RealGM

we can read it on the wiretap...

For the sake of commenting on the process, I do think there is an age limit that should apply to players being considered for ROY or All-Rookie teams.

Should Elton Brand be eligible for ROY if he plays in Italy next year? That is the equivalent of Luis Scola playing professionally in Europe and then being eligible for ROY at age 29 in the US.

The rookie awards are intended to recognize young, inexperienced players who excel, IMO. There should be an age limit to prevent veterans from being included when they simply choose to play professionally somewhere else before getting their payday in the NBA.

For next season, I would limit the age to something like 25 and use that going forward so that Hawks' "Rookie" David Anderson could not be eligible to make the All-Rookie team next season in the interests of keeping the award focused on the group of players who it should apply to.

Others may love guys like Ichiro or Scola being considered rookies but I don't.

3 of the top "Rookies" were not from the 2007 draft class.

Has there ever been that many rookies not actually apart of the draft class included in the All-Rookie teams?

Atlanta Hawk Fan wrote:For the sake of commenting on the process, I do think there is an age limit that should apply to players being considered for ROY or All-Rookie teams.

Should Elton Brand be eligible for ROY if he plays in Italy next year? That is the equivalent of Luis Scola playing professionally in Europe and then being eligible for ROY at age 29 in the US.

The rookie awards are intended to recognize young, inexperienced players who excel, IMO. There should be an age limit to prevent veterans from being included when they simply choose to play professionally somewhere else before getting their payday in the NBA.

For next season, I would limit the age to something like 25 and use that going forward so that Hawks' "Rookie" David Anderson could not be eligible to make the All-Rookie team next season in the interests of keeping the award focused on the group of players who it should apply to.

Others may love guys like Ichiro or Scola being considered rookies but I don't.

I understand what you're saying and it certainly has merit, but IMO rookie means rookie (i.e. first year playing in the league). But if you want to draw a bright line, why not say "rookie" means first year of playing the sport professionally (i.e. distinction from "amateur" NCAA play) regardless of league/age?

OMG Thad got absolutely robbed!!!!!!!! Jeff Green over THAD??!!!!!! No way. Thad was a main contributor in a playoff team with better numbers while Jeff gReen struggled to get minutes in the 2nd worst team in the league. THATS RIDICULOUS!!

jefe wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I understand what you're saying and it certainly has merit, but IMO rookie means rookie (i.e. first year playing in the league). But if you want to draw a bright line, why not say "rookie" means first year of playing the sport professionally (i.e. distinction from "amateur" NCAA play) regardless of league/age?

That distinction would work for me but would still cause some problems. It is the guys that have played professionally for years that come over and are judged against teenagers and young players that cause problems for me. Instituting a rookie/amateur definition would solve that issue. However, it would probably eliminate all Europeans and many other foreign players who play professionally at a very young age. Someone like Darko or Dirk would not be rookie eligible under that definition because they previously played professionally - even though they were very young when they started in the league.

It is a subject that reasonable minds would differ on. I still like a pure age limit best but maybe a hybrid rule would also work...something along the lines of making players under 24 rookie eligible per se and players over 24 rookie ineligible only if they have played professionally.

may191988 wrote:OMG Thad got absolutely robbed!!!!!!!! Jeff Green over THAD??!!!!!! No way. Thad was a main contributor in a playoff team with better numbers while Jeff gReen struggled to get minutes in the 2nd worst team in the league. THATS RIDICULOUS!!

Moon deserved to be there over both

vi3t wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Moon deserved to be there over both

if moon made it then i wouldn't think it was straight theft. i think raps & philly fans woulda would have been fine with either one making it over the other but jeff green?

I'm befuddled by the inclusion of Green. I didn't watch much of SEA but what I've seen of him was very unimpressive. Thad, and to a lesser extent, Moon were jobbed.

Jeff Green owns. Quit hatin' you haters.

Moon is gonna call his space friends and invade earth now. A key role player on a play-off team [and Thad] gets out voted by a lesser role-player on a lotto team. Its not like he put up better numbers or had superior talent either [making this a different situation than Durant vs Hortford].

its ok. Give the sonics a lot of love. They're still moving to Oklahoma city. So green robbed young and Oklahoma robs the seattle fans. Its fair and funny

Which Atlanta homer voted Durant for 2nd team anyway ?

Which Atlanta homer voted Durant for 2nd team anyway ?

Al Horford is one bad man, that's all I'll say.

Wonder what the coach that decided to not include durant in his first team was smokin.

T-Spot wrote:Which Atlanta homer voted Durant for 2nd team anyway ?

Its a travesty that Durant got a 2nd team vote.

oh yeah actually i hadnt noticed moon didnt make first team i forgot... yeah i think he and thad shouldve made it and leave out green and thornton too. thornton was spectacular at times but not a better body of work than moon. geez the teams this year are pretty pathetic...

yearsago wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Its a travesty that Durant got a 2nd team vote.

Agreed. He and Horford should both have been no-brainer unanimous picks.

I was hoping Nick Young would make the team but of course he was overlooked.