Buy low, Sell high?

[Kestas]

Ryan, Patrick S Maj RES USAFR 439 MSG wrote:

>Lastly, just a moment to rant here...the draft lottery is the dumbest
>invention ever devised.  What other pro sport creates a system wherein the
>least deserving team could conceivably gain the best overall pick?
>Obviously, the argument has been "it'll prevent tanking".  HA!!!  That sure
>seems to have worked this year for Boston and Memphis and to a lesser degree
>Philadelphia hasn't it? The greatest asset to pro football's success is the
>belief that regardless of how a team finishes any given year that through
>free agency and the draft that a team can go from worst to first (there is
>an example, or two, every single year - take New Orleans and the Jets this
>year).  Wouldn't a commissioner WANT that belief to be fostered? A draft
>lottery contributes (as does the low number of players per team and the
>worst cap system known to man) to a prolonged rebuilding process by
>integrating luck as a factor.  It does nothing to prevent teams from
>"tanking" and it sure as heck does little to give fans hope for the future
>which in turn means at least some continued interest in a team despite a
>losing campaign.  And from an entire league standpoint (which is what Stern
>is supposed to be looking out for right?) does a couple teams tanking hurt
>the league or hurt those teams? 
>
> 
>
>I know it won't change as long as "Don" Stern is in charge, but I do believe
>a good first step to trying to get parity in basketball is number one to get
>rid of the draft lottery and institute a draft based on record.
>
>  
>
I don't get it - you seem to be against tanking, yet want to have a 
draft order based strictly on record? Or am I misunderstanding your 
argument?
In any case, it seems obvious that a record-based draft  would induce 
the  non-contenders to do anything but shoot at their own basket (and 
perhaps even that,  via defensive "rebound" tip-ins) to get to the top 
of the draft. As you mention, this is especially a problem in 
basketball, where one excellent player can make such a huge difference.
The best way to avoid tanking is the way the rest of the world does it - 
via the promotion/demotion system. When a team gets demoted to a lower 
level, not only is it embarrassing, but the players' and staff salaries 
get slashed dramatically, so there's a huge incentive  for everyone to 
try hard all the time. 
But back to reality, as in the States  this is of course pure fantasy. 
So, then it becomes a question of the weighting. One could have a real 
(equiprobable) lottery,  which would remove most of the incentive  to 
tank, except perhaps for aging borderline  teams without the proverbial 
"upside". The argument against is of course why the weighted lottery was 
instituted in the first place - striving for parity. So,  you could 
weight it towards the worst teams less (but please, not this year! :> ). 
A provocative idea that would eliminate tanking altogether would be to 
weight it slightly towards the better lottery teams. This tend to 
preserve the status quo a little, though I doubt it would have much of 
an effect. The real reason some teams stay bad is not because they 
haven't won the lottery. It's because David Stern is deeply committed to 
screwing those teams.

(Just checking to see if you're still paying attention).
No, seriously, the real reason is the same reason that some companies or 
people are lousy- it's what they've got upstairs.
The best way to balance the league would be to rotate the management 
every few years. Having a guy like R.C. Buford running the team might 
help it more than getting Oden. Of course that's  fantasy as well, but 
at this point of the season,  that's pretty much all we have left as 
Celtics fans.
Kestas