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

[Anderson Hunt]

I don't want to hurt any player financially nor do I want to enrich billionaire owners, so if you're man enough to decompartmentalize these two things, please do. Please try your best to put those two factors off to the side, and focus solely on this question:

"Would having non-guaranteed contracts and a minimum age requirement of 21 (or three years removed from high school) make the NBA a better product?"

I say yes.

Why? Because the players will be more mature, the college game would explode in popularity and those fans will follow to the NBA, players will play harder if they can be cut, players won't take-off games, and team executives will have more flexibility to build great teams not being hamstrung by bad contracts.

When looking only at improving the product, would these changes work?

[EmpireFalls]

Non-guaranteed contracts would never ever work in the NBA.

[Wolveswin]

Neither would work in NBA.

Non-guaranteed contracts would be version of NFL. Some contracts would become fully or partially guaranteed- mostly superstars. So, really the bottom half of roster players are getting screwed.

Salary slotting is best option.

Age limits don’t work because kids graduate HS and develop at different timeframes. Maybe an experience threshold - but then we risk kids leaving HS early to start getting that experience in other leagues.

For development, the G league needs overhaul. A way to develop the non-elite talent or even the elite talents that struggle.

[cornchip]

Non-guaranteed contracts would make the product "better", but would probably cause more trouble than they're worth.

I'm with you on the age limit. 20 and two years removed from secondary school is the sweet space imo. With the NCAA and international options being what they are now, there's a whole bunch of benefit to raising the age limit a year.

[nate33]

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.

[zero rings]

Imagine if wemby was forced to play in college right now lmao

[Doctor MJ]

I don't want to hurt any player financially nor do I want to enrich billionaire owners, so if you're man enough to decompartmentalize these two things, please do. Please try your best to put those two factors off to the side, and focus solely on this question:

"Would having non-guaranteed contracts and a minimum age requirement of 21 (or three years removed from high school) make the NBA a better product?"

I say yes.

Why? Because the players will be more mature, the college game would explode in popularity and those fans will follow to the NBA, players will play harder if they can be cut, players won't take-off games, and team executives will have more flexibility to build great teams not being hamstrung by bad contracts.

When looking only at improving the product, would these changes work?

I’ll say Yes, before pointing out they are not realistic.

Players won’t sign off.
If forced to sign off, watch new competitors swoop in and steal the young talent - especially internationally which we know is where most of the elite talent now comes from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LockoutSeason]

It would make college better, not the NBA.

[cornchip]

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.

There's alot to not like about the newish NCAA transfer rules, but I think it would really help evaluators see prospects in different situations.

If Ace Bailey transferred to a Houston or VJ transferred to a Florida, I think you would get a better read on them and those are the elite prospects. It would help get a bead on fringe lottery/1st round guys even more.

There's just so much money to be made at the college level, I think people just underestimate it. Five or six million for an elite player that can help bring you a title is feasible for a blue blood. That's more than a late lottery pick makes.

I do agree with the NCAA becoming more like the NBA in terms or restrictions and game rules however. I wouldn't want the NCAA to loosen freedom of movement rules but they do need to go to a 24 second shot clock to quicken pace imo.

[MakeItSplash]

Just allow college eligibility, even if they played in the NBA. Just how pro international/G-League players are now allowed to play in the NCAA.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Non guaranteed contracts would result in the Saudi Basketball Association being formed and taking over. An age limit doesn't work either because we know 18 year olds can contribute & develop. Matter of fact looking at Europe, I'd actually guess the product would be better if teams were able to sign kids to affiliate teams and get them even younger to develop them.

[Bucks4005]

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.

[tamaraw08]

Non-guaranteed contracts would never ever work in the NBA.

Lamelo and Lonzo Ball would agree with you.
Zion, Embiid too.

[Special_Puppy]

Players would have a lockout and college players would sue.

[Clav]

NBAPA would never agree, and personally I don't think I agree either. As players turn 18, making a rule to limit their financial gain when a player is potentially a top 1% in their sector talent, is against much of what I believe in.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

Non guaranteed contracts would be really difficult to get across to the players union. But yeah, it would probably improve the product.

I've always been an advocate for raising the minimum age. Also to debunk the common point about those "poor kids coming out who need an income", first of all don't care about someone who's going to be a millionaire athlete waiting a couple years, that's not on my moral radar. Second, the inverse of that is the young kids who burn out and never make it are technically stealing roster spots from talented hard working college kids who are glossed over because they don't have as much "potential and upside", so you're burning someone either way, its a zero sum game. Not to mention end of bench vets as well. There aren't extra roster spots created for the 18 year olds.

Anyways, it is what it is, really hard to change the existing system without a long extended lockout.

[hugepatsfan]

Yeah and water is wet.

Obviously this would make a better product for us as fans. But players are unionized and will (correctly) stop this for all the reasons mentioned. So it's kind of a useless thought exercise.

Part of why NFL will always be kind is that they have this structure. And they'll be able to preserve more of it because it's less feasible for the players to start their own league or for the Saudis to do it for them. If the owners pushed for this, NBA players could legitimately make noise because basketball is a more feasible sport to do on your own and make a dent in the league's stranglehold on the sport. There are overseas leagues already viable too if players wanted to go there.

[Bucks4005]

As a Bucks fan, Larry Sanders should be the clear argument for why a player shouldn’t have guaranteed deals. Guy basically quit in his team and quit the NBA, but still thought he was entitled to the money for quitting working. If a player can randomly do that, there’s a problem with the system.

[Billl]

In my experience, anyone who says "prove me wrong" is wrong about 100% of the time

[dk1115]

I’m not sure how contracts work in the nfl, but my understanding is that you can sign a player to a multi year contract, but have an option every offseason to cut the player. I like it that way because that means everyone is on contract year every year. On the other hand, you would also have players holding out each offseason too.