O'Neal is the poster child...

[F-Dog]

This makes a little bit of sense, but I still think it has more to do with the quality of play in the NBA than marketing. Besides, LeBron James is probably the last person you would want to use as an example. Even though he came straight from high school he is probably the biggest name to come into the NBA since Shaquille O'Neal.

Joe Mama

I agree that LeBron is a worst-case scenario for the proposed rule, because the NBA had little to gain from his going to college, and a great deal of revenue to lose. If there's a benefit from publicity, it will come from second-tier stars like J.R. Smith and Shaun Livingston.

But then, I think the new rule is a mistake for the NBA as well as the players. If the concern is talent and allowing players to develop, the real solution is to set up a development league (aka minor league). But Stern seems to be obsessed with protecting the NCAA's turf.

 

[F-Dog]

Hooey. That is an invalid rationale. Annointing high schoolers as Superstars is something I don't buy. All of the other pro leagues have development programs and the NBA had one in the NCAA. Nothing wrong with that, except that agents and union offiicials destroyed it. So now the talent level is diluted. It still takes 4 years for a high schooler to be worth a crap on a winning team. Big deal if LeBron stars on a suck team.

Yes, I can't imagine that a HS player could ever star for a winning team while on his rookie contract...

 

[elindholm]

Teams don't gamble on long-shots because they're stupid. They do it because you can't win championships in the NBA without a superstar (until last year, at least).

Yeahbut,

Who says you have to draft your superstar? Shaquille O'Neal has changed teams twice. So have McGrady and Kidd. Jermaine O'Neal once, Carter once. (These are just names. Please no one jump in with "So-and-so isn't a superstar.")

Big stars with their original teams include Garnett, Duncan, Nowitzki, Iverson, Bryant, and Stoudemire. (Oh, and that guy in Cleveland, at least for now.) But Nowitzki, Bryant, and Stoudemire were all fairly late draft choices, meaning that their teams were smart to get them that late.

Teams who think they "have" to gamble on a long shot with a high draft pick in order to be title contenders are just dead wrong. The overwhelming evidence is that what you really need to become an elite team is -- surprise -- a wealth of talent and smart management.

 

[Mulli]

Yes, I can't imagine that a HS player could ever star for a winning team while on his rookie contract...

How many years has Amare played?

 

[jibikao]

bottom line - if they're old enough to defend this country and put their life on the line, IMO, they are old enough to play a game if someone wants them.

I agree. There's nothing more serious than being a soldier in the war. If they are mature enough to defend the country, then they should be mature enough to play the freaking basketball!

Although I do think many of them act really immature, especially Melo!!!

Oh well, basketball is all about sports so if they can perform, bring them into the league.

 

[jibikao]

Teams don't gamble on long-shots because they're stupid. They do it because you can't win championships in the NBA without a superstar (until last year, at least).

Yeahbut,

Who says you have to draft your superstar? Shaquille O'Neal has changed teams twice. So have McGrady and Kidd. Jermaine O'Neal once, Carter once. (These are just names. Please no one jump in with "So-and-so isn't a superstar.")

Big stars with their original teams include Garnett, Duncan, Nowitzki, Iverson, Bryant, and Stoudemire. (Oh, and that guy in Cleveland, at least for now.) But Nowitzki, Bryant, and Stoudemire were all fairly late draft choices, meaning that their teams were smart to get them that late.

Teams who think they "have" to gamble on a long shot with a high draft pick in order to be title contenders are just dead wrong. The overwhelming evidence is that what you really need to become an elite team is -- surprise -- a wealth of talent and smart management.

I agree. And I also think young players tend to have longer basketball-life. They are younger and they have more energy. I mean going through the tough college basketball tournament can really wear you down. Your ankles, your knees, fingers...blah blah blah. Fresh people are easier to train and it makes a big news "Lebron at age 19 is already an all-star!!" There you go, a big header for the sports news.

 

[coloradosun]

As small as that paycheck is by NBA standards, almost all of the under-20 kids drafted last year are "earning it". And remember, this is the first year of a four-year contract for all of them.

Dwight Howard
Shaun Livingston
Luol Deng
Andris Biedrins
Telfair
Al Jefferson
Kris Humphries
Josh Smith
J.R. Smith



Robert Swift
Dorrell Wright
Podkolzine

Is the objective of the draft, in its essence, to help improve your team. Or is it just to develope talent.

Orlando-Howard-missed playoff-traded McGrady
LA Clips-Livingston-missed playoffs
*GS-Biedrins-missed playoffs
Portland-Telfair-missed playoffs
Atlanta-Josh Smith-missed playoffs
New Orleans-J.R.Smith-missed playoffs
Boston-Jefferson-made playoffs -also acquired Payton and Walker
Miami-Wright-made playoffs- also acquired Shaq
Seattle-Swift-made playoffs- but did not play

*Euro with no college, all others were HS only

LA Clips, GS, Atlanta, GS are perpetual lottery picks and continually make bad drafting decisions. Because HS were in the draft, they took them even though college players were available. These were teams that could have used more established prospects instead they chose projects. Put the HS in the second round and give these franchises available time to develope them but also add a player that can contribute immediately, then let them make stupid decisions after that in either trading them or not matching offers. I just don't like the idea of putting HS in positions to produce immediately, there are only a few that can.

I believe the draft is to help out with parity.