Draft Talk
We've had a pretty solid discussion this week about the NBA's youth movement, it's effect on college basketball, the NBA draft and the direction the league is headed.
I typically get between 150 to 250 reader e-mails a day. This week I've easily averaged 500-750 a day. Many of them that I didn't quote were insightful and interesting ... I just couldn't publish them all.
There are a few more e-mails I want to get to as we wrap this subject up for the time being. Let's start with Matthew who thinks reconfiguring the rookie scale (less experience, more years under contract) could actually open the floodgates even more to teenagers.
The idea of tying rookie-scale contract length to age is an interesting one. However, I fear it will only provide an incentive, in this salary-cap conscious world, for GMs to draft younger players. Having a high school or young international prospect locked up at rookie wages for six years can be a boon under the salary cap; drafting an established senior who could be lost to free agency after two years is risky. So I think your plan cuts both ways. It provides a mild incentive for players to stay in school (although it presumes a lot of farsightedness; even a rookie contract looks good to a kid who isn't even allowed to have a paper route under NCAA rules), but a HUGE incentive for teams to draft younger players. And for my money, the No. 1 incentive for a young player to come out is the likelihood that he'll be drafted early on. I vote no.
--Matthew Schwartz, New York
It's a great point Matthew. In the interest of full disclosure, the idea is not mine, but the brainchild of several GMs that I interviewed for a David Stern story in December. So, it makes sense that the plan clearly has other benefits for them.
The truth is, many GMs, especially those in the lottery, are afraid to take a project. Fans have an attention span of about two to three years. If a player hasn't developed by then, he's basically written off as a bust, and the GMs job is on the line.
GMs have a real fear that young projects like Pavel Podkolzine and Andris Biedrins will take too long to develop, and the team will have to make a long-term financial commitment before they really know what they have. Indiana was stuck in this scenario last fall, when it gave Jonathan Bender a $40 million extension based on ... well, nothing on the court.
So, sure, the move is a win-win situation for the GMs. It gets some of the young players out of the draft and provides extra safeguards should they enter the draft. Now you know why they think it's a winner.
Here's another interesting idea that may have some merit. Jordan claims the NBA should take a page out of the NHL's handbook.
How about this idea for the NBA? Establish a relationship with the NCAA like the NHL has with colleges and minor leagues. Have the players come out in high school (or after their first, second, or third year or even after college) and be drafted. Have the NBA teams pay the scholarships (even add some living money) and let the kids play for Coach K, Roy Williams, Tommy Amaker, whoever, for 3-4 years (whenever that kid feels he's ready to go). That way, you solve three problems: The roster space on clubs could still go to veterans, not projects; college basketball would be enriched by these players staying in college (for example, does anyone think Ndudi Ebi should be in the NBA, riding the pine, or, say, getting ready for the NCAA tournament?); and third, it would allow universities to save other sports by taking the money tied up by basketball scholarships and use them to preserve, say, wrestling or field hockey. This seems to be a win-win situation for all sides.
Jordan Acker, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Hmmmm ... I know some old school GMs who would love this idea. There are definitely two camps in the NBA right now: Those who are invigorated by the new trends and have set up state-of-the-art scouting operations to get a handle on everyone on the globe; and those who liked how things used to be. The NBA used to have a very comfortable relationship with the NCAA, and more than one of the older league executives still refers to the NCAA as the NBA's minor league.
The league has been quietly pushing the NCAA for years to change its eligibility requirements on players that leave school early for the NBA. If a player was allowed to return to school, drafted or undrafted, the need for a minor league would go away.
The NCAA would get to keep many of its stars. College players would get security early on that, if drafted in the NBA first round, their money was guaranteed when they decided, along with the team that drafted them, that it was time to come and play in the league. Drafted players would get a stipend to help them get through the lean years. Both NBA and college rosters would include more veteran players if the league and NCAA could agree to the system.
It's an interesting idea. I think the NBA Players Association would have a few issues with it. Who decides if a drafted player goes to the NBA or stays in college? The union would want the players to have the final word. The NBA would surely want teams to make the call.
Your proposal doesn't address international players, but I think there's a much easier answer for them. Teams should just quit promising young Euros that they'll draft them in the first round. International players are allowed to hire agents, and most agents won't keep a player in the draft unless they get guarantees their client will be taken in a certain range. If teams would stop that nonsense, I think most young Euros wouldn't risk slipping.
Ga'ash in Philly thinks players are better off getting out of the college system.
I think you forget to mention what I feel is the main reason scouts want to pull kids out of college, or before college, into the NBA -- players develop faster and better in the pros. The NBA's competition, facilities, top-notch trainers, and the amount of time players get to focus on their game pales in comparison to anything college has to offer. Look at the facts: Half of the league's superstars were drafted out of high school, and practically any player worth anything was drafted before his senior season. The real stars with the real potential would be wasting their time in college, and both the players and scouts know it.
-- Ga'ash Soffer, Philadelphia
There are a lot of NBA coaches who agree with you, Ga'ash. Despite their complaints about a steady diet of unproven, inexperienced kids in the draft, they also recognize the college game is not the NBA game.
Some college programs discourage players from lifting weights or playing a certain style of basketball that works well in the pros. A college coach isn't trying to turn his players into pro prospects. He's trying to turn his players into a team.
While coaches may gripe about the flood of teenagers into the NBA, almost all concede that a young talented player with a good work ethic will progress much faster in the NBA than he would in the NCAA or Europe.
There's an old theory that playing against the best makes you the best. I think even Larry Brown would agree Darko Milicic is better off not playing in games and going up against Ben Wallace in practice every day than playing in Europe's pro league or in college.
Reader James thinks NBA teams are drafting the big kids early out of necessity.
Ever notice one problem with basketball today is the disappearance of the great low-post center? I always had a theory on it. I notice great center prospects come out of high school every year and go to the McDonald's All-Star game, but none of them do anything in college. I think college has committed a fundamental breakdown, since none of the big men who come into college ever develop. How many McDonald's All-American centers, or any American centers, have developed in college and made it to the NBA with good skills? The names that pop into my head are slim and none. Joel Pryzbilla? Fringe player. Dan Gadzuric? Fringe player. I remember when those two guys played at the McDonald's High School All-Star game. They have not changed a thing in their games or ever even improved. Something is wrong.
James Houston, Ocala, Fla.
There's a definite trend to what kind of young players get taken in the lottery. With very few exceptions, they are young, athletic players who are 6-foot-10 or taller.
Why do they come at such a premium? Because they are almost non-existent in the college draft, and you're right, James, many college coaches don't have great résumés when it comes to developing bigs.
If you look at the 29 starting centers in the NBA today, only one, Shaquille O'Neal, was a dominant college player. The best of the rest got their start internationally or came straight to the pros.
College coaches will respond to the argument by claiming the league cherry-picks all the good big men before they have a chance to play in college. And both sides will concede that the truth is, America just isn't growing big kids with great basketball skills right now.
But still, it's a point well taken.
To wrap things up, Biff's take on things gets pretty close to what I believe.
Personally, as a rabid NBA fan, I'm enjoying this period in the league's history. To watch Stern do his thing and reshape the NBA into a product with an international fan base is fun. To me, the real problem would be NOT sending dozens of scouts to countries like Yugoslavia and missing out on some great players. International competition is only going to get better, and that is something basketball fans will have to get used to. Plus, it's kind of fun to imagine that someone has 'discovered' a 7-foot-5 Russian playing in a small town in Italy.
--Biff Jones, Washington D.C.
Of all the things I do in my job as NBA Insider, there's nothing I love more than the draft. Maybe it's the mystery ... the blank slate that every team works from each year.
Isn't it amazing that the Cavs and Nuggets were the two worst teams in the league last year, and now they're playoff teams based, in large part, on two great draft success stories -- LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony? By conventional standards, both kids were really too young to play in the league, but both had special qualities that allowed them to transcend the status quo.
There's no question a scout's job in the NBA is 10 times harder now than a decade ago. That's OK. They're well paid, stay in the finest hotels in the world and have amazing per diems. Trust me.
As far as the fans' distaste for the whole thing -- that's partly the media's fault. Many media outlets have been slow to get on the bandwagon and give fans accurate and meaningful information about high school and international players. When I left for Italy on my first trip to scout Euros almost three years ago, I went because I had a deep curiosity about all of these names I would hear on draft night.
Hubie Brown's TNT draft night commentary of, "He's an interesting kid with a lot of upside," wasn't enough for me, and it shouldn't be for you. Hopefully, for those of you who feel the same way, you've found a home on Insider.
We've had a pretty solid discussion this week about the NBA's youth movement, it's effect on college basketball, the NBA draft and the direction the league is headed.
I typically get between 150 to 250 reader e-mails a day. This week I've easily averaged 500-750 a day. Many of them that I didn't quote were insightful and interesting ... I just couldn't publish them all.
There are a few more e-mails I want to get to as we wrap this subject up for the time being. Let's start with Matthew who thinks reconfiguring the rookie scale (less experience, more years under contract) could actually open the floodgates even more to teenagers.
The idea of tying rookie-scale contract length to age is an interesting one. However, I fear it will only provide an incentive, in this salary-cap conscious world, for GMs to draft younger players. Having a high school or young international prospect locked up at rookie wages for six years can be a boon under the salary cap; drafting an established senior who could be lost to free agency after two years is risky. So I think your plan cuts both ways. It provides a mild incentive for players to stay in school (although it presumes a lot of farsightedness; even a rookie contract looks good to a kid who isn't even allowed to have a paper route under NCAA rules), but a HUGE incentive for teams to draft younger players. And for my money, the No. 1 incentive for a young player to come out is the likelihood that he'll be drafted early on. I vote no.
--Matthew Schwartz, New York
It's a great point Matthew. In the interest of full disclosure, the idea is not mine, but the brainchild of several GMs that I interviewed for a David Stern story in December. So, it makes sense that the plan clearly has other benefits for them.
The truth is, many GMs, especially those in the lottery, are afraid to take a project. Fans have an attention span of about two to three years. If a player hasn't developed by then, he's basically written off as a bust, and the GMs job is on the line.
GMs have a real fear that young projects like Pavel Podkolzine and Andris Biedrins will take too long to develop, and the team will have to make a long-term financial commitment before they really know what they have. Indiana was stuck in this scenario last fall, when it gave Jonathan Bender a $40 million extension based on ... well, nothing on the court.
So, sure, the move is a win-win situation for the GMs. It gets some of the young players out of the draft and provides extra safeguards should they enter the draft. Now you know why they think it's a winner.
Here's another interesting idea that may have some merit. Jordan claims the NBA should take a page out of the NHL's handbook.
How about this idea for the NBA? Establish a relationship with the NCAA like the NHL has with colleges and minor leagues. Have the players come out in high school (or after their first, second, or third year or even after college) and be drafted. Have the NBA teams pay the scholarships (even add some living money) and let the kids play for Coach K, Roy Williams, Tommy Amaker, whoever, for 3-4 years (whenever that kid feels he's ready to go). That way, you solve three problems: The roster space on clubs could still go to veterans, not projects; college basketball would be enriched by these players staying in college (for example, does anyone think Ndudi Ebi should be in the NBA, riding the pine, or, say, getting ready for the NCAA tournament?); and third, it would allow universities to save other sports by taking the money tied up by basketball scholarships and use them to preserve, say, wrestling or field hockey. This seems to be a win-win situation for all sides.
Jordan Acker, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Hmmmm ... I know some old school GMs who would love this idea. There are definitely two camps in the NBA right now: Those who are invigorated by the new trends and have set up state-of-the-art scouting operations to get a handle on everyone on the globe; and those who liked how things used to be. The NBA used to have a very comfortable relationship with the NCAA, and more than one of the older league executives still refers to the NCAA as the NBA's minor league.
The league has been quietly pushing the NCAA for years to change its eligibility requirements on players that leave school early for the NBA. If a player was allowed to return to school, drafted or undrafted, the need for a minor league would go away.
The NCAA would get to keep many of its stars. College players would get security early on that, if drafted in the NBA first round, their money was guaranteed when they decided, along with the team that drafted them, that it was time to come and play in the league. Drafted players would get a stipend to help them get through the lean years. Both NBA and college rosters would include more veteran players if the league and NCAA could agree to the system.
It's an interesting idea. I think the NBA Players Association would have a few issues with it. Who decides if a drafted player goes to the NBA or stays in college? The union would want the players to have the final word. The NBA would surely want teams to make the call.
Your proposal doesn't address international players, but I think there's a much easier answer for them. Teams should just quit promising young Euros that they'll draft them in the first round. International players are allowed to hire agents, and most agents won't keep a player in the draft unless they get guarantees their client will be taken in a certain range. If teams would stop that nonsense, I think most young Euros wouldn't risk slipping.
Ga'ash in Philly thinks players are better off getting out of the college system.
I think you forget to mention what I feel is the main reason scouts want to pull kids out of college, or before college, into the NBA -- players develop faster and better in the pros. The NBA's competition, facilities, top-notch trainers, and the amount of time players get to focus on their game pales in comparison to anything college has to offer. Look at the facts: Half of the league's superstars were drafted out of high school, and practically any player worth anything was drafted before his senior season. The real stars with the real potential would be wasting their time in college, and both the players and scouts know it.
-- Ga'ash Soffer, Philadelphia
There are a lot of NBA coaches who agree with you, Ga'ash. Despite their complaints about a steady diet of unproven, inexperienced kids in the draft, they also recognize the college game is not the NBA game.
Some college programs discourage players from lifting weights or playing a certain style of basketball that works well in the pros. A college coach isn't trying to turn his players into pro prospects. He's trying to turn his players into a team.
While coaches may gripe about the flood of teenagers into the NBA, almost all concede that a young talented player with a good work ethic will progress much faster in the NBA than he would in the NCAA or Europe.
There's an old theory that playing against the best makes you the best. I think even Larry Brown would agree Darko Milicic is better off not playing in games and going up against Ben Wallace in practice every day than playing in Europe's pro league or in college.
Reader James thinks NBA teams are drafting the big kids early out of necessity.
Ever notice one problem with basketball today is the disappearance of the great low-post center? I always had a theory on it. I notice great center prospects come out of high school every year and go to the McDonald's All-Star game, but none of them do anything in college. I think college has committed a fundamental breakdown, since none of the big men who come into college ever develop. How many McDonald's All-American centers, or any American centers, have developed in college and made it to the NBA with good skills? The names that pop into my head are slim and none. Joel Pryzbilla? Fringe player. Dan Gadzuric? Fringe player. I remember when those two guys played at the McDonald's High School All-Star game. They have not changed a thing in their games or ever even improved. Something is wrong.
James Houston, Ocala, Fla.
There's a definite trend to what kind of young players get taken in the lottery. With very few exceptions, they are young, athletic players who are 6-foot-10 or taller.
Why do they come at such a premium? Because they are almost non-existent in the college draft, and you're right, James, many college coaches don't have great résumés when it comes to developing bigs.
If you look at the 29 starting centers in the NBA today, only one, Shaquille O'Neal, was a dominant college player. The best of the rest got their start internationally or came straight to the pros.
College coaches will respond to the argument by claiming the league cherry-picks all the good big men before they have a chance to play in college. And both sides will concede that the truth is, America just isn't growing big kids with great basketball skills right now.
But still, it's a point well taken.
To wrap things up, Biff's take on things gets pretty close to what I believe.
Personally, as a rabid NBA fan, I'm enjoying this period in the league's history. To watch Stern do his thing and reshape the NBA into a product with an international fan base is fun. To me, the real problem would be NOT sending dozens of scouts to countries like Yugoslavia and missing out on some great players. International competition is only going to get better, and that is something basketball fans will have to get used to. Plus, it's kind of fun to imagine that someone has 'discovered' a 7-foot-5 Russian playing in a small town in Italy.
--Biff Jones, Washington D.C.
Of all the things I do in my job as NBA Insider, there's nothing I love more than the draft. Maybe it's the mystery ... the blank slate that every team works from each year.
Isn't it amazing that the Cavs and Nuggets were the two worst teams in the league last year, and now they're playoff teams based, in large part, on two great draft success stories -- LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony? By conventional standards, both kids were really too young to play in the league, but both had special qualities that allowed them to transcend the status quo.
There's no question a scout's job in the NBA is 10 times harder now than a decade ago. That's OK. They're well paid, stay in the finest hotels in the world and have amazing per diems. Trust me.
As far as the fans' distaste for the whole thing -- that's partly the media's fault. Many media outlets have been slow to get on the bandwagon and give fans accurate and meaningful information about high school and international players. When I left for Italy on my first trip to scout Euros almost three years ago, I went because I had a deep curiosity about all of these names I would hear on draft night.
Hubie Brown's TNT draft night commentary of, "He's an interesting kid with a lot of upside," wasn't enough for me, and it shouldn't be for you. Hopefully, for those of you who feel the same way, you've found a home on Insider.
