Tankapolooza: Draft Lottery Odds/Watch thread

[yoyojw17]

I'm all in.

one upping you! lol

[PennytoShaq]

The young guys all look interesting. Fultz, Ball, etc. But what makes them any different to De'Angelo Russell tearing up college two years ago? Look at him now, he's nothing special yet.

What I do like about Fultz's game is his floaters and mid range game, not to mention his hands on defense. Those feel like two skills that would translate to the league pretty instantly.

Ball needs a couple more years to tighten his handles, but the fact he can shoot is nice.

Fultz and Ball are on another than Russell honestly. Ball is one of the closest to a sure things in the past 5 years.

I just can't see how you don't think they are special. Ball has such command of the court, and such elite vision. Fultz has the feel of the game down to a science for being so young.

[VFX]

The young guys all look interesting. Fultz, Ball, etc. But what makes them any different to De'Angelo Russell tearing up college two years ago? Look at him now, he's nothing special yet.

What I do like about Fultz's game is his floaters and mid range game, not to mention his hands on defense. Those feel like two skills that would translate to the league pretty instantly.

Ball needs a couple more years to tighten his handles, but the fact he can shoot is nice.

Fultz and Ball are on another than Russell honestly. Ball is one of the closest to a sure things in the past 5 years.

I just can't see how you don't think they are special. Ball has such command of the court, and such elite vision. Fultz has the feel of the game down to a science for being so young.

I'm pretty sold on Fultz and Ball as can't miss prospects . Moreso on Fultz considering we really need scoring and shooting.

Fultz can play next to EP, but EP must be traded if we draft Ball considering they both aren't the best shooters.

[Xatticus]

The young guys all look interesting. Fultz, Ball, etc. But what makes them any different to De'Angelo Russell tearing up college two years ago? Look at him now, he's nothing special yet.

What I do like about Fultz's game is his floaters and mid range game, not to mention his hands on defense. Those feel like two skills that would translate to the league pretty instantly.

Ball needs a couple more years to tighten his handles, but the fact he can shoot is nice.

Fultz and Ball are on another than Russell honestly. Ball is one of the closest to a sure things in the past 5 years.

I just can't see how you don't think they are special. Ball has such command of the court, and such elite vision. Fultz has the feel of the game down to a science for being so young.

I'm pretty sold on Fultz and Ball as can't miss prospects . Moreso on Fultz considering we really need scoring and shooting.

Fultz can play next to EP, but EP must be traded if we draft Ball considering they both aren't the best shooters.

I actually have concerns about both of those players. Fultz imposes himself on the game, but his efficiency isn't exceptional and Washington is a bad team. I'm very wary of wings with high usage on bad teams.

The knock on Ball's shot is his form, not his effectiveness. His three-point percentage is exceptional for his volume (58% of his FGA are 3PA). He has great length and terrific vision for a legitimate point guard. What concerns me about his game is that he doesn't exert a lot of energy on the floor. He walks the ball up the court regularly and he stands around when he isn't in possession.

Neither of those guys are shooting well from the free throw line either, which is an important indicator for shot-making potential.

[PennytoShaq]

Fultz and Ball are on another than Russell honestly. Ball is one of the closest to a sure things in the past 5 years.

I just can't see how you don't think they are special. Ball has such command of the court, and such elite vision. Fultz has the feel of the game down to a science for being so young.

I'm pretty sold on Fultz and Ball as can't miss prospects . Moreso on Fultz considering we really need scoring and shooting.

Fultz can play next to EP, but EP must be traded if we draft Ball considering they both aren't the best shooters.

I actually have concerns about both of those players. Fultz imposes himself on the game, but his efficiency isn't exceptional and Washington is a bad team. I'm very wary of wings with high usage on bad teams.

The knock on Ball's shot is his form, not his effectiveness. His three-point percentage is exceptional for his volume (58% of his FGA are 3PA). He has great length and terrific vision for a legitimate point guard. What concerns me about his game is that he doesn't exert a lot of energy on the floor. He walks the ball up the court regularly and he stands around when he isn't in possession.

Neither of those guys are shooting well from the free throw line either, which is an important indicator for shot-making potential.

True. Any prospect will come with concerns, especially in today's drafts.

I personally want Jon Isaac. But I love Fultz and Ball in the top 2,mainly due to their advanced feel for the game at such a young age. Who's your guy?

[KingRobb02]

The young guys all look interesting. Fultz, Ball, etc. But what makes them any different to De'Angelo Russell tearing up college two years ago? Look at him now, he's nothing special yet.

What I do like about Fultz's game is his floaters and mid range game, not to mention his hands on defense. Those feel like two skills that would translate to the league pretty instantly.

Ball needs a couple more years to tighten his handles, but the fact he can shoot is nice.

Yeah. The hype around prospects gets pretty absurd every year because it is the only real source of optimism for fans of struggling franchises. The number of prospects that enter the NBA these days capable of performing at a high level from the moment they enter the league seems to be lower than ever.

I wish there was a draft and follow sort of system in the NBA, where you could draft and hold the rights to a player while letting them continue their development in college. You have to commit to the development of your draftees at the expense of winning a few extra games, which is something this franchise hasn't been as willing to do as some of the other franchises around the league.

You wish there was a draft and follow system? There is. It's called the d-league. College basketball is not the place for guys to develop into professional athletes. I think you're romanticizong the past just a bit, by the way. Rookies have always struggled to make an impact immediately. Especially guards.

[Xatticus]

I'm pretty sold on Fultz and Ball as can't miss prospects . Moreso on Fultz considering we really need scoring and shooting.

Fultz can play next to EP, but EP must be traded if we draft Ball considering they both aren't the best shooters.

I actually have concerns about both of those players. Fultz imposes himself on the game, but his efficiency isn't exceptional and Washington is a bad team. I'm very wary of wings with high usage on bad teams.

The knock on Ball's shot is his form, not his effectiveness. His three-point percentage is exceptional for his volume (58% of his FGA are 3PA). He has great length and terrific vision for a legitimate point guard. What concerns me about his game is that he doesn't exert a lot of energy on the floor. He walks the ball up the court regularly and he stands around when he isn't in possession.

Neither of those guys are shooting well from the free throw line either, which is an important indicator for shot-making potential.

True. Any prospect will come with concerns, especially in today's drafts.

I personally want Jon Isaac. But I love Fultz and Ball in the top 2,mainly due to their advanced feel for the game at such a young age. Who's your guy?

- I still like Ball a lot. He plays like the game is moving in slow motion for him.

- Isaac has the most intriguing skill set in the draft. I wouldn't be surprised if he goes first when it is all done.

- I'm also coming around on Malik Monk due to the season he is having. I like his shot a lot. If you can coach some of his bad habits out of him, he would be an ideal fit next to Payton.

- I really wish Jackson could shoot, but I'd avoid him for that deficiency alone.

- Smith and Fultz scare me. I think Smith's athleticism is overrated. He gets to the basket and draws a ton of fouls, but otherwise I don't really see a special skill. Fultz is obviously really dynamic. He probably has the most upside of anyone in the draft, but it concerns me when that doesn't translate to efficiency against players that are clearly physically over-matched. That athletic advantage won't be as pronounced at the next level.

[Skin]

I actually have concerns about both of those players. Fultz imposes himself on the game, but his efficiency isn't exceptional and Washington is a bad team. I'm very wary of wings with high usage on bad teams.

The knock on Ball's shot is his form, not his effectiveness. His three-point percentage is exceptional for his volume (58% of his FGA are 3PA). He has great length and terrific vision for a legitimate point guard. What concerns me about his game is that he doesn't exert a lot of energy on the floor. He walks the ball up the court regularly and he stands around when he isn't in possession.

Neither of those guys are shooting well from the free throw line either, which is an important indicator for shot-making potential.

True. Any prospect will come with concerns, especially in today's drafts.

I personally want Jon Isaac. But I love Fultz and Ball in the top 2,mainly due to their advanced feel for the game at such a young age. Who's your guy?

- I still like Ball a lot. He plays like the game is moving in slow motion for him.

- Isaac has the most intriguing skill set in the draft. I wouldn't be surprised if he goes first when it is all done.

- I'm also coming around on Malik Monk due to the season he is having. I like his shot a lot. If you can coach some of his bad habits out of him, he would be an ideal fit next to Payton.

- I really wish Jackson could shoot, but I'd avoid him for that deficiency alone.

- Smith and Fultz scare me. I think Smith's athleticism is overrated. He gets to the basket and draws a ton of fouls, but otherwise I don't really see a special skill. Fultz is obviously really dynamic. He probably has the most upside of anyone in the draft, but it concerns me when that doesn't translate to efficiency against players that are clearly physically over-matched. That athletic advantage won't be as pronounced at the next level.

It's still taking time for me to come around on Ball.

I can picture Isaac becoming a star as PF, but he's got a funny run... almost like he's marching. So I don't project him as a SF in the NBA.

Jackson is the most fluid athlete in the draft and total gamer. I'm sold. His shot is coming around.

Futlz is a star. Smith is a star. Jackson is a star. None of them will be there for us... so Bridges is my guy.

[Xatticus]

The young guys all look interesting. Fultz, Ball, etc. But what makes them any different to De'Angelo Russell tearing up college two years ago? Look at him now, he's nothing special yet.

What I do like about Fultz's game is his floaters and mid range game, not to mention his hands on defense. Those feel like two skills that would translate to the league pretty instantly.

Ball needs a couple more years to tighten his handles, but the fact he can shoot is nice.

Yeah. The hype around prospects gets pretty absurd every year because it is the only real source of optimism for fans of struggling franchises. The number of prospects that enter the NBA these days capable of performing at a high level from the moment they enter the league seems to be lower than ever.

I wish there was a draft and follow sort of system in the NBA, where you could draft and hold the rights to a player while letting them continue their development in college. You have to commit to the development of your draftees at the expense of winning a few extra games, which is something this franchise hasn't been as willing to do as some of the other franchises around the league.

You wish there was a draft and follow system? There is. It's called the d-league. College basketball is not the place for guys to develop into professional athletes. I think you're romanticizong the past just a bit, by the way. Rookies have always struggled to make an impact immediately. Especially guards.

I can't agree with that. Perhaps it is because I am older? I don't know. Magic, Jordan, and Thomas were the great guards from my youth and they were exceptional from the moment they entered the league. Even the next generation was full of guards that performed at a high level right from the start (Iverson, Marbury, Francis, Penny, and Carter). I think the learning curve is steeper than it's ever been before, because the quality of play is significantly higher than it was even just ten years ago.

There was a time when readiness to contribute was the driving factor in players declaring for the draft and their draft position. Then there was a surge of high school players skipping college altogether after the successes of guys like Garnett, Kobe, and McGrady. Teams were drafting players that weren't remotely close to ready because they didn't want to miss out on superior talents. There was a stigma attached to any collegiate upperclassmen that still remains. The NBA acknowledged this problem when they instituted the age/time requirements now in place for draft eligibility.

The NBDL is an exceptionally poor substitute for collegiate competition. A lot of players declare before they are ready and it really hinders their development, but why wouldn't they declare when they have a draft guarantee and the clock on their rookie-scale contract starts ticking? If everything works out, they get their first huge payday a year or so earlier.

I think there should be an option for teams to draft a player and defer payment until the team and player mutually decide to forego their remaining collegiate eligibility. The Spurs have been doing the draft and follow in Europe for a long time now, to great benefit. There should be a comparable solution for domestic players, and the NBDL just isn't it.

[KingRobb02]

Yeah. The hype around prospects gets pretty absurd every year because it is the only real source of optimism for fans of struggling franchises. The number of prospects that enter the NBA these days capable of performing at a high level from the moment they enter the league seems to be lower than ever.

I wish there was a draft and follow sort of system in the NBA, where you could draft and hold the rights to a player while letting them continue their development in college. You have to commit to the development of your draftees at the expense of winning a few extra games, which is something this franchise hasn't been as willing to do as some of the other franchises around the league.

You wish there was a draft and follow system? There is. It's called the d-league. College basketball is not the place for guys to develop into professional athletes. I think you're romanticizong the past just a bit, by the way. Rookies have always struggled to make an impact immediately. Especially guards.

I can't agree with that. Perhaps it is because I am older? I don't know. Magic, Jordan, and Thomas were the great guards from my youth and they were exceptional from the moment they entered the league. Even the next generation was full of guards that performed at a high level right from the start (Iverson, Marbury, Francis, Penny, and Carter). I think the learning curve is steeper than it's ever been before, because the quality of play is significantly higher than it was even just ten years ago.

There was a time when readiness to contribute was the driving factor in players declaring for the draft and their draft position. Then there was a surge of high school players skipping college altogether after the successes of guys like Garnett, Kobe, and McGrady. Teams were drafting players that weren't remotely close to ready because they didn't want to miss out on superior talents. There was a stigma attached to any collegiate upperclassmen that still remains. The NBA acknowledged this problem when they instituted the age/time requirements now in place for draft eligibility.

The NBDL is an exceptionally poor substitute for collegiate competition. A lot of players declare before they are ready and it really hinders their development, but why wouldn't they declare when they have a draft guarantee and the clock on their rookie-scale contract starts ticking? If everything works out, they get their first huge payday a year or so earlier.

I think there should be an option for teams to draft a player and defer payment until the team and player mutually decide to forego their remaining collegiate eligibility. The Spurs have been doing the draft and follow in Europe for a long time now, to great benefit. There should be a comparable solution for domestic players, and the NBDL just isn't it.

I guess it depends on what criteria you use for juding how good a player is. The only guards who were great coming into the league were Magic and Chris paul in my opinion. The rest of the guys you listed were not really much better than Kyrie Irving, Dame Lillard class of players.

I think the only thing that the NBA ackowledged with the age limit is that they unfairly want to limit these guys earning potential. If the NBA cared about these players they would let them come out of high school and have the second best professional league in the world right here in the US.

Best case scenario would be for these teams to be able to draft players out of high school and let them play in the D-League until they are ready. problem is that the GMs are so dumb that we would see Malik Monk lighting teams up and immediately wonder why he wasn't gettign 35 mins per night for our awful team.

The spurs rotation right now contains three d-league guys, 3 guys who came here as 19 year old international players, three guys who left college early, and Manu. Not really the draft and stash that you are thinking about.

[Nemesis21]

I actually have concerns about both of those players. Fultz imposes himself on the game, but his efficiency isn't exceptional and Washington is a bad team. I'm very wary of wings with high usage on bad teams.

The knock on Ball's shot is his form, not his effectiveness. His three-point percentage is exceptional for his volume (58% of his FGA are 3PA). He has great length and terrific vision for a legitimate point guard. What concerns me about his game is that he doesn't exert a lot of energy on the floor. He walks the ball up the court regularly and he stands around when he isn't in possession.

Neither of those guys are shooting well from the free throw line either, which is an important indicator for shot-making potential.

True. Any prospect will come with concerns, especially in today's drafts.

I personally want Jon Isaac. But I love Fultz and Ball in the top 2,mainly due to their advanced feel for the game at such a young age. Who's your guy?

- I still like Ball a lot. He plays like the game is moving in slow motion for him.

- Isaac has the most intriguing skill set in the draft. I wouldn't be surprised if he goes first when it is all done.

- I'm also coming around on Malik Monk due to the season he is having. I like his shot a lot. If you can coach some of his bad habits out of him, he would be an ideal fit next to Payton.

- I really wish Jackson could shoot, but I'd avoid him for that deficiency alone.

- Smith and Fultz scare me. I think Smith's athleticism is overrated. He gets to the basket and draws a ton of fouls, but otherwise I don't really see a special skill. Fultz is obviously really dynamic. He probably has the most upside of anyone in the draft, but it concerns me when that doesn't translate to efficiency against players that are clearly physically over-matched. That athletic advantage won't be as pronounced at the next level.

But he is small for a 2 guard, 6'2" or 6'3" .

[Xatticus]

You wish there was a draft and follow system? There is. It's called the d-league. College basketball is not the place for guys to develop into professional athletes. I think you're romanticizong the past just a bit, by the way. Rookies have always struggled to make an impact immediately. Especially guards.

I can't agree with that. Perhaps it is because I am older? I don't know. Magic, Jordan, and Thomas were the great guards from my youth and they were exceptional from the moment they entered the league. Even the next generation was full of guards that performed at a high level right from the start (Iverson, Marbury, Francis, Penny, and Carter). I think the learning curve is steeper than it's ever been before, because the quality of play is significantly higher than it was even just ten years ago.

There was a time when readiness to contribute was the driving factor in players declaring for the draft and their draft position. Then there was a surge of high school players skipping college altogether after the successes of guys like Garnett, Kobe, and McGrady. Teams were drafting players that weren't remotely close to ready because they didn't want to miss out on superior talents. There was a stigma attached to any collegiate upperclassmen that still remains. The NBA acknowledged this problem when they instituted the age/time requirements now in place for draft eligibility.

The NBDL is an exceptionally poor substitute for collegiate competition. A lot of players declare before they are ready and it really hinders their development, but why wouldn't they declare when they have a draft guarantee and the clock on their rookie-scale contract starts ticking? If everything works out, they get their first huge payday a year or so earlier.

I think there should be an option for teams to draft a player and defer payment until the team and player mutually decide to forego their remaining collegiate eligibility. The Spurs have been doing the draft and follow in Europe for a long time now, to great benefit. There should be a comparable solution for domestic players, and the NBDL just isn't it.

I guess it depends on what criteria you use for juding how good a player is. The only guards who were great coming into the league were Magic and Chris paul in my opinion. The rest of the guys you listed were not really much better than Kyrie Irving, Dame Lillard class of players.

I think the only thing that the NBA ackowledged with the age limit is that they unfairly want to limit these guys earning potential. If the NBA cared about these players they would let them come out of high school and have the second best professional league in the world right here in the US.

Best case scenario would be for these teams to be able to draft players out of high school and let them play in the D-League until they are ready. problem is that the GMs are so dumb that we would see Malik Monk lighting teams up and immediately wonder why he wasn't gettign 35 mins per night for our awful team.

The spurs rotation right now contains three d-league guys, 3 guys who came here as 19 year old international players, three guys who left college early, and Manu. Not really the draft and stash that you are thinking about.

I can get that, but the threshold for what qualifies a player into an elite status has been steadily increasing through the years. Mean values for shooting efficiency metrics are at all-time highs and significantly higher than they were even ten years ago. This is almost exclusively the product on the evolution of perimeter scoring, which requires a higher degree of technical skill than interior scoring. I believe this is the significant reason why the development process is taking longer.

The real benefit to the Spurs has been their ability to hold the rights to players that they had no space for on their roster while they develop overseas while collecting a paycheck. In this way, the Spurs have essentially had a significantly larger pool of prospects with whom they hold exclusive rights. It's not as if they have been using high draft picks on this process, so it isn't really fair to judge their success in terms of the collective quality of their contributions. The Spurs weren't the first team to utilize this, but they were certainly took it to an entirely new level.

I suppose you could implement a tuition fund or some alternative to entice players to skip the collegiate route and enter the NBDL as the new stepping stone to the NBA, but that would draw the ire of a powerful collective of institutions that are a de facto professional league that would certainly protect their own interests. I really disagree that the differential in quality isn't of consequence though. There is a massive gap between high school and the NBA, and college is the far better developmental solution at present.

[j-ragg]

Man if we could get a second late lotto pick a la 2014 draft by trading Ibaka .... we could go from a pretty below average young core to having one of the best cores in the league.

I still believe in Henny. He will guide us!! (if he's allowed )

[OrlandoDream]

Man if we could get a second late lotto pick a la 2014 draft by trading Ibaka .... we could go from a pretty below average young core to having one of the best cores in the league.

I still believe in Henny. He will guide us!! (if he's allowed )

We're not getting a lottery Pick for Ibaka alone. Add in Mario? Now that's a possibility

[Mauro Pedrosa]

I'm all in.

one upping you! lol

Beautiful TANK top. We should've worn it more often during the past 3 years

[PennytoShaq]

I actually have concerns about both of those players. Fultz imposes himself on the game, but his efficiency isn't exceptional and Washington is a bad team. I'm very wary of wings with high usage on bad teams.

The knock on Ball's shot is his form, not his effectiveness. His three-point percentage is exceptional for his volume (58% of his FGA are 3PA). He has great length and terrific vision for a legitimate point guard. What concerns me about his game is that he doesn't exert a lot of energy on the floor. He walks the ball up the court regularly and he stands around when he isn't in possession.

Neither of those guys are shooting well from the free throw line either, which is an important indicator for shot-making potential.

True. Any prospect will come with concerns, especially in today's drafts.

I personally want Jon Isaac. But I love Fultz and Ball in the top 2,mainly due to their advanced feel for the game at such a young age. Who's your guy?

- I still like Ball a lot. He plays like the game is moving in slow motion for him.

- Isaac has the most intriguing skill set in the draft. I wouldn't be surprised if he goes first when it is all done.

- I'm also coming around on Malik Monk due to the season he is having. I like his shot a lot. If you can coach some of his bad habits out of him, he would be an ideal fit next to Payton.

- I really wish Jackson could shoot, but I'd avoid him for that deficiency alone.

- Smith and Fultz scare me. I think Smith's athleticism is overrated. He gets to the basket and draws a ton of fouls, but otherwise I don't really see a special skill. Fultz is obviously really dynamic. He probably has the most upside of anyone in the draft, but it concerns me when that doesn't translate to efficiency against players that are clearly physically over-matched. That athletic advantage won't be as pronounced at the next level.

I agree with all of this, except Fultz. I really am liking this guy, but it is super early still and things change.

[OrlandoDream]

Read on Twitter

Good to know Rob is thinking with the fans on this one. Apparently were going to try and land a SF this draft(like we should) and Jackson has impressed Rob. I wonder what he thinks of Isaac?

It would not surprise me if he goes 180 and picks Isaac or one of the guards. RH keeps things close and rarely lets anything slip. This could just be leverage. Then again, Jackson would be lethal here with AG and EP. The versatility of those 3 would be insane.

[KingRobb02]

I can't agree with that. Perhaps it is because I am older? I don't know. Magic, Jordan, and Thomas were the great guards from my youth and they were exceptional from the moment they entered the league. Even the next generation was full of guards that performed at a high level right from the start (Iverson, Marbury, Francis, Penny, and Carter). I think the learning curve is steeper than it's ever been before, because the quality of play is significantly higher than it was even just ten years ago.

There was a time when readiness to contribute was the driving factor in players declaring for the draft and their draft position. Then there was a surge of high school players skipping college altogether after the successes of guys like Garnett, Kobe, and McGrady. Teams were drafting players that weren't remotely close to ready because they didn't want to miss out on superior talents. There was a stigma attached to any collegiate upperclassmen that still remains. The NBA acknowledged this problem when they instituted the age/time requirements now in place for draft eligibility.

The NBDL is an exceptionally poor substitute for collegiate competition. A lot of players declare before they are ready and it really hinders their development, but why wouldn't they declare when they have a draft guarantee and the clock on their rookie-scale contract starts ticking? If everything works out, they get their first huge payday a year or so earlier.

I think there should be an option for teams to draft a player and defer payment until the team and player mutually decide to forego their remaining collegiate eligibility. The Spurs have been doing the draft and follow in Europe for a long time now, to great benefit. There should be a comparable solution for domestic players, and the NBDL just isn't it.

I guess it depends on what criteria you use for juding how good a player is. The only guards who were great coming into the league were Magic and Chris paul in my opinion. The rest of the guys you listed were not really much better than Kyrie Irving, Dame Lillard class of players.

I think the only thing that the NBA ackowledged with the age limit is that they unfairly want to limit these guys earning potential. If the NBA cared about these players they would let them come out of high school and have the second best professional league in the world right here in the US.

Best case scenario would be for these teams to be able to draft players out of high school and let them play in the D-League until they are ready. problem is that the GMs are so dumb that we would see Malik Monk lighting teams up and immediately wonder why he wasn't gettign 35 mins per night for our awful team.

The spurs rotation right now contains three d-league guys, 3 guys who came here as 19 year old international players, three guys who left college early, and Manu. Not really the draft and stash that you are thinking about.

I can get that, but the threshold for what qualifies a player into an elite status has been steadily increasing through the years. Mean values for shooting efficiency metrics are at all-time highs and significantly higher than they were even ten years ago. This is almost exclusively the product on the evolution of perimeter scoring, which requires a higher degree of technical skill than interior scoring. I believe this is the significant reason why the development process is taking longer.

The real benefit to the Spurs has been their ability to hold the rights to players that they had no space for on their roster while they develop overseas while collecting a paycheck. In this way, the Spurs have essentially had a significantly larger pool of prospects with whom they hold exclusive rights. It's not as if they have been using high draft picks on this process, so it isn't really fair to judge their success in terms of the collective quality of their contributions. The Spurs weren't the first team to utilize this, but they were certainly took it to an entirely new level.

I suppose you could implement a tuition fund or some alternative to entice players to skip the collegiate route and enter the NBDL as the new stepping stone to the NBA, but that would draw the ire of a powerful collective of institutions that are a de facto professional league that would certainly protect their own interests. I really disagree that the differential in quality isn't of consequence though. There is a massive gap between high school and the NBA, and college is the far better developmental solution at present.

I agree with you that the threshold for the average rotation player there days is much higher than it was 30 years ago. But I also think amateur players are better so it works out. My biggest problem with college sports is that it's only around because the pros allow it to be. Of Adam silver raised the nbadl minimum to be 2 million and got rid of the age limit, fewer guys would be going overseas to play and every too high school recruit would be there too. Those games are immediately more fun to watch than a random big ten game. Be honest. Should we live in a world where Brandon Jennings has to choose between playing for a school he doesn't care about or going to Europe? I don't think so. On the flip side, would you prefer your owner spend 15M on Jeff Green, or to splurge on a few lottery tickets on your d league team?

[Xatticus]

I guess it depends on what criteria you use for juding how good a player is. The only guards who were great coming into the league were Magic and Chris paul in my opinion. The rest of the guys you listed were not really much better than Kyrie Irving, Dame Lillard class of players.

I think the only thing that the NBA ackowledged with the age limit is that they unfairly want to limit these guys earning potential. If the NBA cared about these players they would let them come out of high school and have the second best professional league in the world right here in the US.

Best case scenario would be for these teams to be able to draft players out of high school and let them play in the D-League until they are ready. problem is that the GMs are so dumb that we would see Malik Monk lighting teams up and immediately wonder why he wasn't gettign 35 mins per night for our awful team.

The spurs rotation right now contains three d-league guys, 3 guys who came here as 19 year old international players, three guys who left college early, and Manu. Not really the draft and stash that you are thinking about.

I can get that, but the threshold for what qualifies a player into an elite status has been steadily increasing through the years. Mean values for shooting efficiency metrics are at all-time highs and significantly higher than they were even ten years ago. This is almost exclusively the product on the evolution of perimeter scoring, which requires a higher degree of technical skill than interior scoring. I believe this is the significant reason why the development process is taking longer.

The real benefit to the Spurs has been their ability to hold the rights to players that they had no space for on their roster while they develop overseas while collecting a paycheck. In this way, the Spurs have essentially had a significantly larger pool of prospects with whom they hold exclusive rights. It's not as if they have been using high draft picks on this process, so it isn't really fair to judge their success in terms of the collective quality of their contributions. The Spurs weren't the first team to utilize this, but they were certainly took it to an entirely new level.

I suppose you could implement a tuition fund or some alternative to entice players to skip the collegiate route and enter the NBDL as the new stepping stone to the NBA, but that would draw the ire of a powerful collective of institutions that are a de facto professional league that would certainly protect their own interests. I really disagree that the differential in quality isn't of consequence though. There is a massive gap between high school and the NBA, and college is the far better developmental solution at present.

I agree with you that the threshold for the average rotation player there days is much higher than it was 30 years ago. But I also think amateur players are better so it works out. My biggest problem with college sports is that it's only around because the pros allow it to be. Of Adam silver raised the nbadl minimum to be 2 million and got rid of the age limit, fewer guys would be going overseas to play and every too high school recruit would be there too. Those games are immediately more fun to watch than a random big ten game. Be honest. Should we live in a world where Brandon Jennings has to choose between playing for a school he doesn't care about or going to Europe? I don't think so. On the flip side, would you prefer your owner spend 15M on Jeff Green, or to splurge on a few lottery tickets on your d league team?

I don't disagree with that at all. I don't think they'd actually consider it, but I think it would be an improvement. I don't personally have sympathy for collegiate athletics. Anyone that has spent any time on a college campus realizes that student-athletes enjoy a decidedly different experience than non-student-athletes. The athletic departments are de facto professional franchises that artificially deflate compensation to their workforce under the guise of equality and maintain only a superficial relationship with the academic institutions they are associated with. The problem is that the two entities share a common audience, and fans are deeply invested in collegiate athletics as well. If the NBA goes to war with the NCAA, everyone loses. Whatever solutions are worked out have to be cooperative in nature.

I mean, if I'm speaking in idealistic terms, I'd prefer a tiered system to professional sports similar to what you find in European soccer leagues, but I'd settle for something less if it improved the quality of the NBA.

[Gomagic44]

I can get that, but the threshold for what qualifies a player into an elite status has been steadily increasing through the years. Mean values for shooting efficiency metrics are at all-time highs and significantly higher than they were even ten years ago. This is almost exclusively the product on the evolution of perimeter scoring, which requires a higher degree of technical skill than interior scoring. I believe this is the significant reason why the development process is taking longer.

The real benefit to the Spurs has been their ability to hold the rights to players that they had no space for on their roster while they develop overseas while collecting a paycheck. In this way, the Spurs have essentially had a significantly larger pool of prospects with whom they hold exclusive rights. It's not as if they have been using high draft picks on this process, so it isn't really fair to judge their success in terms of the collective quality of their contributions. The Spurs weren't the first team to utilize this, but they were certainly took it to an entirely new level.

I suppose you could implement a tuition fund or some alternative to entice players to skip the collegiate route and enter the NBDL as the new stepping stone to the NBA, but that would draw the ire of a powerful collective of institutions that are a de facto professional league that would certainly protect their own interests. I really disagree that the differential in quality isn't of consequence though. There is a massive gap between high school and the NBA, and college is the far better developmental solution at present.

I agree with you that the threshold for the average rotation player there days is much higher than it was 30 years ago. But I also think amateur players are better so it works out. My biggest problem with college sports is that it's only around because the pros allow it to be. Of Adam silver raised the nbadl minimum to be 2 million and got rid of the age limit, fewer guys would be going overseas to play and every too high school recruit would be there too. Those games are immediately more fun to watch than a random big ten game. Be honest. Should we live in a world where Brandon Jennings has to choose between playing for a school he doesn't care about or going to Europe? I don't think so. On the flip side, would you prefer your owner spend 15M on Jeff Green, or to splurge on a few lottery tickets on your d league team?

I don't disagree with that at all. I don't think they'd actually consider it, but I think it would be an improvement. I don't personally have sympathy for collegiate athletics. Anyone that has spent any time on a college campus realizes that student-athletes enjoy a decidedly different experience than non-student-athletes. The athletic departments are de facto professional franchises that artificially deflate compensation to their workforce under the guise of equality and maintain only a superficial relationship with the academic institutions they are associated with. The problem is that the two entities share a common audience, and fans are deeply invested in collegiate athletics as well. If the NBA goes to war with the NCAA, everyone loses. Whatever solutions are worked out have to be cooperative in nature.

I mean, if I'm speaking in idealistic terms, I'd prefer a tiered system to professional sports similar to what you find in European soccer leagues, but I'd settle for something less if it improved the quality of the NBA.

I absolutely agree. I got turned off of NCAA sports in general when I found out all the dirt. The only NCAA I pay attention to is magic draft prospects for the past 5 years. I used to be a huge football fan but the fact it's a billion dollar industry and no one we want to watch play gets paid, makes it seem really cheap, especially with the injury risk in football.

They really should have a relegation concept to basketball. Mesh it with ending the NCAA and you could have the NBA without a few franchises plus Kentucky lol.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums