Fallacy #1-- The New Orleans Hornets can't let CP3 walk and so they should trade him Rational Thinking: With the new salary cap (and with the old to some degree) owners can call the bluff of a demanding star. If the Hornets keep Paul this year and let him go to free agency, then they are the only ones who can offer him a 5 year deal with 7.5% raises. This ends up being a pile of cash. If they trade him, he gets that with whatever "Super Team" by which the Hornets get hoodwinked. Additionally, they get to keep him a year and make money off of him and he has to play well (to some degree) since it is a contract year for him. Hence, you aren't "letting him walk" they are calling a bluff and forcing him to choose between where he wants to go and more money. Amazingly, players tend to go with money.

Fallacy #2-- The New Orleans Hornets were getting the best deal they will get. Rational Thinking: Odom, KMart, Scola, etc. are not going to make them a good team. They will be a mediocre team with a lot of cash tied up in good roll players. The best deal they can get are picks and low-salary player OR Picks and a equal salary of decent players with relatively short contracts. This way they can at least have future opportunities in drafts and free agency (I know, no one will ever go to NO in FA)

Fallacy #3-- The Lakers gave up a lot to get Paul. Rational Thinking: The Lakers got an All-Star point guard for the next year to pair with Kobe and Bynum. They got below the salary cap by getting rid of long-term, high-dollar contracts and a trade exception; hence, they can be a part of FA signings in the next years as well as trades for other star players (Here is looking at you Howard). Additionally, they can offer CP3 a better salary than can anyone else.

Fallacy #4-- Stern's reaction was a kneejerk to the response of the owners. Rational Thinking: Stern is in charge of the NO Hornets until they are sold. Anyone who thinks that Mark Cuban doesn't have final say in a possible trade is insane. Stern knows the economics of the new CBA and knows the benefits of keeping or trading Paul. This is why any trade made will involve near equal salary or a large number of picks. If there was a response to the owners is was a response to suggestions by the owners that it would not be good business for NO to end flexibility before selling the team. They know that the Hornets will be sold for more if either 1) The team has CP3 or 2) It has flexibility in the future, but definitely not 3) A mediocre team with no flexibility or star power.

If you are like me, you are tired of watching some teams take a different approach to winning when you get through around half the season. Some even earlier...

What am I talking about. I mean the phenomenon of "tanking". I hate it! I think it is an awful flaw in the system. I am horrified at teams playing badly (or top players not playing *see below*) because their season is bad. It is also bad for the league as it creates anger and disinterest in fans. Who wants to watch your team lose on purpose? I don't think the ratings on a good lottery are better than the ratings of two teams trying to win. Anyway, all that to say this. Isn't there a better system?

Current percentages in draft lottery-

1. 250 combinations, 25% chance of receiving the #1 pick
2. 199 combinations, 19.9% chance
3. 156 combinations, 15.6% chance
4. 119 combinations, 11.9% chance
5. 88 combinations, 8.8% chance
6. 63 combinations, 6.3% chance
7. 43 combinations, 4.3% chance
8. 28 combinations, 2.8% chance
9. 17 combinations, 1.7% chance
10. 11 combinations, 1.1% chance
11. 8 combinations, 0.8% chance
12. 7 combinations, 0.7% chance
13. 6 combinations, 0.6% chance
14. 5 combinations, 0.5% chance

Pretty simple. There are some rules like the team with the worst record can't pick worse than fourth and stuff like that, but you get the idea. The goal is to help the worst team with the best draftee. Unfortunately, sometimes you get a team that isn't the worst but looks the worst due to injury (unavoidable) or one that loses part of the season due to injury, etc. and tanks it. How can we avoid the latter situation?

Some people have thrown out the idea recently to have a two tiered (soccer style) system in the NBA. The owners understandably hate the idea. But what about having two tiers within one league. Change the percentages so that the 7-8 worst teams get the best chances to win first pick. From there you would keep going on down the line (I suggest weighting slightly toward the bottom and will show what that looks like later) Then Lets look at benefits and disadvantages.

Advantages

1. Teams at the bottom of the pack will be trying to win so that they can get the first pick.

2. Teams that were in that horrible territory of mediocrity can be rewarded for at least trying as opposed to rewarding badly run/coached teams or teams that don't show up.

Disadvantages- I am sure you will think of more than I have

1. Some teams that are almost playoff teams might try to lose games to get picks (is this worse than mediocre or almost playoff teams losing whole seasons to get high picks?)

2. Truly bad teams might be stuck there (but there is always free agency). This is actually a gift in that only well run teams will get off the bottom rather than badly run lucky ones.

Lastly, here would be the percentages in my system.

1. 5%
2. 6.5%
3. 8%
4. 9%
5. 11%
6. 14%
7. 16%
8. 11%
9. 7%
10. 5%
11. 3.5%
12. 2%
13. 1.5%
14. .5% 

You can do what you want to change the numbers around a little and get the same idea. The percentages go down from the 7th worst record in both directions but start weighting more and more toward the worse team. This is to give less of a chance to a very good team getting a pick. However, it would be an anamoly in any year considering it is only recently that teams with records over mid-40 wins have not made playoffs.

Well, tell me what you think...improve. It is just an idea to help fix the nba in some way.

I nearly vomited every time I heard an olympic announcer talk about Wade's "surprise" comeback after a bad season. Anyone who knows basketball could see he was ready to come back earlier but didn't so they could lose games and get a high draft pick. SICK

On the 24th Mike Fisher posted as Donut #4 this little thought...

I’m sure you’ve noticed this, but it’s been handled very quietly: Since Josh Howard’s return, hasn’t he kind of been playing the 2-guard? Generally now, only when Howard and Jason Terry are in the game together does J-Ho become the 3.

   I know what you're thinking: Josh is playing some 2 because management is hopeful of adding a front-line player via trade by mid-February! Yay!

   I'm not suggesting that. Just making a note, that's all.

During the  Memphis game I made this note.

Does anyone think...

J-ho is playing SG because of trade possibilties?

I got shouted down, well actually whispered since there were only 5 people posting...OK the truth is no one really even cared to make but one comment, but might this be something?