Draft Talk
For the second straight day, our NBA draft coverage drew a ton of responses from readers wanting to weigh in on the growing flood of teenagers (both American and international) infiltrating the NBA draft.
We haven't done a mailbag in a while and thought it might be great to get your voices out there. Here's a sampling of what you're thinking about the NBA's youth movement ...
I just finished reading your commentary on the steady increase of international and high school players coming into the NBA. I agree that, based on appearances, NBA teams are starting to appear to prefer to take a high schooler or international player instead of a college player. Regardless of whether or not this trend is here to stay, I think the real question (and one I'm not sure has ever been answered in your column) is whether the NBA is better off with the influx of high schoolers and international players. Based on appearances, I would say that it is not.
-- Michael Drew, Alexandria, Va.
To be honest, Michael, I don't know. Things are so different right now it's tough for me to say that a Lakers team in the '80s is that much better than a Kings team in the '90s.
I think in the end, things tend to balance themselves out. Most 18-year-olds aren't ready for the NBA and won't be for another two or three years. But there are probably more 22-year-olds playing great basketball in the NBA than at any other time in the history of the game.
Whether you come from college, high school or the Euroleague, there's an adjustment that has to be made. What's different is that we are seeing it much more intimately when players choose to skip college and go pro. Players are maturing not only on the court, but off the court as well.
Fan support may be dwindling, attendance may be down, but it's all relative. The number of NBA fans in 2004 greatly outnumbers the number of fans during the NBA's glory years.
Shooting percentages stink, and scoring may be down, but I think it's a stretch to blame that on the kids. For the most part, the high school and international kids that make the jump are the cream of the crop. The international kids, for the most part, are more fundamentally sound than their college counterparts. The high school kids might not be right away, but there's no evidence they're dragging down the league field-goal percentage or scoring averages.
Eddy Curry, a poster boy for staying in school, led the league in field-goal percentage last season. Add in Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Amare Stoudemire, Jermaine O'Neal and LeBron James -- they're what's right with the league, not what's wrong with it.
I think the obsession with defense and expansion are the biggest reasons that the talent pool has diluted, not the influx of young players in the league. Teams like the Pistons can currently make very good teams look very bad with stifling defensive play. Better athletes playing better defense have, in effect, shortened the court and made it much, much more difficult to score. And you only have to look to the rosters of teams like the Hawks and Jazz (even though both are playing well) to see that there are way too many players in the NBA that don't belong there.
Which gets us to our next question ...
I find the international invasion to be ironic. Generally, the NBA today is considered a defensive league, and the biggest knock on foreign players is their lack of ability to play defense. This has been illustrated in ESPN's own articles about the importance of defense to teams and the foreign scouting reports. Why are GMs and scouts so high on these guys just because they can make an outside jump shot, when the coach isn't going to play them because they can't guard anybody?
--Greg Bukowski, Carol Stream, Ill.
Maybe GMs are as sick of the 70-69 yawners as the fans are ...
All joking aside, it should come as no surprise that GMs are looking for Euros who can play some defense. Mickael Pietrus was a lottery pick based in part on his ability to play great D. This year, two international prospects in particular, Andris Biedrins and Sergei Monya, are as high as they are on the board because they're very good defenders.
Let's move on ... obviously readers aren't the only ones who have issues with the direction the league is going. With most of the young players drafted in 2003 spending most of their time on the bench, can we expect a backlash?
I'm ashamed of American basketball enthusiasts for the comments that come across as xenophobic or racist. ... My only concern is with the quality of the product. I do have a question about the international players, though. Looking at last year's draft class, none of the international players (Darko Milicic, Mickael Pietrus, Zarko Cabarkapa, Aleksandar Pavlovic, Zoran Planinic) have really been productive. Does that have any impact on the minds of GMs? I realize a few of those guys have shown flashes, but it seems like there was a GM backlash after the draft that Kwame Brown went No. 1, because none of the high schoolers were immediately successful. Is that at all a risk at some point this season before the draft?
-- Jai, New York
You've got a point. It was a question Insider asked back in December, when it was clear the 2003 crop of international players weren't getting any love.
I think there are a lot of people who are taking a step back now and re assessing the situation. Pau Gasol was the international player who made many GMs believe a kid could come right in and contribute his rookie year. People forget that before that, young international kids were considered projects, too.
Dirk Nowitzki's rookie year was so bad, Donnie Nelson of the Mavs actually called up most of the members of his staff and told them he thought they were all losing their jobs.
There may be a one-time course correction this year. Teams that weren't convinced Euros were the way to go may be a little gun shy. Other teams that love them -- Dallas, Detroit, San Antonio, Sacramento and Phoenix -- aren't going to be swayed by a year of bad returns.
The year after Kwame went No. 1, only one high school player, Amare Stoudemire, was drafted in the first round. However, that lasted one full season. Last summer four high school players went in Round 1. This year, as many as 10 have been projected.
The word on the street is the backlash won't affect the number of international players taken in the first round, just the position. We're currently projecting between eight and 10 internationals in Round 1. I think most of the kids we're talking about will end up being late first-round picks. That allows teams to get a bargain and keep the kid over in Europe another year or two.
Here's another, more proactive fan ...
It seems to me that if there is going to be an influx of possibly 18 first-round teenagers into the league this season, it is very important the NBA gets on its horse in terms of developing and implementing its plan for the "new" NBDL with baseball-like farm teams. It seems to me the players' union would be pushing for this as more and more teenagers who are not ready to contribute are pushing veterans off rosters. I think you have written on the subject before, and one proposal was to have teams send three or four players each to the farm team that three or four teams would share. Are there any updates on this that you can give us?
-- Brian Szabo, Toledo, Ohio
I prefer this line of thinking to an age limit. An age limit would've prohibited us from seeing LeBron in the NBA for another two years. Obviously, that's ridiculous. What the league needs to do (and many GMs agree) is create an infrastructure that gives teams the flexibility to draft young players and pay them and develop them without taking up precious roster space.
Most GMs believe the NBDL, as currently constructed, is a waste of time. What teams want to do is have the ability to take three or four of their own players and send them somewhere, along with an assistant coach, to teach them the system and give them valuable playing time.
There are obviously a ton of logistical questions regarding something like this. The biggest are financial. Owners aren't ready to commit to owning a farm team, even if it does improve the game. The other issue is that teams want control. How do you guarantee, for instance, that the kid you shipped down is getting the playing time he needs?
I think, given the new realities of the league and the draft, this is a must for the league when it begins it's collective bargaining with the union. In the past, the union has opposed any sort of minor league. But with so many veterans losing their jobs to young kids who aren't ready to play, I bet they're willing to make some concessions this time around.
Having a farm league won't solve all the league's issues related to youth, but it's much more proactive than a ban.
Keep the letters coming ... we'll try to keep the dialogue going on all week as the tournament arrives.
For the second straight day, our NBA draft coverage drew a ton of responses from readers wanting to weigh in on the growing flood of teenagers (both American and international) infiltrating the NBA draft.
We haven't done a mailbag in a while and thought it might be great to get your voices out there. Here's a sampling of what you're thinking about the NBA's youth movement ...
I just finished reading your commentary on the steady increase of international and high school players coming into the NBA. I agree that, based on appearances, NBA teams are starting to appear to prefer to take a high schooler or international player instead of a college player. Regardless of whether or not this trend is here to stay, I think the real question (and one I'm not sure has ever been answered in your column) is whether the NBA is better off with the influx of high schoolers and international players. Based on appearances, I would say that it is not.
-- Michael Drew, Alexandria, Va.
To be honest, Michael, I don't know. Things are so different right now it's tough for me to say that a Lakers team in the '80s is that much better than a Kings team in the '90s.
I think in the end, things tend to balance themselves out. Most 18-year-olds aren't ready for the NBA and won't be for another two or three years. But there are probably more 22-year-olds playing great basketball in the NBA than at any other time in the history of the game.
Whether you come from college, high school or the Euroleague, there's an adjustment that has to be made. What's different is that we are seeing it much more intimately when players choose to skip college and go pro. Players are maturing not only on the court, but off the court as well.
Fan support may be dwindling, attendance may be down, but it's all relative. The number of NBA fans in 2004 greatly outnumbers the number of fans during the NBA's glory years.
Shooting percentages stink, and scoring may be down, but I think it's a stretch to blame that on the kids. For the most part, the high school and international kids that make the jump are the cream of the crop. The international kids, for the most part, are more fundamentally sound than their college counterparts. The high school kids might not be right away, but there's no evidence they're dragging down the league field-goal percentage or scoring averages.
Eddy Curry, a poster boy for staying in school, led the league in field-goal percentage last season. Add in Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Amare Stoudemire, Jermaine O'Neal and LeBron James -- they're what's right with the league, not what's wrong with it.
I think the obsession with defense and expansion are the biggest reasons that the talent pool has diluted, not the influx of young players in the league. Teams like the Pistons can currently make very good teams look very bad with stifling defensive play. Better athletes playing better defense have, in effect, shortened the court and made it much, much more difficult to score. And you only have to look to the rosters of teams like the Hawks and Jazz (even though both are playing well) to see that there are way too many players in the NBA that don't belong there.
Which gets us to our next question ...
I find the international invasion to be ironic. Generally, the NBA today is considered a defensive league, and the biggest knock on foreign players is their lack of ability to play defense. This has been illustrated in ESPN's own articles about the importance of defense to teams and the foreign scouting reports. Why are GMs and scouts so high on these guys just because they can make an outside jump shot, when the coach isn't going to play them because they can't guard anybody?
--Greg Bukowski, Carol Stream, Ill.
Maybe GMs are as sick of the 70-69 yawners as the fans are ...
All joking aside, it should come as no surprise that GMs are looking for Euros who can play some defense. Mickael Pietrus was a lottery pick based in part on his ability to play great D. This year, two international prospects in particular, Andris Biedrins and Sergei Monya, are as high as they are on the board because they're very good defenders.
Let's move on ... obviously readers aren't the only ones who have issues with the direction the league is going. With most of the young players drafted in 2003 spending most of their time on the bench, can we expect a backlash?
I'm ashamed of American basketball enthusiasts for the comments that come across as xenophobic or racist. ... My only concern is with the quality of the product. I do have a question about the international players, though. Looking at last year's draft class, none of the international players (Darko Milicic, Mickael Pietrus, Zarko Cabarkapa, Aleksandar Pavlovic, Zoran Planinic) have really been productive. Does that have any impact on the minds of GMs? I realize a few of those guys have shown flashes, but it seems like there was a GM backlash after the draft that Kwame Brown went No. 1, because none of the high schoolers were immediately successful. Is that at all a risk at some point this season before the draft?
-- Jai, New York
You've got a point. It was a question Insider asked back in December, when it was clear the 2003 crop of international players weren't getting any love.
I think there are a lot of people who are taking a step back now and re assessing the situation. Pau Gasol was the international player who made many GMs believe a kid could come right in and contribute his rookie year. People forget that before that, young international kids were considered projects, too.
Dirk Nowitzki's rookie year was so bad, Donnie Nelson of the Mavs actually called up most of the members of his staff and told them he thought they were all losing their jobs.
There may be a one-time course correction this year. Teams that weren't convinced Euros were the way to go may be a little gun shy. Other teams that love them -- Dallas, Detroit, San Antonio, Sacramento and Phoenix -- aren't going to be swayed by a year of bad returns.
The year after Kwame went No. 1, only one high school player, Amare Stoudemire, was drafted in the first round. However, that lasted one full season. Last summer four high school players went in Round 1. This year, as many as 10 have been projected.
The word on the street is the backlash won't affect the number of international players taken in the first round, just the position. We're currently projecting between eight and 10 internationals in Round 1. I think most of the kids we're talking about will end up being late first-round picks. That allows teams to get a bargain and keep the kid over in Europe another year or two.
Here's another, more proactive fan ...
It seems to me that if there is going to be an influx of possibly 18 first-round teenagers into the league this season, it is very important the NBA gets on its horse in terms of developing and implementing its plan for the "new" NBDL with baseball-like farm teams. It seems to me the players' union would be pushing for this as more and more teenagers who are not ready to contribute are pushing veterans off rosters. I think you have written on the subject before, and one proposal was to have teams send three or four players each to the farm team that three or four teams would share. Are there any updates on this that you can give us?
-- Brian Szabo, Toledo, Ohio
I prefer this line of thinking to an age limit. An age limit would've prohibited us from seeing LeBron in the NBA for another two years. Obviously, that's ridiculous. What the league needs to do (and many GMs agree) is create an infrastructure that gives teams the flexibility to draft young players and pay them and develop them without taking up precious roster space.
Most GMs believe the NBDL, as currently constructed, is a waste of time. What teams want to do is have the ability to take three or four of their own players and send them somewhere, along with an assistant coach, to teach them the system and give them valuable playing time.
There are obviously a ton of logistical questions regarding something like this. The biggest are financial. Owners aren't ready to commit to owning a farm team, even if it does improve the game. The other issue is that teams want control. How do you guarantee, for instance, that the kid you shipped down is getting the playing time he needs?
I think, given the new realities of the league and the draft, this is a must for the league when it begins it's collective bargaining with the union. In the past, the union has opposed any sort of minor league. But with so many veterans losing their jobs to young kids who aren't ready to play, I bet they're willing to make some concessions this time around.
Having a farm league won't solve all the league's issues related to youth, but it's much more proactive than a ban.
Keep the letters coming ... we'll try to keep the dialogue going on all week as the tournament arrives.
