So I'll preface this by stating that there's typically a very polarized view of whether or not the NBA lottery, or the league in general, can be or is fixed. There seems to be a prevailing impression of a false dichotomy between each lottery being sketchy or all of them being legitimate. My belief is that in most years (and by most I mean the majority), there's so much guesswork that you couldn't say with any certainty that fixing a lottery would benefit the league as a whole. Fixing a lottery, like giving the Cavs a pick, doesn't guarantee anything or have any real clear objective. There are times, however, where a particular franchise landing a promising talent would be a much more sure-thing for elevating that franchise and helping the overall quality and image of the league. This isn't to say that the league just favors a large market. I think this is one of the flaws that gets perpetuated in the false dichotomy mentioned above. Ultimately, it boils down to money. Often times this will correlate with large markets, but something being a large market doesn't necessarily ensure league-wide financial benefits. An exciting, healthy league can be brought about by a long, competitive playoff series, close games and buzzer beaters, highlight reels and stories. On the other hand, you can have a franchise in a large market (see NYK for the past 15 years) that it would be absolutely fruitless to try to help by shady actions, simply because they're so poorly run that if you were going to the lengths to risk league credibility, you'd put that effort somewhere that you'd get more bang for your buck... rather than just flushing it down the toilet.
This year, there's a pretty clear and realistic advantage where if you throw a bone to the Lakers, it would pay dividends for at least the next decade. I can't think back to a more advantageous time in the league for a team being able to use a pick to get off the league food stamps system. The league won't be rewarding the proverbial perpetual food-stamp users.
Now, to get to the point of what this thread hinges on, is that if the Lakers land a top 3 pick this year (I personally think they'll be #2), then it will prove nothing about the league fixing lotteries. In fact, many will come out of the woodwork to state how blatant it would be for the Lakers to get a top pick in a fix and how them getting one is evidence against it because the league couldn't be that blatant. On the other hand, should the Lakers not land a top 3 pick, then we could almost completely dismiss any lottery conspiracy theories of the future and recent past, as none of them could touch the magnitude and significance of accomplishing league goals as the Lakers getting a top 3 pick. If the league wouldn't fix a lottery where the benefit is so large and clear, then it's hard to make any argument that the league fixes lotteries where the perceived benefit is, at best, murky (see Cleveland type teams winning the lottery).
As mentioned before, I think Lakers will go #2. I think it's irrelevant who gets the top picks if LA doesn't win one of them -- there's no fixing if it's not the Lakers. However, I think the Lakers would fair just as well over the next decade regardless of being #1 or #2. I think #2 is a safe position for them to end up for all parties.
tl;dr: if the Lakers get a top 3 pick, it doesn't really validate conspiracy theories as you could still say they had reasonable odds of landing there without a fix. If they don't, however, land a top 3 pick, then you could nearly safely exclude most all lottery conspiracy theories as this would be an ideal setting for one to happen, but that ultimately didn't.
Here's to hoping I'm wrong.
This year, there's a pretty clear and realistic advantage where if you throw a bone to the Lakers, it would pay dividends for at least the next decade. I can't think back to a more advantageous time in the league for a team being able to use a pick to get off the league food stamps system. The league won't be rewarding the proverbial perpetual food-stamp users.
Now, to get to the point of what this thread hinges on, is that if the Lakers land a top 3 pick this year (I personally think they'll be #2), then it will prove nothing about the league fixing lotteries. In fact, many will come out of the woodwork to state how blatant it would be for the Lakers to get a top pick in a fix and how them getting one is evidence against it because the league couldn't be that blatant. On the other hand, should the Lakers not land a top 3 pick, then we could almost completely dismiss any lottery conspiracy theories of the future and recent past, as none of them could touch the magnitude and significance of accomplishing league goals as the Lakers getting a top 3 pick. If the league wouldn't fix a lottery where the benefit is so large and clear, then it's hard to make any argument that the league fixes lotteries where the perceived benefit is, at best, murky (see Cleveland type teams winning the lottery).
As mentioned before, I think Lakers will go #2. I think it's irrelevant who gets the top picks if LA doesn't win one of them -- there's no fixing if it's not the Lakers. However, I think the Lakers would fair just as well over the next decade regardless of being #1 or #2. I think #2 is a safe position for them to end up for all parties.
tl;dr: if the Lakers get a top 3 pick, it doesn't really validate conspiracy theories as you could still say they had reasonable odds of landing there without a fix. If they don't, however, land a top 3 pick, then you could nearly safely exclude most all lottery conspiracy theories as this would be an ideal setting for one to happen, but that ultimately didn't.
Here's to hoping I'm wrong.
