RealGM

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Is- ... Full-2212/

This article foretold a lot of problems NBA teams would come to face; specifically, issues related towards savvy personnel management. If teams do not understand the implications of that article, they are already behind. By my estimation, the Blazers are very much ahead of the curve, especially given the employment crunch the league currently faces. As it stands, there are a couple of conclusions that we can come to:

1. Should we perform to expectations, the draft will matter a lot less from 2009 on. Logically, we've concluded that, if we add Rudy Fernandez, another lottery pick, and possibly another draft pick to our current roster, we should be a competitive team; likely, a playoff team. Opting to use draft picks to gain better players likely increases our competitiveness, which only bodes well for the health and stability of the franchise. If David Stern implements a mandatory two-year stay in college, that could have huge ramifications in more ways than one...drafts may be significantly deeper than in years past due to the number of "refined" prospects.

2. Kevin Pritchard is a genius. Yeah, I know, but the cake will be done by next summer and he'll be able to identify the team's core players and shell out all the long-term extension money he needs. Given his penchant for assessing market value (see Outlaw, Travis), he should keep Portland financially healthy (i.e. under the salary cap) while having enough talent to make a serious run at a championship and enough youth to be relatively secure, should all things break right.

3. Paul Allen may seriously want to consider purchasing a D-League team for the Blazers, like the Spurs and Lakers have done. The D-League is going to be the Next Big Thing for the NBA due to the influx of talented players; whether it becomes a true minor league remains to be seen, but there is a lot of potential there.

about David Stern's call for a 20 year old minimum for entry to the league: John Hollinger had an ESPN insider article about that.

His contention is that there is a competitor(s) sneaking up on the NBA. Those are all of the Euro-leagues. Apparently, their fan bases are expanding rapidly, and they are starting to garner more TV contracts. The salaries they pay to top tier players are increasing, and they are becoming a more likely destination for players from the USA.

The combination of the CBA mandated rookie-scale contracts and the proposed rule on NBA age limits may start pushing American players over there. If players like Oden, Durant, or Beasely can't enter the NBA for 2 years after leaving high school, they may consider that earning 4 million a year in europe a better alternative then going to college and entering the NBA as soon as they can.

Ironically, it may initially hurt the NCAA more then the NBA.

Wizenheimer wrote:If players like Oden, Durant, or Beasely can't enter the NBA for 2 years after leaving high school, they may consider that earning 4 million a year in europe a better alternative then going to college and entering the NBA as soon as they can.

I'll have to read Hollinger's article. Maybe he's got some really compelling arguments. But having not read the article and not seen any convincing arguments, I just don't buy it. I've got two main reasons as to why...

1. Most of these guys are not men of the world. They're kids that don't know much beyond the cities they live in. Maybe that'll change as time goes on and more AAU teams go over seas to play against European junior leagues. But right now I think these guys would rather stay in college for two years than go to a country where they don't speak the language, don't know anybody, that's an ocean away from their friends and families. Even if it means millions of dollars.

2. For a while now European teams have sat guys that have been drafted by NBA teams. What's the point of giving playing time to a guy that you're pretty sure is going to leave in a couple years? I can't imagine that they'll want to pay millions to a guy that they're pretty sure is going to leave to the NBA in a couple years.

But that could all change dramatically in a short period of time. All it takes is one guy to do something successfully before people start to copy them.

Highschool guys coming into the NBA is a great example. Before KG only Moses Malone ever came into the NBA from highschool. But after KG did it there were tons of guys that followed.

So maybe the NBA should try to do something to get ahead of the curve. My idea is, as PNF suggested Paul Allen do, to have every team get their own D-league team, let each team have a full 12 player D-league roster and increase the salary cap so that you can really pay those guys.

Maybe have two different drafts, one for kids that go to college and one for highschool kids, like MLB does. You could have the salary scale for the college draft be a lot higher than the highschool draft to encourage kids to go to college.

ebott wrote:Maybe have two different drafts, one for kids that go to college and one for highschool kids, like MLB does.

MLB's draft has college and high school kids in it.

But I agree that the D-League is one answer. Each team should have an affiliate of their own, so they can teach their players their offense, as opposed to having guys from Seattle, Portland, and like Denver all playing together, and then a mix of other random guys. Also, with a more well established D-League, we would be able to bring over guys liek Freeland and Kopponen, and actually get a better feel for their potential.

The objective of the NBA should be to get the best young prospects (the Lebrons, Durants, Odens of the future) to sign in the US and if we have to lose most of the current role players to foreign teams as the talent pool gets bigger then so be it. That is how the NBA will retain its image of being the best league in the world.

sabi wrote:The objective of the NBA should be to get the best young prospects (the Lebrons, Durants, Odens of the future) to sign in the US and if we have to lose most of the current role players to foreign teams as the talent pool gets bigger then so be it. That is how the NBA will retain its image of being the best league in the world.

Agreed, but I think it would be a small portion of role players the NBA would lose. I tend to think that teams in Euro league will start entering a bidding war for NBA players in the near future which will in turn make salaries too high for European teams to nab away too many NBA players. Also, it's hard to ignore the fact that Basketball will probably never reach the popularity that it currently has in the NBA. The NBA's fan base is enough to provide a brighter future in the NBA than the Euro league. If the NBA loses a couple of role players, it won't be a huge loss, but I highly doubt they'll be able to nab away anything but a small portion of NBA players.

I only skimmed the article. If Givony's point is that the pool of available talent is greater than the number of available spots on NBA rosters, then (1) I don't see why this would be a problem, and (2) I think he's a little too excited by the mediocre young talents he scouts in Europe and college.

CheezDoodle wrote:How many players mentioned in this article will end up in the D-League or taking peanuts on the dollar overseas in mid-season?

Looks like my suspicions were right. The "players mentioned in this article" are no big loss to the NBA, and the peanuts they'll be making is just the cost of chasing the NBA dream. There is plenty of room in the NBA for worthy talent. Are we really worried about having spots for Sammy Mejia or Will Conroy (or Von Wafer or Ha Seung-Jin, for that matter) in the NBA?

I thought the bit about Taurean Green was interesting. The Blazers gave him a one-year fully guaranteed contract even while they knew he would be the 4th PG and might be waived. That sort of contract for that sort of player is apparently "almost unprecedented". You get the feeling that this team takes care of its players, even if they'd be disposable somewhere else.

Read your post and gave it a couple of days to digest. I still have no idea how JonG's article has anything to do with any of your points. His point was that the number of roster spots in the NBA were few and that fringe players were going to have a tough time finding work.

The Blazers did not capitalize on this. The decisions that KP made were due to our roster spots being availabe, not the leagues. The Petteri deal was made instead of bringing someone into camp that we did not have a roster spot for. Same for Nichols. Saving Green's roster spot for someone that got released or an unsigned veteran FA would have given credance to your argument.

If anyone benefitted, it was Boston. They traded quantity for quality, but still has depth at a reasonable price.