Prove Me Wrong - "Non-Guaranteed Contracts and an Age 21 Minimum Would Make the NBA a Better Product"

[YogurtProducer]

Or talent evaluators could just be better at their job, just saying...

You can make the right pick and still take 6 years for them to be contributors.

I think OP is just saying, the PRODUCT would be better without 18, 19, 20 years olds on the rosters. I think that is largely accurate.

[axeman23]

Or talent evaluators could just be better at their job, just saying...

You can make the right pick and still take 6 years for them to be contributors.

I think OP is just saying, the PRODUCT would be better without 18, 19, 20 years olds on the rosters. I think that is largely accurate.

Not for the product, which is what we tune in for. You could've got the Spurs' scouts from late 90's to at LEAST the 2010's to pick 5 15-year olds, and I'd be confident in at least 3 of them having successful pro careers. Whereas other teams you could go forwards in time 20 years watching how a draft class played out and come back with the results, and if you gave them a HOFer, they'd pick someone else coz they "had a hunch". And as was pointed out by someone else earlier in the thread when they listed names of straight-from-school players, there was basically a 50% boom/bust ratio, including some of the best players in the game the last 30 years. Anything speculative, you'll have winners or losers. By protecting the losers, you are in effect punishing those GOOD at their job.

[iserp]

Those measures would decrease the talent pool of the league, as talented players would chose to play elsewhere.

On the other hand, the league would be more even, which I understand is what the OP means as "a better product". In my opinion, the league is even enough right now, and it is really hard to make a dynasty. I actually wouldnt mind to loosen some of the apron rules to make it easier to keep good teams together for a bit longer. So I am clearly against the measures the OP proposes (not to mention that the players would lockout if you tried to impose them).

[YogurtProducer]

Or talent evaluators could just be better at their job, just saying...

You can make the right pick and still take 6 years for them to be contributors.

I think OP is just saying, the PRODUCT would be better without 18, 19, 20 years olds on the rosters. I think that is largely accurate.

Not for the product, which is what we tune in for. You could've got the Spurs' scouts from late 90's to at LEAST the 2010's to pick 5 15-year olds, and I'd be confident in at least 3 of them having successful pro careers. Whereas other teams you could go forwards in time 20 years watching how a draft class played out and come back with the results, and if you gave them a HOFer, they'd pick someone else coz they "had a hunch". And as was pointed out by someone else earlier in the thread when they listed names of straight-from-school players, there was basically a 50% boom/bust ratio, including some of the best players in the game the last 30 years. Anything speculative, you'll have winners or losers. By protecting the losers, you are in effect punishing those GOOD at their job.

Again, you’re losing focus of the OP.

Ignore the “protecting the losers” or whatever.

The NBA would absolutely be a better product if the age minimum was 21. Teams wouldn’t “give young guys a chance” that absolutely don’t deserve it nearly as long. Players would step day 1 into better situations. Teams would have better talent level.

You’re kidding yourself if you think the NBA is the top 450 players in the world. There is 100+ guys who want NBA contracts, who are better than random kids from the last 2 drafts, who aren’t better “enough” for teams to give up on potential.

This isn’t a hot take by OP by any means.

[xdrta+]

This isn’t a hot take by OP by any means.

No, just an impractical one. Non-guaranteed until when? Right now non-guaranteed contracts become guaranteed about halfway through the season, but it looks like with this plan no one would get paid until the end of the year when you can add up minutes for everyone. Or, you pay as you go, play 30 minutes, get pro-rated minute by minute pay. Yeah, that sounds great.

The OP may have a hazy idea of what he thinks would work, but perhaps he should flesh it out if he wants to be taken seriously.

[YogurtProducer]

This isn’t a hot take by OP by any means.

No, just an impractical one. Non-guaranteed until when? Right now non-guaranteed contracts become guaranteed about halfway through the season, but it looks like with this plan no one would get paid until the end of the year when you can add up minutes for everyone. Or, you pay as you go, play 30 minutes, get pro-rated minute by minute pay. Yeah, that sounds great.

The OP may have a hazy idea of what he thinks would work, but perhaps he should flesh it out if he wants to be taken seriously.

It would work the exact same way as any other league with non guaranteed deals.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

[Thaddy]

There should be at will employment like how most of the working class population is. Giving someone millions for them to just relax is crazy.

[xdrta+]

This isn’t a hot take by OP by any means.

No, just an impractical one. Non-guaranteed until when? Right now non-guaranteed contracts become guaranteed about halfway through the season, but it looks like with this plan no one would get paid until the end of the year when you can add up minutes for everyone. Or, you pay as you go, play 30 minutes, get pro-rated minute by minute pay. Yeah, that sounds great.

The OP may have a hazy idea of what he thinks would work, but perhaps he should flesh it out if he wants to be taken seriously.

It would work the exact same way as any other league with non guaranteed deals.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

I thought it was dependent on games or minutes played. Maybe that was someone else. So instead of guaranteed contracts, you'll have huge guaranteed signing bonuses, like the NFL? Not sure that would be better.

[YogurtProducer]

No, just an impractical one. Non-guaranteed until when? Right now non-guaranteed contracts become guaranteed about halfway through the season, but it looks like with this plan no one would get paid until the end of the year when you can add up minutes for everyone. Or, you pay as you go, play 30 minutes, get pro-rated minute by minute pay. Yeah, that sounds great.

The OP may have a hazy idea of what he thinks would work, but perhaps he should flesh it out if he wants to be taken seriously.

It would work the exact same way as any other league with non guaranteed deals.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

I thought it was dependent on games or minutes played. Maybe that was someone else. So instead of guaranteed contracts, you'll have huge guaranteed signing bonuses, like the NFL? Not sure that would be better.

It would be a lot better. Guys would actually have to perform, and we wouldn't see teams crippled as often with bad contracts.

Good for fans. Good for teams. Bad for players.

[xdrta+]

It would work the exact same way as any other league with non guaranteed deals.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

I thought it was dependent on games or minutes played. Maybe that was someone else. So instead of guaranteed contracts, you'll have huge guaranteed signing bonuses, like the NFL? Not sure that would be better.

It would be a lot better. Guys would actually have to perform, and we wouldn't see teams crippled as often with bad contracts.

Good for fans. Good for teams. Bad for players.

Don't see why that follows. If it's like the NFL and salary is converted into a signing bonus, that's paid immediately and the cap hit is spread over the length of the contract. If the player is cut, the cap still applies. Since they've already been paid, I don't see how the incentive changes.

[YogurtProducer]

I thought it was dependent on games or minutes played. Maybe that was someone else. So instead of guaranteed contracts, you'll have huge guaranteed signing bonuses, like the NFL? Not sure that would be better.

It would be a lot better. Guys would actually have to perform, and we wouldn't see teams crippled as often with bad contracts.

Good for fans. Good for teams. Bad for players.

Don't see why that follows. If it's like the NFL and salary is converted into a signing bonus, that's paid immediately and the cap hit is spread over the length of the contract. If the player is cut, the cap still applies. Since they've already been paid, I don't see how the incentive changes.

Not every player gets signing bonus? 100% of salary isn’t signing bonus?

[xdrta+]

It sounds like the OP was concerned about the big contracts and best players. They're the ones who could get big bonuses, but not 100%. More like 50M bonus and $1 salary.

[Invictus88]

OP just sounds like a guy wanting more legit players to find work overseas where none of his nonsense around age applies.

[Nuntius]

The issue is injuries. Guys shouldn't get cut just because they got hurt. If they're going to sacrifice their bodies to win basketball games, they need long term security.

And I don't see much need for a 21-year-old minimum. I think the one-and-done rule is good because it allows talent evaluators a real shot at getting it right in the draft, but beyond that, there's no real need for good 19 and 20 year-olds to play in college if they are ready for the pros. They will develop more at the NBA level where there is more training staff and more practice time. In college, they are limited in the amount of time they can even spend in practice because they are allegedly "student athletes".

Perhaps a 21-year-old minimum would work if the NBA had a more robust minor league system like baseball, but they don't.

How does the logic apply to basketball, but not football, a sport where you’re more likely to get hurt? I mean, the NFL works fine with players sacrificing their bodies to win football games. Literally more so than basketball, throwing their bodies into opponents bodies.

It applies to the NFL as well. It's a disgrace that there are non-guaranteed contract in the NFL. NFL owners are just too powerful.