Cal on Grad Transfers - Bad for the "Kids"

[NashVol11]

We already covered "why" on the one-and-done.

Does it actually improve the quality of play across the league? No evidence for that

Does one year of college make you "vetted" and "ready?" No evidence for that

Does it protect individual owners and GMs from the consequences of poor scouting? Ding ding ding

 

[butchna]

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.

When in Rome. They're not budging on this requirement...guess they just not smart? :dunno:

Nine years in the NBA is almost certainly longer than the average 18th pick.

Meh...let him do three straight ON THE SAME TEAM before you retire his number. :boredom:

 

[butchna]

Does it actually improve the quality of play across the league? No evidence for that

Does one year of college make you "vetted" and "ready?" No evidence for that

Does it protect individual owners and GMs from the consequences of poor scouting? Ding ding ding

I've noticed it has. Was getting to be garbage. Improving every season.

Improves the pool. Have a feeling you wouldn't accept any "evidence".

It doesn't protect against bad PICKS or free agent pick ups. It just gives you better information. What GM's do with it is another issue entirely.

 

[Burger]

I've noticed it has. Was getting to be garbage. Improving every season.

Improves the pool. Have a feeling you wouldn't accept any "evidence".

It doesn't protect against bad PICKS or free agent pick ups. It just gives you better information. What GM's do with it is another issue entirely.

It does improve the draftable pool a little because those HS kids that went to the draft realize they need more time in college. Look at the NFL, Belichek is quoted saying that because players are starting to be 3 and done, the quality of players in the draft are going down.

Information is power. Better information protects front offices big time.

 

[butchna]

It does improve the draftable pool a little because those HS kids that went to the draft realize they need more time in college. Look at the NFL, Belichek is quoted saying that because players are starting to be 3 and done, the quality of players in the draft are going down.

Information is power. Better information protects front offices big time.

Always knew you were wise, old buddy. Just needed the right lead-in. The more you know is never bad...agree.

 

[NashVol11]

I've noticed it has. Was getting to be garbage. Improving every season.

Oh, well great. One random guy says the 5 games he watches are higher quality, and that means quality of play is better AND that it's because of one-and-done.

Improves the pool. Have a feeling you wouldn't accept any "evidence".

No sh*t it improves the pool. The question is whether the pool really needed to be improved, or was something the owners just felt like doing and then passed it off as some dire need.

It doesn't protect against bad PICKS or free agent pick ups. It just gives you better information. What GM's do with it is another issue entirely.

So it makes the scouting more foolproof, and unsuccessful scouts less likely to mess up. That's the same as what I said.

 

[NashVol11]

When in Rome. They're not budging on this requirement...guess they just not smart? :dunno:

Why would they budge? Relatedly, why do you keep bringing up the irrelevant point that the NBA isn't going to switch back? Of course they're not. One-and-done benefits them.

 

[butchna]

Oh, well great. One random guy says the 5 games he watches are higher quality, and that means quality of play is better AND that it's because of one-and-done.



No sh*t it improves the pool. The question is whether the pool really needed to be improved, or was something the owners just felt like doing and then passed it off as some dire need.



So it makes the scouting more foolproof, and unsuccessful scouts less likely to mess up. That's the same as what I said.

This is a board of opinions...like yours (and mine). Sorry you need it to be more. And how do you know how many games I watch? You stalking me boy? :nono:

Just "felt like doing", huh? You concede that it improves the pool but that becomes irrelevant on why they would institute the rule? High thinking.

Then I'm not sure why you have an issue with this. If it makes "scouting more foolproof" I'd go with that being a good thing. :thumbsup: We should all strive to accomplish good things.

 

[butchna]

Why would they budge? Relatedly, why do you keep bringing up the irrelevant point that the NBA isn't going to switch back? Of course they're not. One-and-done benefits them.

WHY does it "benefit them"? If it "doesn't matter"?

 

[NashVol11]

This is a board of opinions...like yours (and mine). Sorry you need it to be more.

I'm asking you to back up your opinion with something more than "I watched one NBA game and this is my random speculation." If you can't, you can't.

 

[butchna]

I'm asking you to back up your opinion with something more than "I watched one NBA game and this is my random speculation." If you can't, you can't.

Made up quote. I watched five. You said so. Re consult your log. :lol:

 

[NashVol11]

Just "felt like doing", huh? You concede that it improves the pool but that becomes irrelevant on why they would institute the rule? High thinking.

Then I'm not sure why you have an issue with this. If it makes "scouting more foolproof" I'd go with that being a good thing. :thumbsup: We should all strive to accomplish good things.

They instituted the rule out of self-interest. It helps serve as a safety net for poor scouting, but all evidence suggests that it has little to no impact on the overall quality of play across the league. So, I'm saying the rule was adopted because it's a safety net, not because the owners had this noble concern for a couple D-Leaguers improving the entire NBA product for fans. The latter, your pet theory, runs directly contrary to logic.

 

[NashVol11]

It helps the owners, and hurts the players. But the owners make decisions in the NBA, and the early entrants don't. So you get owner-friendly rules. Owners aren't doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts or out of concern for some fan or some D-League player.

 

[butchna]

They instituted the rule out of self-interest. It helps serve as a safety net for poor scouting, but all evidence suggests that it has little to no impact on the overall quality of play across the league. So, I'm saying the rule was adopted because it's a safety net, not because the owners had this magnanimous concern for Yogi Ferrell improving the entire NBA product. The latter, your pet theory, runs directly contrary to logic.

Never said their goal was to make NBA players lives better. Just that it's a positive benefit of protecting the product by vetting the players. Fill up the rosters with legit players. Why don't you like worthy players? :sad:

And once again, if the rule "doesn't matter" how is it in their "best interest"?

 

[butchna]

It helps the owners, and hurts the players. But the owners make decisions in the NBA, and the early entrants don't. So you get owner-friendly rules. Owners aren't doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts or out of concern for some fan or some D-League player.

Which players does it hurt? Not the legit candidates.

 

[NashVol11]

Never said their goal was to make NBA players lives better. Just that it's a positive benefit of protecting the product by vetting the players. Fill up the rosters with legit players. Why don't you like worthy players? :sad:

And once again, if the rule "doesn't matter" how is it in their "best interest"?

I thought I explained this in really basic terms, but again, it benefits individual owners without affecting the league's overall product. Shuffling players around to different teams doesn't change anything about the league as a whole.

 

[NashVol11]

Which players does it hurt? Not the legit candidates.

Every player that has to play in college for free or overseas for less money rather than being compensated as an NBA player. That was easy.

 

[NashVol11]

If Durant went straight to the pros, he'd have gotten out of all of his contracts a year earlier, and would have an extra year of max-level pay (~25-30 million) in his pocket. And the "legit candidates" aren't hurt?

That's quite a price to pay for the opportunity to be vetted.

 

[butchna]

I thought I explained this in really basic terms, but again, it benefits individual owners without affecting the league's overall product. Shuffling players around to different teams doesn't change anything about the league as a whole.

So only SOME owners benefit from vetted players? Really good owners can give reaches that don't work out guaranteed contracts and let them take up space on the end of the bench? Jeannie Buss a "good owner"?

 

[butchna]

If Durant went straight to the pros, he'd have gotten out of all of his contracts a year earlier, and would have an extra year of max-level pay (~25-30 million) in his pocket. And the "legit candidates" aren't hurt?

That's quite a price to pay for the opportunity to be vetted.

Ah the plight of the disadvantaged. :cray: Guess he gorged on ramen until he could afford a decent meal with his second contract? Malnutrition prolly caused this latest injury.

 

[NashVol11]

So only SOME owners benefit from vetted players?

Yes. Only some do. I thought I made this clear, but like my example earlier, if the Sonics take Kawhi Leonard instead of Robert Swift once everyone is "vetted," then the Spurs don't have Kawhi Leonard. That's a clear and obvious detriment to the Spurs.

 

[NashVol11]

Ah the plight of the disadvantaged. :cray: Guess he gorged on ramen until he could afford a decent meal with his second contract? Malnutrition prolly caused this latest injury.

You've been on here this whole time talking about the plight of the billionaire NBA owners, so your mockery rings extremely hollow.

 

[butchna]

Every player that has to play in college for free or overseas for less money rather than being compensated as an NBA player. That was easy.

Breaking my heart, here. :sad: Every PLAYER has a RIGHT to make NBA millions before it's figured out that a "free" education or six figures overseas is more appropriate. You see red when these tragic figures get cut?

 

[NashVol11]

Breaking my heart, here. :sad: Every PLAYER has a RIGHT to make NBA millions before it's figured out that a "free" education or six figures overseas is more appropriate. You see red when these tragic figures get cut?

The only person talking about a "right" is you. Compared to the previous system, this one is better for owners and worse for players. It's zero-sum by definition; it can't be the win-win-win you're trying to say it is.

Same with drafting. If one team drafts better and takes a good player earlier, then another team misses out on that player and ends up with someone worse. You seem to struggle with this concept.

 

[butchna]

You've been on here this whole time talking about the plight of the billionaire NBA owners, so your mockery rings extremely hollow.

Never used the word "plight"...concerning the owners. They'll be fine if the league went belly up...players wouldn't. Hate to see them have to settle for a free education (fate worse than death inch. If the product is good, there will be more than enough for legit players.