ASK IRA: Are Heat an example of how the NBA’s play-in/lottery link has to change?

Q: Why is the NBA punishing play-in teams? Only one play-in team has advanced to the second round in the last two years. No play-in teams have won the championship. You want these teams to compete and play to make the playoffs but in return they have to give up their lottery pick? Since the draft lottery happens during the second round, why not include the play-in teams who lost in the first round? I will stand by this: the play-in is worse than the NBA All-Star Game. It has to be the worst thing the NBA has ever created. Jimmy Butler got injured in a play-in game last year; we lost a chance at the No. 1 pick this year. Who is the play-in helping? It doesn’t help teams get better and it ends up hurting teams in the long run. – Kris, Oceanside, Calif.

A: The play-in is here for one primary reason: It creates additional television inventory, making it a significant asset in the latest television/streaming package. But your points are cogent, that the league knowingly is allowing teams with losing records to create playoff hope, but then also robbing those teams with losing records of an asset to improve.

Q: Pat Riley said several times during the Heat exit interview that he’s Irish. What happened to the luck of the Irish? Lately every move/decision has not gone the way he wanted, the last one the draft lottery. Time to try something/somebody else. All big corporations evolve with new people that bring new ideas/perspectives. We keep insisting on going down the same path wishfully thinking we’ll get a better result. Isn’t that the definition of insanity? – Luis, Boca Raton.

A: Or is it insanity to suddenly veer from a coalition of leadership that has produced visits to the conference finals in three of the past six seasons? The Heat’s approach has been that the light at the end of the tunnel is not as distant as it appears. The record over the past six years stands as evidence. These are not stumblebums.

Q: I know the Heat didn’t want to pay Jimmy Butler millions to not play. But wouldn’t they have been better off sidelining him for the rest of the season and trading him in the offseason? A team that was eliminated from the postseason earlier than expected, may have given the Heat a big haul for “Playoff Jimmy.”  – Jake, Hollywood.

A: Or he could have been viewed as a headache not worth the investment. If anything, hindsight shows the Heat would have been better off moving sooner – not later – when it came to a Jimmy Butler trade..