I know I post this every year and at most, one or two other people respond to it, but what event can bring together basketball and my nerd love for statistics but the NBA lottery.

The lottery sure worked out for the Bulls last year. Although the Bulls won't be participating in the lottery this year, I'm still interested on which team will get to pick Blake Griffin. Overall though, I think this year's crop of lottery picks seem a little weak.

To have your own lottery fun, click on ESPN Mock Draft.

i thought the bulls was in the lottery again (got it from a trade with olkahoma or some other team)?

As far as I know, the Bulls aren't lottery-eligible.

damn...i was going to pick them too lol...well then i think olkahoma city will get the first pick.

Clippers win the lottery. I feel sorry for Griffin. I'm with Bill Simmons - to prevent teams from tanking and having these lottery-bound players tied to losing franchises year-in and year-out, all teams, including playoff teams, should have an equal shot at winning the lottery. The Clippers are absolutely horrendous. They've participated in 20 of the 25 lotteries since the system's inception.

I don't think the playoff teams should have a chance at the lottery. I would like to see the lottery odds a little closer for the 14 teams though.

Or maybe, since most teams draft poorly anyway, they should just take all of the players and put their names in a hat, and randomly place them on teams. Teams can decide if they want them, and if not the player becomes a free agent. Griffin could have ended up on any team that way

My ideas are stupid, I know.

There's one thing I'll give the NBA, it levels the playing field sort to speak. Remember when during the Jordan era the East was the dominant conference and now the West is? Remember how bad the Spurs were prior to Tim Duncan arriving? Through the NBA draft and free agency, the NBA has been better able to have different teams win it every year IMO.

You look at MLB and it's always the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, etc (the same old teams). And in football is was always Dallas or New England. But the NBA for whatever reason is able to get different teams in it.

I believe that you should pay for performance. Our current economic tailspin was caused by bank executives who weren't incentivized to look after risk. Moving to the NBA, I don't think you should reward perenially losing teams by giving them the highest picks year after year. Is it really such a bad thing that an above-average team becomes a great team after getting the #1 pick? The Spurs was only in the lottery the year they got Duncan because Robinson was hurt the year before. Before Robinson's injury, the Spurs were pretty good. Getting Duncan made the Spurs one of the best dynasties, which I think is a good thing. The above-average Bulls getting Rose? A good thing for the league, I think.