View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Admiral_Needa
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 10482 Location: Tiburon, CA
Back to top |
|
p_d_swanson
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 9713
Back to top |
Posted: 12/21/04 6:48 pm ::: Re: And The 10th Pick of the 2005 WNBA Draft Goes to... |
Reply |
|
Quote: |
Someone will have to explain that tiebreaker to me again... |
I believe they use the same procedure as for determining playoff seeding. Four teams tied with 18-16 records; in games played among those four, Minnesota finished 5-3, Sacramento 4-4, New York 4-4 and Connecticut 3-5. The Sun were thus awarded #8 and Minnesota #11, with Sacramento gaining the #9 spot by virtue of a 6-6 record vs. Eastern Conference opponents while the Liberty went 8-6 against the West.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 12/22/04 3:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
So Connecticut wins the Eastern Conference and gets the top seed in the playoffs, but then picks ahead of the New York Liberty in the subsequent WNBA draft?
|
|
BCBG25
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 20112 Location: Sampa
Back to top |
Posted: 12/22/04 9:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
So Connecticut wins the Eastern Conference and gets the top seed in the playoffs, but then picks ahead of the New York Liberty in the subsequent WNBA draft? |
Yes, that's just fucked up.
_________________ Kings of the World!
|
|
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 18815
Back to top |
Posted: 12/22/04 10:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
BCBG25 wrote: |
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
So Connecticut wins the Eastern Conference and gets the top seed in the playoffs, but then picks ahead of the New York Liberty in the subsequent WNBA draft? |
Yes, that's just fucked up. |
It's a wonderful thing!!!
|
|
blzntr33s
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 364
Back to top |
Posted: 12/22/04 3:07 pm ::: Re: And The 10th Pick of the 2005 WNBA Draft Goes to... |
Reply |
|
Hmm... Looks like LA gets the short end of the stick. Can't say I'm disappointed. No offense Sparks fans, but.... you know. LOL
|
|
KeiraNY
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 12683 Location: New York, NY
Back to top |
Posted: 12/22/04 3:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Yes it is pretty fvcked up!! When the Libs won the division we still picked last, only ahead of LA...I think we should be picking at LEAST 8...eh, whatever!! Whoever we pick won't pass the "chemistry" test and will be dumped in training camp...
BCBG25 wrote: |
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
So Connecticut wins the Eastern Conference and gets the top seed in the playoffs, but then picks ahead of the New York Liberty in the subsequent WNBA draft? |
Yes, that's just fucked up. |
|
|
4ever_bball_fan
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 Posts: 6125 Location: Houston
Back to top |
Posted: 12/22/04 3:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
KeiraNY wrote:
"Whoever we pick won't pass the "chemistry" test and will be dumped in training camp... "
I couldn't agree more, but with the mid-level veterans becoming more difficult to keep due to salary cap issues, rookies will have a chance at making a team just because they are less expensive.
I remember back in the day in Houston...whomever was drafted by the Comets may as well not even pack their bags to come take the physical...there was no room in the inn for a non-tried player. The CBA has actually hurt the "non-star" four to five year player, in my opinion. You won't see teams staying together for more than two years unless there are several rookies that come in together and continue on the same team. Look at the Shock...you have four players (Nolan, Riley, Cash and Ford) who are within three years of each other. Two will be core players and the others will be left out of the top money because there just isn't enough with the salary structure and hard cap to keep them all together for very long.
Anyone else have ideas on this???
|
|
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 18815
Back to top |
Posted: 12/22/04 4:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
4ever_bball_fan wrote: |
KeiraNY wrote:
"The CBA has actually hurt the "non-star" four to five year player, in my opinion. You won't see teams staying together for more than two years unless there are several rookies that come in together and continue on the same team. .
Anyone else have ideas on this??? |
Dead on! Last year Seattle cut both Rita Williams and Stacy Clinesmith, who were fighting with Greco for the last spot because they made more money in part. Stacy even applied to the league for exemption because she had something like 2 games on a roster and DNP in both but it counted against her to make her a four year player.
|
|
KeiraNY
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 12683 Location: New York, NY
Back to top |
Posted: 12/22/04 5:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Who's making big money on the Libs?? I know VJ is, Baranova was thrown a good chunk of change and so did the Waffle. Tari's up there. How about Becky & C-Rob?? The rest are still cheap, but we have a lot of people that are making good money.
Silly me, they'll be throwing Tari's salary out the window come January...how stupid of me to forget!
4ever_bball_fan wrote: |
KeiraNY wrote:
"Whoever we pick won't pass the "chemistry" test and will be dumped in training camp... "
I couldn't agree more, but with the mid-level veterans becoming more difficult to keep due to salary cap issues, rookies will have a chance at making a team just because they are less expensive.
I remember back in the day in Houston...whomever was drafted by the Comets may as well not even pack their bags to come take the physical...there was no room in the inn for a non-tried player. The CBA has actually hurt the "non-star" four to five year player, in my opinion. You won't see teams staying together for more than two years unless there are several rookies that come in together and continue on the same team. Look at the Shock...you have four players (Nolan, Riley, Cash and Ford) who are within three years of each other. Two will be core players and the others will be left out of the top money because there just isn't enough with the salary structure and hard cap to keep them all together for very long.
Anyone else have ideas on this??? |
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67487 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 12/22/04 6:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
4ever_bball_fan wrote: |
I remember back in the day in Houston...whomever was drafted by the Comets may as well not even pack their bags to come take the physical...there was no room in the inn for a non-tried player. |
1997: Wanda Guyton, Janeth Arcain, Tina Thompson, and Tammy Jackson all made the team.
1998: Polina Tzekova, Amaya Valdemoro, and Monica Lamb made the team.
1999: Sonja Henning, Kara Wolters, and Jennifer Rizzotti all made the team.
2000: Elena Chakirova made the team.
2001: Amanda Lassiter and Tynesha Lewis made the team.
2002: Michelle Snow made the team.
The last two drafts have been busts, but that's not what you meant by "back in the day".
_________________ The truth is like poetry
Most people hate poetry
|
|
4ever_bball_fan
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 Posts: 6125 Location: Houston
Back to top |
Posted: 12/23/04 10:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Pilight, I think you just made my point for me...
1997: Guyton, Arcain and Jackson while they were "drafted", everyone was drafted that year. These three players were already well known entities in women's basketball, not untried players.
1998: again, either international players or known quantities...and boy do I miss Lamb.
1999: Henning came out of college in '91, Wolters in '97 and Rizzo in '96...again, not draft picks straight out of college. And you well know that it is a huge blot on the history of the Houston Comets that Rizzo averaged less than 15 minutes a game the two years she was there. At least she has two rings to show for putting up with VC.
2000: Elena Chakirova was the #16 pick in the first round by the Comets and had played in Russia, in case anyone is scratching their head in bewilderment about who the heck that is. One of those big Russian gals with a great 15' jumper and that is as close as she wanted to get to the basket.
2001: Finally two true rookies out of college. Lassiter gets the chance of a lifetime because Swoopes tears her ACL. Tiger sits the bench for two years with her minutes reducing to less than 10. I loves some #20 and cried when I heard she was cut.
2002: And then there's Snow. Will she ever live up to her potential? What is the deal with her? Could it be that the most difficult player she has to face in practice is Number 00?
2003 saw the likes of Allison Curtin, Lori Nero, Constance Jinks and Oksana Rakhmatulina and 2004 saw nothing in round one of the arguably best draft class in memory, Lindsay Taylor in Rd 2 and Stacey Stephens in round 3.
Which brings us to the number 5 pick in 2005...which young guard will be the next to enter the revolving door in Cometsland?
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67487 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 12/23/04 10:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
You mean your point wasn't...
Quote: |
I remember back in the day in Houston...whomever was drafted by the Comets may as well not even pack their bags to come take the physical |
Whomever was drafted by The Comets nearly always made the roster until the last two years, which isn't "back in the day".
I've been very critical of Van's drafting. Chakirova and the Z-woman still kill me. I was too excited in 2000 when Helen Darling somehow fell to our pick, especially considering how badly we needed a PG, and it was the choice of Chakirova that got me on the "Van must go" bandwagon. The problem isn't that he drafted bad players, it's that he drafted old players.
_________________ The truth is like poetry
Most people hate poetry
|
|
|
|