OTL - Andrew Bynum's dilemma

[Joe Mama]

I just finished watching ESPN's Outside the Lines. The topic today was David Stern's proposed 20 year old age limit. They featured Andrew Bynum, the 7-0 295 pound Connecticut commitment, because he is just 17 years old now. He's draft eligible because he graduated from high school. The dilemma is that if he decides to go to Connecticut this year instead of staying in the draft it's possible that he won't be a will to go to the NBA for three more years. I contend that if there is an age limit passed it will probably be 20 years old or two years after the player's high school class graduates.

First of all, I wish David Stern and the NBA would drop this nonsense about an age limit being primarily for the benefit of the young players who don't make it. Everybody and their mom can see that this is really about making the NBA better. That's why I would like to see an age limit. I want to see the NBA benefit from it. I think it's better for the majority of the players and the players union, and it's better for the league. That should be the primary issue. I don't care if it's not "fair" to the kids that feel they are ready. Life isn't fair. There are a lot of things you can't do as soon as you turn 18. You can't rent a car in most places. You cannot legally purchase and consume alcohol.

BTW I only saw limited the video of Bynum, but he did look like a nice prospect. He's enormous, and he appeared to be fairly athletic, agile, and skilled.

Joe Mama

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Agree, that is exactly why I want an age limit. Make the draft less of a crapshoot, and let lottery teams get players that can help them right away.

 

[George O'Brien]

There will be no age limit. It is a "nice idea", but the players don't like it out of principle (there's no age limit for baseball, tennis, or golf) and it doesn't save the NBA any money. The bottom line for the NBA is going to be the bottom line and they won't trade an economic item for it, so it won't happen.

 

[elindholm]

It has often been reported that the players do like it, since it is perceived that an age limit would provide more roster spots for role-playing veterans in the later stages of their careers.

 

[Gorilla]

It has often been reported that the players do like it, since it is perceived that an age limit would provide more roster spots for role-playing veterans in the later stages of their careers.

I've also heard this. I've found myself trying to think as a player. The question it comes up is, why is the Player Union trying to protect players that are not even in the Union yet?? and yet letting youngster take jobs from veterans they are supposed to be protecting??

Maybe there is a logical explanation for that question. But if I am a member of a Union, I would expect protection from it.

 

[George O'Brien]

I've also heard this. I've found myself trying to think as a player. The question it comes up is, why is the Player Union trying to protect players that are not even in the Union yet?? and yet letting youngster take jobs from veterans they are supposed to be protecting??

Maybe there is a logical explanation for that question. But if I am a member of a Union, I would expect protection from it.

I have never heard a player come out and say "I want an age limit because there is more money for me". Some of it may be just good sense. For a player to come out and advocate an age limit and have it not be implimented, faces playing with guys he tried to keep out of the league.

 

[hafey2]

Also, 30 players are going to get drafted in the first round every year and get contracts, age limit or not.

 

[asudevil83]

Also, 30 players are going to get drafted in the first round every year and get contracts, age limit or not.

exactly.....an age limit wouldnt keep open roster spots for vets.

i dont see any difference in an affect a player would have on a roster if he were drafted this year or 3 years from now. it would either be him or some other rookie taking up a roster spot.

the ONLY thing an age limit would do is increase the quality of players coming out of the draft.....especially in the lottery. instead of having teams take gambles on some kid who may or may not be a star, lotto teams would stand a better chance of drafting a guy who will have an immediate impact.

 

[hafey2]

Will an age limit really impact the quality of players? The some of the biggest impact players drafted recently have been high schoolers. The fact is, very few polished players are going to make a difference for many lottery teams.

 

[hcsilla]

BTW I only saw limited the video of Bynum, but he did look like a nice prospect. He's enormous, and he appeared to be fairly athletic, agile, and skilled.

Doesn't sound this dangerously close to the reports about DeSagana Diop in 2001?

 

[Gorilla]

Also, 30 players are going to get drafted in the first round every year and get contracts, age limit or not.

That's the kind of answer I was looking for!

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Will an age limit really impact the quality of players? The some of the biggest impact players drafted recently have been high schoolers. The fact is, very few polished players are going to make a difference for many lottery teams.

It won't right now, but in 2-3 years it will for sure. It isn't just high schoolers we are talking about. Freshman leave college all the time as well. The draft would be stronger top to bottom (in terms of ready to compete) with an age limit. There would be less risk involved.

Imagine if Cleveland didn't spend their lottery days guessing on players like Diop and Wagner, instead grabbing people that they had a real chance to evaluate. They wouldn't have been in the cellar for so long...

 

[hafey2]

Part of my point is, are players like Amare, LeBron, Carmelo, Bosh better served by devloping in college or in the NBA. I would argue that Amare would not be nearly as good if he had spent the last 3 years at Memphis.

As for Cleveland drafting crappy players, thats their fault. Plenty of teams made good draft picks in those drafts.

 

[sunsfn]

I do not think there will be an age limit.

There are as many players against it as there are for it.
Jermaine O'Neal from the pacers really came out against it and used the race issue to talk against it.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Part of my point is, are players like Amare, LeBron, Carmelo, Bosh better served by devloping in college or in the NBA. I would argue that Amare would not be nearly as good if he had spent the last 3 years at Memphis.

As for Cleveland drafting crappy players, thats their fault. Plenty of teams made good draft picks in those drafts.

They would be a lot better for the NBA if they went to school. Imagine Amare coming in with a full skill set, instead of learning on the job. This season would have happened in his rookie year.

Then there is the money standpoint of it. HS players are simply not marketable (with Lebron as an exception). You need college to let the players get a name for themselves, so the league can market them when they come in.


Cleveland drafted bad players for sure. I am a big critic of Paxson's GM skills, so no arguement there. The only thing is, there are so many crapshoots in the draft these days that you have to either be really good or really lucky. In the arguement of fairness for the league (which is what the draft is about - giving a balance of power sort of thing), Amare should be in a Rockets uniform right now. Maybe in Chicago or Golden State - but defintiely not in Phx.

A few years of college would have gotten the draft order right IMO. Right now, good teams are made of excellent GMs (SA for example, Manu and Parker late). There just aren't that many great evaluaters in the league, and I think there should be a consensus top 10 each year (not necessarily the order) from which to pick from. Right now it is pretty hard to get a consensus top 3.

 

[elindholm]

In the arguement of fairness for the league (which is what the draft is about - giving a balance of power sort of thing), Amare should be in a Rockets uniform right now.

I guess you're saying that because the Rockets had the #1 pick. But if the issue is "fairness," they never should have had the #1 pick in the first place. That's why there's a lottery -- to ensure that not only is there no guarantee that the worst team gets the #1 pick, but also to ensure that the team with the #1 pick doesn't necessarily wind up with the best player.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

In the arguement of fairness for the league (which is what the draft is about - giving a balance of power sort of thing), Amare should be in a Rockets uniform right now.

I guess you're saying that because the Rockets had the #1 pick. But if the issue is "fairness," they never should have had the #1 pick in the first place. That's why there's a lottery -- to ensure that not only is there no guarantee that the worst team gets the #1 pick, but also to ensure that the team with the #1 pick doesn't necessarily wind up with the best player.

That is what I meant. I think that the lottery is what gives a sense of fairness to the process while maintaining some sort of competition in the end of the season.

I don't really see why the lottery ensures that the team with the #1 pick doesn't get the best player. They should draft the best player, at least for their team, every year. That is why the draft is so bad right now - it is too hard to tell what people will do.

 

[George O'Brien]

The odd part about the draft is that the guys who know what they are doing draft late in the first round. Some teams consistently draft badly and thus end up in the lottery year after year.

Oddly enough, the Clippers typically draft quite well, even taking into account their good position. Their problem is an owner who is too cheap to keep the good players he drafts.