the first pick in the draft. Yes, both the Spurs and GSW were teams that were still fundamentally sound, andin that sense it was "unfair" that they got good picks, but the injuries were legit. In any case, here's the example you used:
So you were objecting to the Bucks and Lakers not having the opportunity to tank, and to get good picks like the Cavs and Knicks. Why should the rich get richer?And just as an aside, I'm not sure what kind of Cavs fan complains because the Cavs and Knicks, rather than the Bucks and Lakers, are getting the better draft picks. Actually, I guess I do know what kind of "Cavs" fan thinks that way.....
The draft is not meant to be a reward for finishing last. It is meant to be part of a system that helps the teams with less talent become more competitive in future season. Your complaint here subverts the entire logic behind the draft order.
I don’t even know what you’re blabbering on about in the middle part, are you saying I’m not a cavs fan because I hold an unbiased view? I clearly would prefer and have stated as such that the nba just give us a high pick but I dont think that should be the case.
The drafts main purpose is so all the best young players don’t sign with the lakers like a soccer situation and the fairest way is to prevent that is by giving the worst teams first opportunity. If the NFL’s next season is canceled who according to you should get the first pick? Bengals again?
I don’t see how you can’t see that the only team being rewarded are the worst teams.