11/21/24
June 23, 2002
Staying in College Hurts NBA Prospects: [New York Times; registration required] Some players that stay all four years in college are considered old in their early 20s and are being picked behind high school seniors.
posted by kirkaracha to basketball at 02:20 AM - 5 comments
I think teams are now just a bit too obsessed with finding the next Kobe, KG, Tracy McGrady, etc... Instead, most of these teams would probably benefit much more by drafting someone ready to contribute right away like a Battier...
posted by gyc at 04:04 PM on June 23, 2002
I really don't see a problem with this. Some of this has to do with GMs who can't think for themselves. Those are the ones who will end up with guys who can't play. Some of it has to do with college seniors who aren't that good. Trust me, it's not like Juan Dixon would have been the first guy taken last year.
posted by jackhererra at 12:31 AM on June 24, 2002
gyc: that's the tradeoff, immediate, solid payoff or possible long term superstar payoff. Since young players are sometimes cheap and its easier to get them to sign a long-term contract, GM's must really like trying to get the youngest players they can find. As Phil Jackson once said, college ball is the NBA's farm system. It helps insulate the NBA to some extent from risky picks, and gets a lot of the training out of the way for them. The influx of european and asian players is going to change forever the way the NBA drafts players, it will be interesting to see how it shakes out, and if these europeans shape up.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:26 AM on June 24, 2002
"gyc: that's the tradeoff, immediate, solid payoff or possible long term superstar payoff." i tend to think the immediate pedestrian payoff isn't any more certain than the possible long-term superstar payoff. a bust is a bust, but a h.s. bust gets you more time to play with while no one will blame you for picking a senior who doesn't pan out... overall, though, there aren't that many teams who regretted not taking 22-24-year-olds instead of the 18-20-year olds they took. as for economic issues, isn't there a rookie salary cap that pretty much takes the discretion out of the negotiating process? everyone's slotted, right? (that might be in football.) in any case, no real incentive to go with the younger guy other than talent and yes, the p word.
posted by jackhererra at 06:11 PM on June 24, 2002
It's because GM's are mainlining the drug known as 'potential'. I am just waiting for them to get to the point where they start drafting guys who have never played organized basketball. Then I'm declaring.