Doc Brown wrote:Stop playing the victim role for the small market squads.
Cavs - 4 Top 5 draft picks since 2011............Playoff appearances since 2011 = 0
Kings - 5 Top 7 draft picks since 2009...........Playoff appearances since 2009 = 0
Bobcats - 4 Top 10 draft picks since 2008.......Playoff appearances since 2008 = 2
Wizards - 4 Top 6 draft picks since 2010........Playoff appearances since 2010 = 1
Pistons - 4 Top 9 draft picks since 2010.........Playoff appearances since 2010 = 0
TWolves - 5 Top 6 draft picks since 2008.......Playoff appearances since 2008 = 0
Bobcats and Wizards added a playoff appearance this year because they decided to be FA players and not stick with only building through the draft.
How are the Spurs surviving without any top picks? How did the Pacers get good without any top picks? Portland gets to the playoffs by adding a player (Lillard) that wasn't a top pick. Houston didn't have any top picks, in the playoffs. Toronto gets to the playoffs led by players not drafted as top picks. Hawks get to the playoffs with their top pick out for the season and no top picks. GSW in the playoffs no top 5 picks.
Draft is one way to get better, but the small market teams fail to expand out of that zone into FA and trades because, like you, they are mesmerized at the mystique of getting a top 3 pick and changing their franchise forever.
All the small market and bad teams have to do is build a competitive team that doesn't get mauled every night. That would involve them spending money and actually running a team, drafting right, signing FA.
But keep playing the victim role for them because they are choosing not to get better because the current system rewards them for not trying.
I just don't see the logic in giving the non-playoff teams with the best point differentials the top picks. You are rewarding a team that just missed the playoffs at getting the best picks while the worst teams continue to get the worst picks. You will also have tanking issues. For example, say a LeBron or Blake is available and you have 5-6 teams on the borders of making or missing the playoffs. And usually, the better the team, the better the point differential. So a team in the 7th or 8th spot might land the #1 pick if they finish 9th cause this team would have the best point differential. You don't think there will be teams that will tank a playoff birth away to get that next possible legend? Let's face it, if you are a 7th or 8th seed, you are good but not good enough to win it all. I will admit that it isn't easy to guarantee a top pick as the more you lose, the wosrt your point differential but like a said, a team at the 7th and 8th seed usually has a higher point differential than the 9th and 10th seed. So if the higher seed decides to lose a few games and can still have the best differential, they just landed Lebron. If not, they still get the 2nd or 3rd. My point is, it's not too hard to calculate how you can position yourself with the top pick.
Like I said, I just don't see the logic in awarding the best teams that didn't make the playoffs the best picks. You are assuming that every bad team is tanking on purpose. Some teams try but just suck and could use a very high pick and their point differential is not due to tanking but lack of talent.