Cal on Grad Transfers - Bad for the "Kids"

[NashVol11]

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.

This is all completely separate from the discussion at hand. The money, or benefits, either go to the players or to the owners. You're talking about how the players don't really need it, so taking money from them is fine, while somehow missing the fact that that money (or benefit) then goes directly to the owners, who have even less of a need than the players do.

 

[butchna]

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.

Been struggling since those monster Spurs selected Tim Duncan (4 year player btw ) and consigned the tragic Nets with Keith Van Horn. :no: It's called "what happens". You struggle when your name was the last one called on Red Rover?

 

[butchna]

This is all completely separate from the discussion at hand. The money, or benefits, either go to the players or to the owners. You're talking about how the players don't really need it, so taking money from them is fine, while somehow missing the fact that that money (or benefit) then goes directly to the owners, who have even less of a need than the players do.

Actually money goes to BOTH...thus sound business and collective bargaining agreements. We all NEED money unless we're off the grid.

 

[NashVol11]

Been struggling since those monster Spurs selected Tim Duncan (4 year player btw ) and consigned the tragic Nets with Keith Van Horn. :no: It's called "what happens". You struggle when your name was the last one called on Red Rover?

And if the Spurs took Van Horn, it'd be worse for them, and much, much better for the 76ers who would get Duncan. The changes would largely balance each other out, and the league product wouldn't be affected. I feel like I've had to explain this in 25 different ways

 

[butchna]

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.

Reality sucks. Portland Trailblazers should sue.

 

[NashVol11]

Actually money goes to BOTH...thus sound business and collective bargaining agreements. We all NEED money unless we're off the grid.

The particular benefits from one-and-done or the lack thereof go to one group or the other. Recommending that it go to the owners because "players are too rich already" (and owners aren't) is strange reasoning.

 

[NashVol11]

Reality sucks. Portland Trailblazers should sue.

Jesus.

Me: This helps some people, and hurts others.

butchna: Doesn't hurt anyone. How would it?

Me: *explains clearly how there's a winner and a loser*

butchna: Well, that's just reality. Get over it.

WTF. That's a totally different discussion. If you accept that that's reality, then you accept that some owners and players benefit from the rule, while an equal number are hurt by it, which is my point.

 

[butchna]

And if the Spurs took Van Horn, it'd be worse for them, and much, much better for the 76ers who would get Duncan. The changes would largely balance each other out, and the league product wouldn't be affected. I feel like I've had to explain this in 25 different ways

Cause you're on a merry-go-round. You "explained" that it was unfair that a player having to wait a season "made" a team pick a lesser player. If Lebron had gone to Ohio State, whoever landed him other than Cleveland could have possibly built a better team around him that wouldn't have subjected him to highly inordinate moving costs. As is, he probably had to empty his console change out of his Escalade to foot it.

 

[butchna]

Jesus.

Me: This helps some people, and hurts others.

butchna: Doesn't hurt anyone. How would it?

Me: *explains clearly how there's a winner and a loser*

butchna: Well, that's just reality. Get over it.

WTF. That's a totally different discussion. If you accept that that's reality, then you accept that some owners and players benefit from the rule, while an equal number are hurt by it, which is my point.

Players with talent get paid. The rule doesn't benefit any franchise over the other. Unless you can tie in how the lottery balls fall to your conspiracy. Portland drafted Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan and Greg Oden over Durant. Both were legit talents when healthy but rarely were and are regarded as busts. Got paid so who's the villain? Teams below them picked cornerstone franchise players. Word was that both Chicago and Oklahoma City had Bowie/Oden top of their boards...who benefited? Mistakes are made in hindsight with the future unknown. Vetting players for a season allows you to have the injury issues that a player may have available for teams to consider. What they do with it is their own free choice. Free is good.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

Between 1995-2005, 39 players were drafted out of high school. Of those 39:

-2 never played in the league.
-29 were drafted in the 1st round, 10 in the 2nd
-3 were drafted overall #1, Kwame Brown the only bust (Lebron and Howard were good selections)
-10 were NBA All-Stars and All-NBA with 1 more being NBA All-Star only
-Of the rest, a number played for several years in the league (or are still playing).

I don't see that the age rule is really protecting owners from anything. They seem to do pretty well with figuring out which ones are worth selecting. Same risk exists with 1 and doners.

 

[NashVol11]

Cause you're on a merry-go-round. You "explained" that it was unfair that a player having to wait a season "made" a team pick a lesser player. If Lebron had gone to Ohio State, whoever landed him other than Cleveland could have possibly built a better team around him that wouldn't have subjected him to highly inordinate moving costs. As is, he probably had to empty his console change out of his Escalade to foot it.

There's no merry-go-round, you just have a hard time grasping concepts before my 12th explanation of each one.

I don't think I've mentioned fairness once, and the bolded was nowhere close to the point I was making. One-and-done benefits some individual owners, by giving them more "vetting," and correspondingly harms the players, by taking away a year of NBA salary. Zero-sum.

For stars across the league as a whole, while the rule helps some teams draft better and acquire stars, the teams that would otherwise have them are then deprived of those stars. Zero-sum. You could argue that some D-League players are better than high school busts, but again, that isn't changing much about the NBA as a whole.

I'm not complaining or talking about fairness, I'm just pointing out that it's not the win-win you're describing. There's always a loser. I'm not asking you to cry for them.

 

[NashVol11]

Between 1995-2005, 39 players were drafted out of high school. Of those 39:

-2 never played in the league.
-29 were drafted in the 1st round, 10 in the 2nd
-3 were drafted overall #1, Kwame Brown the only bust (Lebron and Howard were good selections)
-10 were NBA All-Stars and All-NBA with 1 more being NBA All-Star only
-Of the rest, a number played for several years in the league (or are still playing).

I don't see that the age rule is really protecting owners from anything. They seem to do pretty well with figuring out which ones are worth selecting. Same risk exists with 1 and doners.

Which was another point I made, but butchna is apparently trying to argue that NBA teams are totally helpless in trying to scout high school players. If there's one Amare Stoudemire, you better go draft every high school big man because you can't tell the difference between Amare and any other high school player.

 

[butchna]

Between 1995-2005, 39 players were drafted out of high school. Of those 39:

-2 never played in the league.
-29 were drafted in the 1st round, 10 in the 2nd
-3 were drafted overall #1, Kwame Brown the only bust (Lebron and Howard were good selections)
-10 were NBA All-Stars and All-NBA with 1 more being NBA All-Star only
-Of the rest, a number played for several years in the league (or are still playing).

I don't see that the age rule is really protecting owners from anything. They seem to do pretty well with figuring out which ones are worth selecting. Same risk exists with 1 and doners.

Never said it "protected" owners/GM's bad decisions...nothing ever has (human element) It removes the reaching for unvetted talent factor tho. Both legit players and teams have benefited imo.

 

[NashVol11]

Vetting players for a season allows you to have the injury issues that a player may have available for teams to consider.

There you go again, acting like players don't exist until college. Injury issues are readily available in high school.

Additional information isn't necessary for NBA teams, it's just preferable. You'd get even more information if you required every player to stay for all four years; are you advocating for that as well?

 

[butchna]

Which was another point I made, but butchna is apparently trying to argue that NBA teams are totally helpless in trying to scout high school players. If there's one Amare Stoudemire, you better go draft every high school big man because you can't tell the difference between Amare and any other high school player.

You keep using your own words and straw man arguments and applying them to me. I think I've been very reasonable in presenting my OPINION. Frustration at being unable to sway said opinion shouldn't make you resort to lying...very shameful.

 

[NashVol11]

Never said it "protected" owners/GM's bad decisions...nothing ever has (human element) It removes the reaching for unvetted talent factor tho.

No, it doesn't, because everyone is unvetted. It would ideally lessen that factor (and may not even do that), but it certainly doesn't "remove" it.

Both legit players and teams have benefited imo.

Please explain how Kevin Durant has benefited from being $30 million less rich.

 

[butchna]

There you go again, acting like players don't exist until college. Injury issues are readily available in high school.

Additional information isn't necessary for NBA teams, it's just preferable. You'd get even more information if you required every player to stay for all four years; are you advocating for that as well?

Which phrase did I use indicating that? If it's a catastrophic injury? Sure. Oden's didn't pop up until right before his freshman season. You're better able to compensate in high school...just facts

I'm not advocating four years. Players would definitely fight it. Wouldn't hurt the product tho. In every walk of life information is necessary...more facts.

 

[butchna]

No, it doesn't, because everyone is unvetted. It would ideally lessen that factor (and may not even do that), but it certainly doesn't "remove" it.



Please explain how Kevin Durant has benefited from being $30 million less rich.

Completely removes it. Hunnert percent. That's what going from 0% vetted to 100% adds up to.

Learned survival skills in this harsh cold world?

 

[NashVol11]

Which phrase did I use indicating that? If it's a catastrophic injury? Sure. Oden's didn't pop up until right before his freshman season. You're better able to compensate in high school...just facts

I'm not advocating four years. Players would definitely fight it. Wouldn't hurt the product tho. In every walk of life information is necessary...more facts.

Players fought this too. I'm not asking whether players would like it, I'm asking whether you would. Given your affinity for information, it seems like an automatic yes; I don't see why the reasoning would be any different.

 

[NashVol11]

Completely removes it. Hunnert percent. That's what going from 0% vetted to 100% adds up to.

Learned survival skills in this harsh cold world?

College players are MORE vetted. On a scale of 1 to 10, if HSers are a 2, college players are a 4 or 5. The decision to draw the line where a 2 is "not vetted at all" and a 4 or 5 is "fully vetted" is an arbitrary personal opinion. Agree to disagree.

I'm genuinely asking. Durant lost tens of millions by spending a year at Texas. And he gained...what? Social skills? Are you saying he wouldn't be a great player without college? Is it about the year of college education?What's the number one benefit for players to you

 

[butchna]

Players fought this too. I'm not asking whether players would like it, I'm asking whether you would. Given your affinity for information, it seems like an automatic yes; I don't see why the reasoning would be any different.

Collective bargaining involves sides determining how far they'll go at the table. Don't recall how much the players association "fought" that year, but sacrificing considerable paychecks so kids fresh out of high school can cash theirs most likely tempered that spirit. I think they'd dig in over two so they probably wouldn't let it get that far. Why do you pretend interest in what I "like"? One year is peachy imo.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

Never said it "protected" owners/GM's bad decisions...nothing ever has (human element) It removes the reaching for unvetted talent factor tho. Both legit players and teams have benefited imo.

Legit players only lose in the 1 and done world. As already noted, they defer being paid by 1 year as a result and risk injury to do it. There is little to no benefit to the 1 and done model for a legit player.

 

[butchna]

Legit players only lose in the 1 and done world. As already noted, they defer being paid by 1 year as a result and risk injury to do it. There is little to no benefit to the 1 and done model for a legit player.

There's risk in everything. Kyrie Irving got hurt in the 9th game at Duke. Destroyed him to the effect of first pick in the draft.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

There's risk in everything. Kyrie Irving got hurt in the 9th game at Duke. Destroyed him to the effect of first pick in the draft.

I don't understand your point. You aren't risking getting paid one day, if you are getting paid now.

 

[butchna]

College players are MORE vetted. On a scale of 1 to 10, if HSers are a 2, college players are a 4 or 5. The decision to draw the line where a 2 is "not vetted at all" and a 4 or 5 is "fully vetted" is an arbitrary personal opinion. Agree to disagree.

I'm genuinely asking. Durant lost tens of millions by spending a year at Texas. And he gained...what? Social skills? Are you saying he wouldn't be a great player without college? Is it about the year of college education?What's the number one benefit for players to you

You keep violating that agreement.

Yeah, he'd have sucked without college. Can't "lose" what you never had. He's rebounded quite well.