Deandre Ayton news and highlights

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Need to call BS on this article from Brendan Kleen @ brightside: https://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2019/4/21/18510433/nba-playoffs-tell-us-phoenix-suns-build-deandre-ayton

Brendan argues that traditional centers like Ayton are exposed in the playoffs, and that we need to be prepared for Ayton to be exploited when finally we do arrive. But his examples are... consistent. Gobert this year and last, Towns last year and Jarrett Allen this year. A few things. First, OBVIOUSLY, three of those examples are centers who lost to James Harden's Rockets. Yes, the Rockets will do anything and everything to switch the big onto Harden. But while Ayton has his faults as a defender, switching onto the perimeter is actually his biggest strength. So it's possible Ayton might have more success than Gobert (and Towns) against the Rockets.

Second, Jarrett Allen is being exploited BY ANOTHER TRADITIONAL CENTER, Embiid. The Rockets plays a traditional center, Capela. Blazers and Thunder play traditional centers. Jokic is a center. Even the Warriors play a traditional center at least 20 minutes a night.

Yeah, James Harden is amazing. But the Spurs whooped him two years ago playing Aldridge the most, and Gasol the second most, minutes. Kleen's whole case is essentially that Harden's Rockets tend to destroy Gobert's Jazz. But watching those games, I don't even think Gobert's the main problem. The main problems are that the Rockets are able to limit Mitchell and expose Rubio on offense, and that no one but Jingles is able to bother Harden at all on the other end. At least in game 3, Utah's problems were on offense.

Yeah I agree with you that some of his points are bad. But I do think there is some danger in building around a C. Creators and wings are very important and if you have a bunch of your cap dedicated to a C you can be left short in those spots. I also think a servicable C is the easiest thing to find on the cheap

With Utah to me their biggest problem is they can only play one way so certain teams like the rockets are just a horrible matchup and theirs no counter they have. To be a good playoff team you either need to be so damn good that other teams have to adjust to you or you need to be deep and flexible and be able to adjust series to series depending on your opponent.

Your point on Rubio is right, he hurts them. It's why I'm mixed on targeting him this summer. On one hand he would absolutely improve the suns and they would be much more competitive. But ultimately his offensive shortcomings probably put a cieling as far as making a deep playoff run. Teams can game plan to force him to shoot and that's a not what you want him doing.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Yeah it's not like there's no danger at all in building around a traditional center. The league has changed. We'll see how Deandre evolves as a player in this league.

.... But I straight up don't even pay attention anymore when Rubio's name is mentioned. I don't see how anyone could prefer Rubio to Tyler Johnson. Every day I take Tyler. No idea where Rubio lands.

[GoodBehavior]

Need to call BS on this article from Brendan Kleen @ brightside: https://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2019/4/21/18510433/nba-playoffs-tell-us-phoenix-suns-build-deandre-ayton

Brendan argues that traditional centers like Ayton are exposed in the playoffs, and that we need to be prepared for Ayton to be exploited when finally we do arrive. But his examples are... consistent. Gobert this year and last, Towns last year and Jarrett Allen this year. A few things. First, OBVIOUSLY, three of those examples are centers who lost to James Harden's Rockets. Yes, the Rockets will do anything and everything to switch the big onto Harden. But while Ayton has his faults as a defender, switching onto the perimeter is actually his biggest strength. So it's possible Ayton might have more success than Gobert (and Towns) against the Rockets.

Second, Jarrett Allen is being exploited BY ANOTHER TRADITIONAL CENTER, Embiid. The Rockets plays a traditional center, Capela. Blazers and Thunder play traditional centers. Jokic is a center. Even the Warriors play a traditional center at least 20 minutes a night.

Yeah, James Harden is amazing. But the Spurs whooped him two years ago playing Aldridge the most, and Gasol the second most, minutes. Kleen's whole case is essentially that Harden's Rockets tend to destroy Gobert's Jazz. But watching those games, I don't even think Gobert's the main problem. The main problems are that the Rockets are able to limit Mitchell and expose Rubio on offense, and that no one but Jingles is able to bother Harden at all on the other end. At least in game 3, Utah's problems were on offense.

Yeah I agree with you that some of his points are bad. But I do think there is some danger in building around a C. Creators and wings are very important and if you have a bunch of your cap dedicated to a C you can be left short in those spots. I also think a servicable C is the easiest thing to find on the cheap

With Utah to me their biggest problem is they can only play one way so certain teams like the rockets are just a horrible matchup and theirs no counter they have. To be a good playoff team you either need to be so damn good that other teams have to adjust to you or you need to be deep and flexible and be able to adjust series to series depending on your opponent.

Your point on Rubio is right, he hurts them. It's why I'm mixed on targeting him this summer. On one hand he would absolutely improve the suns and they would be much more competitive. But ultimately his offensive shortcomings probably put a cieling as far as making a deep playoff run. Teams can game plan to force him to shoot and that's a not what you want him doing.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Yeah it's not like there's no danger at all in building around a traditional center. The league has changed. We'll see how Deandre evolves as a player in this league.

.... But I straight up don't even pay attention anymore when Rubio's name is mentioned. I don't see how anyone could prefer Rubio to Tyler Johnson. Every day I take Tyler. No idea where Rubio lands.

A quality center is extremely important.

Of the Western Conference playoff teams, only the Warriors and the Clippers do not have a quality center. Jokic, Nurkic, Adams, Capela, LMA, and Gobert are good/great. Cousins and Montrell are both okay/meh.

Of the Eastern Conference playoff teams, three are led by big mens (Sixers, Magic, Pistons). Marc Gasol, Al Hortford, Lopez, Turner/Sabonis are decent as well.

Of the teams that missed the playoffs, the vast majority (except for a couple) have issues at the center positions.

Also, plenty of elite wings have struggled to make an impact on the playoff. Harden without Paul have been a perennial playoff choker. Lillard/Mccollum has fared poorly in their career and got destroyed by an Anthony Davis-led team last year. Lowry has been comically bad at times and Derozan hasnt done much. Chris Paul couldn't led a talented clipper teams to the promise land. The Greek Freak couldn't get past the first rounds. And if it wasnt for the addition of Lopez, the Bucks would be a middling team. Paul George and Butler had some moderate success but nothing to write home about. Westbrook, no comment necessary...

tdlr: You need a quality center in this league. Plenty of wings have made minimal impact on the playoff.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Yeah I agree with you that some of his points are bad. But I do think there is some danger in building around a C. Creators and wings are very important and if you have a bunch of your cap dedicated to a C you can be left short in those spots. I also think a servicable C is the easiest thing to find on the cheap

With Utah to me their biggest problem is they can only play one way so certain teams like the rockets are just a horrible matchup and theirs no counter they have. To be a good playoff team you either need to be so damn good that other teams have to adjust to you or you need to be deep and flexible and be able to adjust series to series depending on your opponent.

Your point on Rubio is right, he hurts them. It's why I'm mixed on targeting him this summer. On one hand he would absolutely improve the suns and they would be much more competitive. But ultimately his offensive shortcomings probably put a cieling as far as making a deep playoff run. Teams can game plan to force him to shoot and that's a not what you want him doing.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Yeah it's not like there's no danger at all in building around a traditional center. The league has changed. We'll see how Deandre evolves as a player in this league.

.... But I straight up don't even pay attention anymore when Rubio's name is mentioned. I don't see how anyone could prefer Rubio to Tyler Johnson. Every day I take Tyler. No idea where Rubio lands.

A quality center is extremely important.

Of the Western Conference playoff teams, only the Warriors and the Clippers do not have a quality center. Jokic, Nurkic, Adams, Capela, LMA, and Gobert are good/great. Cousins and Montrell are both okay/meh.

Of the Eastern Conference playoff teams, three are led by big mens (Sixers, Magic, Pistons). Marc Gasol, Al Hortford, Lopez, Turner/Sabonis are decent as well.

Of the teams that missed the playoffs, the vast majority (except for a couple) have issues at the center positions.

Also, plenty of elite wings have struggled to make an impact on the playoff. Harden without Paul have been a perennial playoff choker. Lillard/Mccollum has fared poorly in their career and got destroyed by an Anthony Davis-led team last year. Lowry has been comically bad at times and Derozan hasnt done much. Chris Paul couldn't led a talented clipper teams to the promise land. The Greek Freak couldn't get past the first rounds. And if it wasnt for the addition of Lopez, the Bucks would be a middling team. Paul George and Butler had some moderate success but nothing to write home about. Westbrook, no comment necessary...

tdlr: You need a quality center in this league. Plenty of wings have made minimal impact on the playoff.

The East final 4

The bucks got Lopez for 4 mil on a one year deal, my point on them being easy to find. He's not exactly a traditional C being that he shoots a million 3s now.

Marc Gasol is about the 4th or 5th most important player on the Raps. Was pretty cheap to aquire at the deadline.

Horford is great, not exactly a traditional C and is starting at PF right now.

Embiid is a monster, no argument there.

West final 5

GS- got boogie on an MLE and I don't think his absence matters at all.

Houston- drafted capella in the 20s. He's a very modern c where they run 0 post offense for him. Great rim runner and shot blocker.

Portland- lost nuk and replaced him with kanter who was cut earlier this year and are going to beat the team with a 25 mil a year C.

Denver- jokic second round pick and a super unique player. Basically a Point C

SA- Aldridge finally embraced being a C after years of not wanting to play there.

Who's the last All NBA C with with a championship? Pau Gasol maybe?

I didn't say you should suck at C just that it's easy to find them and there are dangers of building a team around an expensive one.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[GoodBehavior]

Yeah it's not like there's no danger at all in building around a traditional center. The league has changed. We'll see how Deandre evolves as a player in this league.

.... But I straight up don't even pay attention anymore when Rubio's name is mentioned. I don't see how anyone could prefer Rubio to Tyler Johnson. Every day I take Tyler. No idea where Rubio lands.

A quality center is extremely important.

Of the Western Conference playoff teams, only the Warriors and the Clippers do not have a quality center. Jokic, Nurkic, Adams, Capela, LMA, and Gobert are good/great. Cousins and Montrell are both okay/meh.

Of the Eastern Conference playoff teams, three are led by big mens (Sixers, Magic, Pistons). Marc Gasol, Al Hortford, Lopez, Turner/Sabonis are decent as well.

Of the teams that missed the playoffs, the vast majority (except for a couple) have issues at the center positions.

Also, plenty of elite wings have struggled to make an impact on the playoff. Harden without Paul have been a perennial playoff choker. Lillard/Mccollum has fared poorly in their career and got destroyed by an Anthony Davis-led team last year. Lowry has been comically bad at times and Derozan hasnt done much. Chris Paul couldn't led a talented clipper teams to the promise land. The Greek Freak couldn't get past the first rounds. And if it wasnt for the addition of Lopez, the Bucks would be a middling team. Paul George and Butler had some moderate success but nothing to write home about. Westbrook, no comment necessary...

tdlr: You need a quality center in this league. Plenty of wings have made minimal impact on the playoff.

The East final 4

The bucks got Lopez for 4 mil on a one year deal, my point on them being easy to find. He's not exactly a traditional C being that he shoots a million 3s now.

Marc Gasol is about the 4th or 5th most important player on the Raps. Was pretty cheap to aquire at the deadline.

Horford is great, not exactly a traditional C and is starting at PF right now.

Embiid is a monster, no argument there.

West final 5

GS- got boogie on an MLE and I don't think his absence matters at all.

Houston- drafted capella in the 20s. He's a very modern c where they run 0 post offense for him. Great rim runner and shot blocker.

Portland- lost nuk and replaced him with kanter who was cut earlier this year and are going to beat the team with a 25 mil a year C.

Denver- jokic second round pick and a super unique player. Basically a Point C

SA- Aldridge finally embraced being a C after years of not wanting to play there.

Who's the last All NBA C with with a championship? Pau Gasol maybe?

I didn't say you should suck at C just that it's easy to find them and there are dangers of building a team around an expensive one.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

There's just as much risk as building around a center as building around an expensive wing. Plenty of teams have built around wings with little to show for. See what I wrote about wings performance in the playoff. And we haven't even touch on guys like Wall, Kemba, Wiggins etc.

Also keep in mind that the best centers in this league are still very young. AD is just 26. AD, Embiid, Gobert, and Jokic are going to be impactful and I doubt a GM will find fault in signing them to max deals. KAT is stuck in a crappy situation but any team would love to have him.

In this league, you need high-caliber all-stars to match the Warrior's 4 all-stars. It doesn't matter if they're wings or centers. Imagine if AD joined the Celtics or there's more talent on the Jazz and Nuggets.

[bwgood77]

You need premier players period. And the more versatile the better. So with centers, it's usually less likely they are versatile, but to be a major piece taking up a major part of your cap space, they definitely have to be elite defensively and protecting the rim, unless they are elite playmakers and good 3 pt shooters, and then they still need to be respectable on defense. But the more skills the better.

But when it comes to your entire lineup, you need at least 3 players who can stretch the floor, and really you need 4 on the floor as much as possible. And anyone who cannot hit 3s better be really elite in other areas.

Sure a C is someone who can be a big part of your team if he's elite in many areas. Ayton's got a long way to go there, but he's young, has the tools and skill set and is apparently a hard worker.

I hope he develops more of an edge, but I'm not sure I expect that. I also hope he can learn to stay focused the whole game.

[lilfishi22]

Need to call BS on this article from Brendan Kleen @ brightside: https://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2019/4/21/18510433/nba-playoffs-tell-us-phoenix-suns-build-deandre-ayton

Brendan argues that traditional centers like Ayton are exposed in the playoffs, and that we need to be prepared for Ayton to be exploited when finally we do arrive. But his examples are... consistent. Gobert this year and last, Towns last year and Jarrett Allen this year. A few things. First, OBVIOUSLY, three of those examples are centers who lost to James Harden's Rockets. Yes, the Rockets will do anything and everything to switch the big onto Harden. But while Ayton has his faults as a defender, switching onto the perimeter is actually his biggest strength. So it's possible Ayton might have more success than Gobert (and Towns) against the Rockets.

Second, Jarrett Allen is being exploited BY ANOTHER TRADITIONAL CENTER, Embiid. The Rockets plays a traditional center, Capela. Blazers and Thunder play traditional centers. Jokic is a center. Even the Warriors play a traditional center at least 20 minutes a night.

Yeah, James Harden is amazing. But the Spurs whooped him two years ago playing Aldridge the most, and Gasol the second most, minutes. Kleen's whole case is essentially that Harden's Rockets tend to destroy Gobert's Jazz. But watching those games, I don't even think Gobert's the main problem. The main problems are that the Rockets are able to limit Mitchell and expose Rubio on offense, and that no one but Jingles is able to bother Harden at all on the other end. At least in game 3, Utah's problems were on offense.

I think this is an interesting topic of discussion

BW is right in the sense that premier players really the game changers (regardless of position). So the question is whether Ayton can be a premier player. The fact that there are so few premier C's (ie 16-Game players) in the league made me feel like taking Ayton was a reach compared to a versatile playmaking win because there's so much on his shoulder.

Personally, I have my doubts (maybe 25% chance he'll make it) that Ayton can become a premier player because of where the league is going, his general demeanor on and off the court, where Ayton's development is currently (on both ends of the court) and just how few and how difficult it is for a C to be a premier game changing player. The path towards becoming a premier player for a C is just a lot less logical and straight forward. IMO the odds are stacked against him and historically most players don't overcome the odds

[Saberestar]

Need to call BS on this article from Brendan Kleen @ brightside: https://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2019/4/21/18510433/nba-playoffs-tell-us-phoenix-suns-build-deandre-ayton

Brendan argues that traditional centers like Ayton are exposed in the playoffs, and that we need to be prepared for Ayton to be exploited when finally we do arrive. But his examples are... consistent. Gobert this year and last, Towns last year and Jarrett Allen this year. A few things. First, OBVIOUSLY, three of those examples are centers who lost to James Harden's Rockets. Yes, the Rockets will do anything and everything to switch the big onto Harden. But while Ayton has his faults as a defender, switching onto the perimeter is actually his biggest strength. So it's possible Ayton might have more success than Gobert (and Towns) against the Rockets.

Second, Jarrett Allen is being exploited BY ANOTHER TRADITIONAL CENTER, Embiid. The Rockets plays a traditional center, Capela. Blazers and Thunder play traditional centers. Jokic is a center. Even the Warriors play a traditional center at least 20 minutes a night.

Yeah, James Harden is amazing. But the Spurs whooped him two years ago playing Aldridge the most, and Gasol the second most, minutes. Kleen's whole case is essentially that Harden's Rockets tend to destroy Gobert's Jazz. But watching those games, I don't even think Gobert's the main problem. The main problems are that the Rockets are able to limit Mitchell and expose Rubio on offense, and that no one but Jingles is able to bother Harden at all on the other end. At least in game 3, Utah's problems were on offense.

I think this is an interesting topic of discussion

BW is right in the sense that premier players really the game changers (regardless of position). So the question is whether Ayton can be a premier player. The fact that there are so few premier C's (ie 16-Game players) in the league made me feel like taking Ayton was a reach compared to a versatile playmaking win because there's so much on his shoulder.

Personally, I have my doubts (maybe 25% chance he'll make it) that Ayton can become a premier player because of where the league is going, his general demeanor on and off the court, where Ayton's development is currently (on both ends of the court) and just how few and how difficult it is for a C to be a premier game changing player. The path towards becoming a premier player for a C is just a lot less logical and straight forward. IMO the odds are stacked against him and historically most players don't overcome the odds

Next season is gonna be huge to understand how good is gonna be Ayton during his career. To me, his second season is gonna be the most important season.

How he prepares himself during the summer and how hard he trains is gonna be pretty important to determine his intentions about being one of the greatest in the league.

At this point, after his rookie season, he can be the next Jahil Okafor or the next Karl Anthony Towns.

Look at their numbers as a rookies (all 20 years old)...

Ayton - 16.3 points, 10.3 rebounds, 0.9 blocks

Okafor - 17.5 points, 7 rebounds, 1.2 blocks

Towns - 18.3 points, 10.5 rebounds, 1.7 blocks

[lilfishi22]

Need to call BS on this article from Brendan Kleen @ brightside: https://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2019/4/21/18510433/nba-playoffs-tell-us-phoenix-suns-build-deandre-ayton

Brendan argues that traditional centers like Ayton are exposed in the playoffs, and that we need to be prepared for Ayton to be exploited when finally we do arrive. But his examples are... consistent. Gobert this year and last, Towns last year and Jarrett Allen this year. A few things. First, OBVIOUSLY, three of those examples are centers who lost to James Harden's Rockets. Yes, the Rockets will do anything and everything to switch the big onto Harden. But while Ayton has his faults as a defender, switching onto the perimeter is actually his biggest strength. So it's possible Ayton might have more success than Gobert (and Towns) against the Rockets.

Second, Jarrett Allen is being exploited BY ANOTHER TRADITIONAL CENTER, Embiid. The Rockets plays a traditional center, Capela. Blazers and Thunder play traditional centers. Jokic is a center. Even the Warriors play a traditional center at least 20 minutes a night.

Yeah, James Harden is amazing. But the Spurs whooped him two years ago playing Aldridge the most, and Gasol the second most, minutes. Kleen's whole case is essentially that Harden's Rockets tend to destroy Gobert's Jazz. But watching those games, I don't even think Gobert's the main problem. The main problems are that the Rockets are able to limit Mitchell and expose Rubio on offense, and that no one but Jingles is able to bother Harden at all on the other end. At least in game 3, Utah's problems were on offense.

I think this is an interesting topic of discussion

BW is right in the sense that premier players really the game changers (regardless of position). So the question is whether Ayton can be a premier player. The fact that there are so few premier C's (ie 16-Game players) in the league made me feel like taking Ayton was a reach compared to a versatile playmaking win because there's so much on his shoulder.

Personally, I have my doubts (maybe 25% chance he'll make it) that Ayton can become a premier player because of where the league is going, his general demeanor on and off the court, where Ayton's development is currently (on both ends of the court) and just how few and how difficult it is for a C to be a premier game changing player. The path towards becoming a premier player for a C is just a lot less logical and straight forward. IMO the odds are stacked against him and historically most players don't overcome the odds

Next season is gonna be huge to understand how good is gonna be Ayton during his career. To me, his second season is gonna be the most important season.

How he prepares himself during the summer and how hard he trains is gonna be pretty important to determine his intentions about being one of the greatest in the league.

At this point, after his rookie season, he can be the next Jahil Okafor or the next Karl Anthony Towns.

Look at their numbers as a rookies (all 20 years old)...

Ayton - 16.3 points, 10.3 rebounds, 0.9 blocks

Okafor - 17.5 points, 7 rebounds, 1.2 blocks

Towns - 18.3 points, 10.5 rebounds, 1.7 blocks

I certainly am not going to use his rookie season as a barometer for far he can go but it certainly didn't change my pre-draft skepticism about taking a C. His sophomore season is where I think we'll get a much better idea of what kind of player he can be (ie his likely ceiling). In the Solar Panel podcast episode with Sam Vecenie, they talked about how Ayton almost had a fan type of mindset when he's out on the court rather than a player. He's almost in disbelief and has fan reactions to amazing things that happen on the court rather than being focused as a player. That doesn't surprise me because he's kind of goofy. I just hope he sheds that "wow I'm playing with these amazing players" mindset and gets that "Yes, I belong with the big boys" mindset.

[matt131]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/26647372/miller-paid-10k-per-month-ayton

[WeekapaugGroove]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/26647372/miller-paid-10k-per-month-ayton

Good hope he got his cash. There isn't much I care less about than a college athlete taking money. The whole system is shady so might as well get their piece.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[MathiasPW]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/26647372/miller-paid-10k-per-month-ayton

Good hope he got his cash. There isn't much I care less about than a college athlete taking money. The whole system is shady so might as well get their piece.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

While I am not against college players getting paid, the whole industry of misconduct that arose from that prohibition is alarming.

It's like people never learn. Every time you make a product illegal, you create a black market for it that does much more harm than the product itself.

[WeekapaugGroove]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/26647372/miller-paid-10k-per-month-ayton

Good hope he got his cash. There isn't much I care less about than a college athlete taking money. The whole system is shady so might as well get their piece.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

While I am not against college players getting paid, the whole industry of misconduct that arose from that prohibition is alarming.

It's like people never learn. Every time you make a product illegal, you create a black market for it that does much more harm than the product itself.

Yeah it's nothing new guys been getting bags of cash forever.

Personally I'd do away with the 1 and done to remove the players who never wanted to go to school in the first place. I'm not opposed to officially paying players but finding a system that works would be hard, what I would do is let guys make money off their likeness and take sponsorship money.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/26647372/miller-paid-10k-per-month-ayton

Good hope he got his cash. There isn't much I care less about than a college athlete taking money. The whole system is shady so might as well get their piece.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

While I am not against college players getting paid, the whole industry of misconduct that arose from that prohibition is alarming.

It's like people never learn. Every time you make a product illegal, you create a black market for it that does much more harm than the product itself.

Take a step back with that logic, mate. While it is true in some very prominent instances that making a product illegal creates a black market that does more harm than the product itself, I think it's a huge mistake to infer from those instances general rule of political economics. Certainly you do not think that every law regulating a product created a black market that resulted in a net harm relative to the status quo. You're talking about countless products and laws. That's .

[MathiasPW]

Good hope he got his cash. There isn't much I care less about than a college athlete taking money. The whole system is shady so might as well get their piece.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

While I am not against college players getting paid, the whole industry of misconduct that arose from that prohibition is alarming.

It's like people never learn. Every time you make a product illegal, you create a black market for it that does much more harm than the product itself.

Take a step back with that logic, mate. While it is true in some very prominent instances that making a product illegal creates a black market that does more harm than the product itself, I think it's a huge mistake to infer from those instances general rule of political economics. Certainly you do not think that every law regulating a product created a black market that resulted in a net harm relative to the status quo. You're talking about countless products and laws. That's .

I exaggerated with "always", probably. Though I could stretch my moral compass way past the limit just for the sake of argument.
Nevertheless, I'm very favorable to regulating, as it creates a private market that pays taxes that can be used to educate/combat/minimize maleficent effects of said product to society, so net impact is not negative. But that's very different from forbidding, as the market will exist anyway, but usually with spillover effects of violence, corruption and moral deterioration which make it a net negative.

Thoughts?

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

While I am not against college players getting paid, the whole industry of misconduct that arose from that prohibition is alarming.

It's like people never learn. Every time you make a product illegal, you create a black market for it that does much more harm than the product itself.

Take a step back with that logic, mate. While it is true in some very prominent instances that making a product illegal creates a black market that does more harm than the product itself, I think it's a huge mistake to infer from those instances general rule of political economics. Certainly you do not think that every law regulating a product created a black market that resulted in a net harm relative to the status quo. You're talking about countless products and laws. That's .

I exaggerated with "always", probably. Though I could stretch my moral compass way past the limit just for the sake of argument.
Nevertheless, I'm very favorable to regulating, as it creates a private market that pays taxes that can be used to educate/combat/minimize maleficent effects of said product to society, so net impact is not negative. But that's very different from forbidding, as the market will exist anyway, but usually with spillover effects of violence, corruption and moral deterioration which make it a net negative.

Thoughts?

That's not unreasonable at all. I have a ton to say but will have to stay brief. The difference between prohibition and regulation isn't very clear based on the hypothetical (i.e., are we talking about "forbidding" payments or "regulating" college basketball?). I just think that it's much more useful to think about specifics, on which data can be collected and analyzed on a case-by-case basis, than to make policy decisions based on general principles. I don't have a problem banning snake oil, for instance, in part because I wouldn't expect a black market for a fraudulent product to exist. With marijuana, the black market is unnecessary and introduces violence and corruption where it need not exist, but if you're talking about other drugs, there's more to consider. International financial sanctions are a form of prohibition that results in a black market for the targeted country. The black market imposes a significant cost upon the target country that scales with volume. This has the effect of making most targeted countries come to the negotiating table on whatever drew the ire of the international community in the first place (e.g. Iran and nukes) --- though sometimes, as we have seen, the result can be an attempt by the targeted country to hijack other countries' democratic processes (i.e. Russia and the Magnitsky Act).

The real world is almost nothing but gray space, which is why I try my best to dissuade others from thinking in black-and-white terms.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Take a step back with that logic, mate. While it is true in some very prominent instances that making a product illegal creates a black market that does more harm than the product itself, I think it's a huge mistake to infer from those instances general rule of political economics. Certainly you do not think that every law regulating a product created a black market that resulted in a net harm relative to the status quo. You're talking about countless products and laws. That's .

I exaggerated with "always", probably. Though I could stretch my moral compass way past the limit just for the sake of argument.
Nevertheless, I'm very favorable to regulating, as it creates a private market that pays taxes that can be used to educate/combat/minimize maleficent effects of said product to society, so net impact is not negative. But that's very different from forbidding, as the market will exist anyway, but usually with spillover effects of violence, corruption and moral deterioration which make it a net negative.

Thoughts?

That's not unreasonable at all. I have a ton to say but will have to stay brief. The difference between prohibition and regulation isn't very clear based on the hypothetical (i.e., are we talking about "forbidding" payments or "regulating" college basketball?). I just think that it's much more useful to think about specifics, on which data can be collected and analyzed on a case-by-case basis, than to make policy decisions based on general principles. I don't have a problem banning snake oil, for instance, in part because I wouldn't expect a black market for a fraudulent product to exist. With marijuana, the black market is unnecessary and introduces violence and corruption where it need not exist, but if you're talking about other drugs, there's more to consider. International financial sanctions are a form of prohibition that results in a black market for the targeted country. The black market imposes a significant cost upon the target country that scales with volume. This has the effect of making most targeted countries come to the negotiating table on whatever drew the ire of the international community in the first place (e.g. Iran and nukes) --- though sometimes, as we have seen, the result can be an attempt by the targeted country to hijack other countries' democratic processes (i.e. Russia and the Magnitsky Act).

The real world is almost nothing but gray space, which is why I try my best to dissuade others from thinking in black-and-white terms.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[BobbieL]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/26647372/miller-paid-10k-per-month-ayton

Wonder how much Zion got? He got paid


Duke, Kentucky Kansas - they might have a better system than Arizona, Auburn but they are paying players too

lets not think Duke is not above reproach

[MathiasPW]

I exaggerated with "always", probably. Though I could stretch my moral compass way past the limit just for the sake of argument.
Nevertheless, I'm very favorable to regulating, as it creates a private market that pays taxes that can be used to educate/combat/minimize maleficent effects of said product to society, so net impact is not negative. But that's very different from forbidding, as the market will exist anyway, but usually with spillover effects of violence, corruption and moral deterioration which make it a net negative.

Thoughts?

That's not unreasonable at all. I have a ton to say but will have to stay brief. The difference between prohibition and regulation isn't very clear based on the hypothetical (i.e., are we talking about "forbidding" payments or "regulating" college basketball?). I just think that it's much more useful to think about specifics, on which data can be collected and analyzed on a case-by-case basis, than to make policy decisions based on general principles. I don't have a problem banning snake oil, for instance, in part because I wouldn't expect a black market for a fraudulent product to exist. With marijuana, the black market is unnecessary and introduces violence and corruption where it need not exist, but if you're talking about other drugs, there's more to consider. International financial sanctions are a form of prohibition that results in a black market for the targeted country. The black market imposes a significant cost upon the target country that scales with volume. This has the effect of making most targeted countries come to the negotiating table on whatever drew the ire of the international community in the first place (e.g. Iran and nukes) --- though sometimes, as we have seen, the result can be an attempt by the targeted country to hijack other countries' democratic processes (i.e. Russia and the Magnitsky Act).

The real world is almost nothing but gray space, which is why I try my best to dissuade others from thinking in black-and-white terms.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Great subtle joke with my sig right there.

I admit my own fault at oversimplifying and creating a general rule over small samples/examples. Worst of it is I'm actually reading a book on this, how our minds trick us into making those "law of small numbers" mistakes all the time.

Thank you for the enlightenment.

[Gorilla Warfare]

As a proud Sun Devil you can inject 50 cc's of this fuggin' content right into my bloodstream. Miller needs to go and so do all of their recruits that were coming in next season.

[kennydorglas]

buh-bye, Sean Miller.