• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2018 NBA Offseason Thread: the preseason cometh

KD lost a year of his limited earning capacity as a basketball player by an arbitrary rule, when he otherwise would have been been paid well for that year, not to mention reached free agency a year earlier
 
tau06 said:
I think it will probably be go straight to the NBA or 2 years. I personally like it for the college game but still sort of sucks if a kid blows up as a freshman he can't go get that $$$
Click to expand...

One plan they are talking about is come out of HS get a 2 year/2 way contract with G League at the lower rate. Then go to NBA for the rest of your rookie deal.

If you don't do that, you'll have to stay in college for two years.
 
PhDeac said:
Cmon Strick. I shouldn't have to explain selection bias to you. HS early entrants are the cream of the crop. The top prospects.


Second of all, there aren't many who were drafted. That's true. But plenty weren't drafted at all. It is a huge failure of the system if a kid declares out of high school and isn't drafted. He forfeited his ability to earn a scholarship and get a college education.

Next, the players you mentioned have had good careers, but they'd also make like 3rd team all-HS entrant.

The last three years of the rule netted three All-Star or All-NBA players, Lebron, Howard, Jefferson, and Bynum in otherwise deep drafts.

I still haven't see the argument that KD was somehow harmed by going to Texas for a year or that the NBA would have been hurt if KG went to college for one year before jumping to the league.
Click to expand...

I mean, that earlier period was pretty great, too. Kobe Bryant, Tracey McGrady, Kevin Garnett, Moses Malone, Amar'e Stoudemire, Tyson Chandler, Jermaine O'Neal, Rashard Lewis, and Al Harrington didn't go to college, either, and went on to have long and productive NBA careers while earning some of the lucrative contracts of their time.

1. There were not many high school who officially declared for the draft. Most McDonald's All-Americans, not to mention Top-100-caliber HS recruits, went to college during the preps-to-pros era. For as much as folks bemoan the inadequacy of the system, it actually worked really well for a majority of recruits and NCAA member institutions.

2a. You're welcome to compile a list of preps-to-pros prospects who actually declared for the draft and went undrafted. From memory, most preps-to-pros prospects were picked, even if they were picked in the second round. Second round and undrafted preps-to-pros players typically have and had long careers overseas where they were able to make money playing basketball. I'm not sure how many get or got a college education after retirement (if they ever intended to pursue college), but I would be interested in seeing those statistics.

2b. Players like Lenny Cooke are the exception to the rule. The proportion of picked prospects relative to declared prospects was higher for the preps-to-pros group vs. college freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, IIRC. Early entrants all lose their eligibility, too, and the odds of getting drafted decrease with age as a general rule.

2c. Not all players declare for the draft for purely basketball reasons. A lot of preps-to-pros players were not going to qualify and declared for the draft rather than going to prep school or the JuCo route. The calculus, then, has more to do with losing a year of development to high school basketball and being old for one's college year, which decreases the odds of getting drafted for the reasons stated above. That's even before you think about the lost income.

3. When a player loses their eligibility because they declare for the draft, it doesn't foreclose on their ability to get an education. It just means that they aren't eligible to play college sports.

4. Preps-to-pros was bad for college basketball because the NCAA and NCAA schools lost potential ad revenue made from having elite players on campus for a year. Preps-to-pros was bad for the NBA because many teams that drafted HS prospects either a) didn't scout them all that well (if at all) or b) didn't have the types of developmental culture in place to help them thrive. Boys Among Men by Jonathan Abrams illustrates this reality really well. (This happens in college for new college students, too, fwiw.) The NBA had to protect it's brand and that's its right. I think the current organizational structure/culture of the NBA would be a lot better for preps-to-pros-caliber players, fwiw. I have no sympathy for the NCAA.

5. I used the players that I did because they prove my point. Even the non-elite preps-to-pros players have put together long careers in the NBA. Many of those that didn't (Martell Webster and Jonathan Bender come to mind) had careers derailed because of injury or issues that would have hindered their development and career prospects no matter what career path they chose (e.g., Eddy Curry, James Lang, etc.). Regardless, Amir Johnson having a 10+ year career in the NBA is pretty remarkable. I doubt he gets drafted if he qualifies at Louisville and plays four years.

6. Most NBA players were elite high school recruits. For as much as we debate about whether stars matter, HS recruiting analysts are remarkably good at predicting NBA-caliber talent. We can also bring up notable exceptions to the rule all day long (e.g., Stephen Curry), but it doesn't change the fact that even NBA deep bench players (e.g., Brandon Paul on the Spurs was a top-50 prospect in 2009) were elite HS recruits.

Finally, KD wasn't harmed, but I shouldn't have to explain why that's a bad example to you ;). Schea Cotton is a better example. Plenty of top-25 players go to college and probably could have been drafted somewhere in the first round. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how you view a few years in college vs. a guaranteed contract.

deac29 said:
KD lost a year of his limited earning capacity as a basketball player by an arbitrary rule, when he otherwise would have been been paid well for that year, not to mention reached free agency a year earlier
Click to expand...

This is true. The ultimate question is whether college is worth more than the alternative. For first round picks, I don't think that it is. I think that a guaranteed contract and the ability to track oneself into an NBA or professional career is worth more than playing for free and risking injury/lower draft position/falling out of draft contention. There is life beyond the NBA, too. International leagues can - and do - support lucrative careers for players who can't cut it in the NBA. A lot of the preps-to-pros cautionary tales (e.g., Ndudi Ebi) had productive and lucrative careers overseas.

RJKarl said:
One plan they are talking about is come out of HS get a 2 year/2 way contract with G League at the lower rate. Then go to NBA for the rest of your rookie deal.

If you don't do that, you'll have to stay in college for two years.
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of a proposal like this, though I really would like to see how it plays out in practice. Most G-League success stories are older, more mature basketball players who were not scouted because of the league that they played in or were extremely late bloomers. I'm not 100% convinced of the developmental apparatus in the G-League, but I'm open minded.
 
Last edited:
The lost year argument is fine. Problem is NBA contracts keep going up. A player who signs his second deal one year later may have a better shot at signing a better contract under a better CBA with a bigger max and cap.
 
PhDeac said:
The lost year argument is fine. Problem is NBA contracts keep going up. A player who signs his second deal one year later may have a better shot at signing a better contract under a better CBA with a bigger max and cap.
Click to expand...

I would love to hear your thoughts on the rest of the post.

I understand the moral/normative argument against preps-to-pros. I don't think that the data supports it, but I understand.

ETA: I will say that the greatest case against preps-to-pros is Robert Swift. What a dumpster fire. (It's also kind of hard to imagine that Swift would have been better off with a year of college, though.)
 
Last edited:
I think we are focusing on different things. My argument is about the lack of NBA productivity in that first year out of HS. It doesn't benefit the NBA to bring these kids in without an extra year of coaching and maturity and without a year to scout them against college talent.

You know this better than I do but I think you'd agree. Seeing a kid under AAU or HS coaching playing with and against teenagers is much different than seeing that same kid coached by someone getting paid millions with and against young adults.

I just don't see the downside to making a kid play in college for a year or two.
 
PhDeac said:
I think we are focusing on different things. My argument is about the lack of NBA productivity in that first year out of HS. It doesn't benefit the NBA to bring these kids in without an extra year of coaching and maturity and without a year to scout them against college talent.

You know this better than I do but I think you'd agree. Seeing a kid under AAU or HS coaching playing with and against teenagers is much different than seeing that same kid coached by someone getting paid millions with and against young adults.

I just don't see the downside to making a kid play in college for a year or two.
Click to expand...

I see two different points in your post.

I 100% agree with the first one. The first year is really rough for the preps-to-pros set (though it's also pretty rough for most freshman and sophomore early entrants). Most of the more recent guys put in time in the D-League before cracking NBA rotations.

I disagree with the second. I see where the NBA is coming from in terms of not wanting 18 year olds on NBA rosters. From the perspective of the players (and I'm always on the side of the players in debates like these), the benefits of getting a contract - NBA or otherwise - far outweigh the risks or losing value through injury, aging, or lack of development. (Mudiay and Jennings are interesting examples, IMO.) Most college programs are awful at developing talent. There are probably 100 programs that have a chance to develop NBA-caliber talent. Most of them don't.

ETA: Have you read Boys Among Men? It's a great book and I think you would enjoy it.
 
Official 2017 NBA Thread: will MY C's ever lose again

What a depressing night of basketball. Spurs are down 20+ early and I can't even watch the Deacs pull a Meek Mill against Drake.

I see your argument for the players. I guess Harry Giles would have been better off as a top 5 pick in 2016? Maybe short term. Long term he has an extra year to earn a better second contract.
 
Most of the negative impacts to the players that would arise if the age limit was eliminated are on the NCAA side, not the NBA. The NCAA is more than welcome to let guys that go undrafted, or even guys that never make it in the league, play college basketball.

The only upside from the NBA’s point of view is protecting the owners from their own stupidity. If the NBA is still worried about that, or about the maturity of straight out of high school guys, then set up an independent committee that screens high schoolers that want to go straight to the pros.

Telling someone they can’t make money doing what they are good at because they aren’t old enough is fucking stupid.
 
The combination of one-and-done along with AAU are the main reasons why the NBA product isn't as good as it should be. Tons of kids like their AAU teams more than their HS teams.

HS coaches teach fundamentals, make you accountable, have you practice harder. Over the past decade plus, top kids know that even if they piss off their HS coaches, they will get the big offers. AAU is travelling, staying in hotels, playing with far less ties on them and having more fun.

Now, add that to the fact, the one-and-dones don't need to listen to their college coaches. They know the coach needs them more than they need the coach. Very few coaches will bench a top talent as it hurt getting the next guy. Also, one-and-dones know they don't have to do classwork. So, they can do basically what they want to do, when they want to do it.

The totality of lack of fundamentals, lack of consequences, big money and no responsibilities lead the one-and-dones to not be ready for the NBA. This creates a weaker product.

The NBA is booming worldwide. It's a truly international sport. They need to strengthen their product.

Please don't bring up tennis or golf or ice skating as examples of young white kids being able to go pro at 16-18. Those are individual sports. The NBA is a team sport. That takes more preparation.

No one has a right to have any specific job. Every company has the right to set legal criteria for employment.
 
TownieDeac said:
The NBA is the best pro sports league in America by a mile and doesn't need fixing whatsoever
Click to expand...

The commissioner, gms, coaches (NBA & college) and the owners seem to think differently. It's the #1 priority of Silver and has been for over a year.

“My sense is it’s not working for anyone,” Silver said Thursday night before Game 1 of the N.B.A. finals. “It’s not working for the college coaches and athletic directors I hear from. They’re not happy with the current system. And I know our teams aren’t happy either, in part because they don’t necessarily think the players who are coming into the league are getting the kind of training that they would expect to see.”
 
C's spotted the Hawks 16 in the 1st last night, won by 11

don't know what it is about both teams (GS and BOS) falling behind in the 1st half so often this year, but makes for exciting games
 
TownieDeac said:
Ben Simmons benefitted so much from the "redshirt" year. He's really got a polished game in so many aspects. Patient, doesn't force things, savvy. To go with his obvious scoring and passing skills, his game management is really impressive.

This is also my second time seeing the Jazz this season and I like Donovan Mitchell a lot.
Click to expand...
Donovan Mitchell is great
 
Every time i've watched Mitchell he just looks like a chucker. Guess i've caught him on bad nights as everyone else talks about how good he has looked.
 
JC with 21/9 on 10-12 from the floor. Hawks still got thumped tho. Gonna need to turn it on to get to 35 wins as le bone predicted. Currently 3-14.
 
So Kyrie looks like the smartest guy in the room for leaving Lebron when he did for the Celts, who are gonna be good for the next 10 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top