Cal on Grad Transfers - Bad for the "Kids"

#76
#76
butchna said:
Kwame Brown plays a season of decent organized competition and he's not the first pick of the draft...simple and not of the "stupid" variety. :) Thought the Amare Stoudemire example would resonate with someone of your high intellect but alas. Point lost on you is that a team like the Knicks passed on a franchise type player that they later signed at the end of his run due to a high number of high school entry's not panning out. Big sock to GM nads that they overcompensated for in spades...leading to the one and out solution. :hmm:
Click to expand...

You're talking about individual teams now, which is different. One-and-done is arguably better for individual teams, and individual GMs; but when they draft a HS bust instead of a future star, that star will just be a star somewhere else. It changes distribution, and affects individual teams, but for the league (and its "product") as a whole, it evens out and doesn't make much of a difference. It's about the individual owners looking out for themselves, under the guise of improving the league as a whole.
 
#77
#77
And for the Knicks, even if they drafted Amare, they still would have had to give him a huge contract in 2010 (an even bigger one, actually), so that's just compensating. No "over-" necessary. They lost out on the opportunity to have him before that, but their loss gave us a Phoenix Suns team that was great for the league and its overall product.
 
#78
#78
NashVol11 said:
It is; it's wholly subjective. College players are more tested than HS players, and they'd be even more tested if you made them stay four years, or stay until they're 25. But what's the right level of testing? According to you, it's whatever the NBA says it is.

NBA GMs did this to protect themselves. It doesn't make a meaningful difference in the product. The NBA will find its stars either way; we're talking about a potential marginal improvement in like the 13th man on the roster. That's barely affecting the product, if at all.
Click to expand...

I agree with the NBA mainly because they have a vital rooting interest. :) It wasn't working and the product was becoming trash...so they emptied the basket. I'm sure you're confident in your "marginal difference" theory, but the decision makers disagree...and so do I. :wink2: Robert Swift was drafted to be the starting center for the Sonics by his second season...not to be the 13th man on the roster. Five years financial commitment wasted that a year of vetting most likely eliminates. Too many like stories during that dark time. Much brighter future imo.
 
#79
#79
NashVol11 said:
And for the Knicks, even if they drafted Amare, they still would have had to give him a huge contract in 2010 (an even bigger one, actually), so that's just compensating. No "over-" necessary. They lost out on the opportunity to have him before that, but their loss gave us a Phoenix Suns team that was great for the league and its overall product.
Click to expand...

I mentioned the Knicks because they were a team that passed on him...don't lose focus when I give you relatable examples. :nono: OTHER teams that passed created the resulting reaches that begat the need for one year vetting. Knicks fans are further embittered because those fun Suns teams led them to believe D'Antoni was an answer. How many teams are running that watered down Paul Westhead gimmick nowadays? :question:
 
#80
#80
NashVol11 said:
You're talking about individual teams now, which is different. One-and-done is arguably better for individual teams, and individual GMs; but when they draft a HS bust instead of a future star, that star will just be a star somewhere else. It changes distribution, and affects individual teams, but for the league (and its "product") as a whole, it evens out and doesn't make much of a difference. It's about the individual owners looking out for themselves, under the guise of improving the league as a whole.
Click to expand...

You sound like a communist. Another concept that sounds great as a concept. "Individual" teams have to operate in "individual" interests...or they fail. Then the "whole" fails. :sad:
 
#83
#83
butchna said:
I agree with the NBA mainly because they have a vital rooting interest. :) It wasn't working and the product was becoming trash...so they emptied the basket. I'm sure you're confident in your "marginal difference" theory, but the decision makers disagree...and so do I. :wink2: Robert Swift was drafted to be the starting center for the Sonics by his second season...not to be the 13th man on the roster. Five years financial commitment wasted that a year of vetting most likely eliminates. Too many like stories during that dark time. Much brighter future imo.
Click to expand...

But again, that's on an individual team level. Let's throw the timeline way off and say that Swift (12th), Kawhi Leonard (18th or something) and Isaiah Thomas (60th) are in the same draft. Given more vetting, maybe Seattle passes on Swift and takes Leonard; great for Seattle, but now the Spurs don't have Leonard. Maybe they take Thomas instead, but now the Celtics don't have Thomas, and they have the 60th pick to use on someone else. THAT'S the guy getting pushed out, and if that guy is good a la Thomas or Wes Matthews, he'll still make it in the NBA. Seattle is better, but Boston's worse, Swift is out of the NBA and his spot is taken by whomever the Celtics would have cut if they got Isaiah. Aside from the fact that Boston is a bigger market, for the league product, that's pretty much a wash.

The only guys getting pushed out of the league by bad draft picks are the absolute last guys on the roster, who become the top of the D-League. That's not affecting the overall league product in any meaningful way, especially when teams have 15 roster spots and play about 10 guys. It's a redistribution, but not much of a reduction in overall product quality.
 
Last edited:
#84
#84
butchna said:
I mentioned the Knicks because they were a team that passed on him...don't lose focus when I give you relatable examples. :nono: OTHER teams that passed created the resulting reaches that begat the need for one year vetting. Knicks fans are further embittered because those fun Suns teams led them to believe D'Antoni was an answer. How many teams are running that watered down Paul Westhead gimmick nowadays? :question:
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of D'Antoni, but the Rockets are a top-5 team in the NBA running it, and the Warriors' system isn't all that different.

My focus is fine. A couple reaches here and there don't have this profound impact on league quality that you're asserting.
 
#85
#85
butchna said:
Another concept that sounds great as a concept. "Individual" teams have to operate in "individual" interests...or they fail. Then the "whole" fails. :sad:
Click to expand...

So? I'm not saying it's deplorable of them to act in their own interests, just that that's what they're doing. The rule wasn't created out of some gracious concern to improve the NBA's overall product; it was done out of self-interest, and it makes sense to do it. I just think the NBA couldn't say that out loud, and so offered up a number of other BS reasons instead, and I'm simply pointing out the holes in them.
 
#86
#86
NashVol11 said:
But again, that's on an individual team level. Let's throw the timeline way off and say that Swift (12th), Kawhi Leonard (18th or something) and Isaiah Thomas (60th) are in the same draft. Given more vetting, maybe Seattle passes on Swift and takes Leonard; great for Seattle, but now the Spurs don't have Leonard. Maybe they take Thomas instead, but now the Celtics don't have Thomas, and they have the 60th pick to use on someone else. THAT'S the guy getting pushed out, and if that guy is good a la Thomas or Wes Matthews, he'll still make it in the NBA.

The only guys getting pushed out of the league by bad draft picks are the absolute last guys on the roster, who become the top of the D-League. That's not affecting the overall league product in any meaningful way, especially when teams have 15 roster spots and play about 10 guys. It's a redistribution, but not much of a reduction in overall product quality.
Click to expand...

First round picks get guaranteed contracts. You give players with such every opportunity to make the roster. Interesting that each of your examples (Leonard and Thomas) were properly vetted college products that actually spent multiple years developing at that level. When they arrived they were ready and life went on...and the product is better. :)
 
#87
#87
butchna said:
First round picks get guaranteed contracts. You give players with such every opportunity to make the roster. Interesting that each of your examples (Leonard and Thomas) were properly vetted college products that actually spent multiple years developing at that level. When they arrived they were ready and life went on...and the product is better. :)
Click to expand...

That doesn't change anything about what I said. Yes, when you draft Swift, you don't cut him because his money is guaranteed. Instead, you cut your worst player. And if he's better than someone else's worst player, then he'll take that guy's spot, and so on and so forth until the only guy without a home is basically the worst player in the NBA. That's whose spot Swift is taking, in the league as a whole. It's the only real change in "league product."
 
#88
#88
NashVol11 said:
I'm not a fan of D'Antoni, but the Rockets are a top-5 team in the NBA running it, and the Warriors' system isn't all that different.

My focus is fine. A couple reaches here and there don't have this profound impact on league quality that you're asserting.
Click to expand...

Rockets will duplicate the Suns championship number. :) Warriors play defense...very different. :)

It was more than a couple. Can't give you examples because you'll go missing. :)
 
#89
#89
butchna said:
Rockets will duplicate the Suns championship number. :) Warriors play defense...very different. :)

It was more than a couple. Can't give you examples because you'll go missing. :)
Click to expand...

Agree with both.

I'm sure there are plenty of high school busts, but plenty worked out. You mentioned Gerald Green earlier, he's still in the NBA 12 years later; pretty good for an 18th pick.

There are plenty of college busts too. If the one-and-done hit rate is 50% and the HS hit rate is 40%, and you're talking about 20 guys entering the draft, that's a difference of two players. That doesn't move the needle in terms of overall NBA product.
 
#90
#90
NashVol11 said:
That doesn't change anything about what I said. Yes, when you draft Swift, you don't cut him because his money is guaranteed. Instead, you cut your worst player. And if he's better than someone else's worst player, then he'll take that guy's spot, and so on and so forth until the only guy without a home is basically the worst player in the NBA. That's whose spot Swift is taking, in the league as a whole.
Click to expand...

Baby with the bath water. Maybe that "worst player" has more potential but has a forgiving contract? Jeremy Lin and Yogi Ferrell aren't world beaters but they had to play like it at the exact right time to warrant a contract past 10 days. That a new invention? Didn't happen when you had an unvetted peach can sacked out on the end of the bench? Your compassion and empathy has it's limits. :)
 
#91
#91
butchna said:
Interesting that each of your examples (Leonard and Thomas) were properly vetted college products that actually spent multiple years developing at that level. When they arrived they were ready and life went on...and the product is better. :)
Click to expand...

And to this part of it, those guys were staying in school no matter what. They would never have left out of high school
 
#92
#92
butchna said:
Baby with the bath water. Maybe that "worst player" has more potential but has a forgiving contract? Jeremy Lin and Yogi Ferrell aren't world beaters but they had to play like it at the exact right time to warrant a contract past 10 days. That a new invention? Didn't happen when you had an unvetted peach can sacked out on the end of the bench? Your compassion and empathy has it's limits. :)
Click to expand...

If those guys were second rounders instead of undrafted, they'd still have to play well at the exact right time to make the team in their very first training camp; and if they didn't, they'd be in the D-League in the exact same position.

And either way, if Yogi Ferrell is what you're talking about when discussing this massive improvement in league product, I think you kind of see my point.
 
#93
#93
butchna said:
Baby with the bath water. Maybe that "worst player" has more potential but has a forgiving contract? Jeremy Lin and Yogi Ferrell aren't world beaters but they had to play like it at the exact right time to warrant a contract past 10 days. That a new invention? Didn't happen when you had an unvetted peach can sacked out on the end of the bench? Your compassion and empathy has it's limits. :)
Click to expand...

But yes, I do think there's a small group hurt by picks like that, and I am saying I don't think they really make a difference in league quality. It's not lack of compassion, I just strongly doubt that they were the convincing force behind one-and-done. I don't think the NBA based its decision on their worry about missing out on Yogi Ferrell.
 
#94
#94
NashVol11 said:
Agree with both.

I'm sure there are plenty of high school busts, but plenty worked out. You mentioned Gerald Green earlier, he's still in the NBA 12 years later; pretty good for an 18th pick.

There are plenty of college busts too. If the one-and-done hit rate is 50% and the HS hit rate is 40%, and you're talking about 20 guys entering the draft, that's a difference of two players. That doesn't move the needle in terms of overall NBA product.
Click to expand...

"If"? :lol: Bet you don't have a reliable set of numbers...this rule is fairly recent. Gerald Green spent his first four seasons and a cup of coffee in a fifth on four different teams, if you count his second in his drafting team's NBDL entry. He then spent the next four at the finishing schools of Lokomotiv Kuban,Krasnye Krylia (maybe he knows Russian :)), Foshan Dralions and the Laker NBDL (Lakers didn't sign him...too loaded?). In the last five seasons he's been on five teams rosters...almost two with the Suns! :yahoo: Out of that I'm charitably conceding 8 and you can round it up to nine seasons of actual NBA career...and the year ain't over yet. :) I won't insist on the "bust" label if you give up the ghost on "pretty good". :wink2:
 
#95
#95
NashVol11 said:
But yes, I do think there's a small group hurt by picks like that, and I am saying I don't think they really make a difference in league quality. It's not lack of compassion, I just strongly doubt that they were the convincing force behind one-and-done. I don't think the NBA based its decision on their worry about missing out on Yogi Ferrell.
Click to expand...

But it was undoubtedly collateral damage. Real lives brah. :) We already covered "why" on the one-and-done. Just waiting for you to catch up.
 
#96
#96
NashVol11 said:
And to this part of it, those guys were staying in school no matter what. They would never have left out of high school
Click to expand...

Maybe. Bet we'd say the same about modern day Robert Swift if he had played at USC and learned...careers. :no:
 
#100
#100
butchna said:
"If"? :lol: Bet you don't have a reliable set of numbers...this rule is fairly recent.
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know that you don't have a reliable set of numbers behind your assertion that teams are now demonstrably "better" at drafting.

Out of that I'm charitably conceding 8 and you can round it up to nine seasons of actual NBA career...and the year ain't over yet. :) I won't insist on the "bust" label if you give up the ghost on "pretty good". :wink2:
Click to expand...

Nine years in the NBA is almost certainly longer than the average 18th pick.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top