share

NBA vs. Union

ShamoN 513
ShamoN 513's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/18/2010
Posts: 55
Points: 105
Offline
NBA vs. Union

The NBA wants to keep college stars like Harrison Barnes in school for two years. The union wants to lower the age minmum. Whos right? How would you do it? Why?

Go to fullsize image


spceltic55
spceltic55's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 12
Points: 18
Offline
my 2 cents

I think that it is wrong to deny these young men an opportunity to go pro. High school grads can go to WAR but not play a game for a profit. And remember in the military they are driving/operating equipment which costs millions of dollars. That doesn't seem right. They could buy cigarettes, vote in elections, etc. It is a JOB if the employer doesn't want to hire them then they need to find something else until the opportunity opens up again. While the pay isn't the same the principle is the same.

kacey
Registered User
Joined: 06/16/2009
Posts: 1565
Points: -133
Offline
I don't think there should be

I don't think there should be an age restriction. The NBA may be trying to protect some players from making poor decisions, but there will always be prospects getting bad advice whether they are a HS senior or if they are a freshman, a sophomore, or a junior in college. Obviously the extra year or two gives prospects more time to develop physically and mentally, but the D-League can help in this area as well. I think with the D-League getting more usage the NBA teams that take a risk on a HS kid can always ensure they get some PT in the minor league.

Also, look at it this way, if you are a HS senior and someone offers you an opportunity to earn a healthy paycheck wouldn't you jump at the opportunity? Obviously, high school athletes will lose their college eligibility, but if the NBA is so concerned about protecting high school athletes from making poor decisions, then why not allow these kids the opportunity to regain college eligibility if they are not drafted? However, the NBA would have to work with the NCAA President since college eligibility is in play here.

Another reason the NBA has the rule is to protect teams from making poor decisions on prospects. However, with talks of the new CBA reducing the amount of guaranteed money and guaranteed years and changes to the rookie salary draft scale, teams will be protected more than years past.

Also, with NBA teams cutting back on expenses (individual player workouts around pre-draft time), teams won't waste time on players that they feel don't have NBA potential.

Finally, for HS prospects that don't get drafted, they could take the overseas route and prove their worth. Sure playing time will be limited, but the overseas route has its positives for players that can handle the culture changes.

Well, that is my spin on it even if my fever is keeping me from thinking straight.

tli232
Registered User
Joined: 04/11/2009
Posts: 602
Points: 591
Offline
I like the two year rule

spceltics55, I understand where you're coming from. However, the difference between the military and the NBA is that the NBA is a BUSINESS, the military is NOT.

It's essential business theory that the goal of the firm is to make money. That's why they are in existence (I highly suggest any business majors to read The Goal by E. Goldratt if they haven't already done so). If the NBA thinks that by forcing players to stay an extra year gives them a better product on the court leading to higher profits for its shareholders, it should be entirely their prerogative to be allowed to do that at their discretion. This is what America was founded on, not this union bull crap.

As for the question of whether it's fair to the Players' Union, it's really a toss-up. Considering basic microeconomic assumptions, the Union should act rationally to maximize benefit to its existing members. As such, by raising the age limit, the existing players in the league benefit greatly because there will be fewer lotto busts that teams feel obligated to play because of their high draft status (cough, cough, Araujo). I must admit though, that the NBDL is becoming quite handy.

Personally, I really want to see the 2 year limit put in place (not that I think it should happen). This is because if the NBA teams are looked at as separate entities, they should be allowed to operate in a way that they see fit for their organization (drafting HS kids or otherwise).

scoutguru
Registered User
Joined: 06/23/2008
Posts: 498
Points: 228
Offline
The NBA as an institution has

The NBA as an institution has a right to set whatever restrictions for entry into its business in which its shelling out millions of dollars to these young men. If they want it to be 1, 2, 3 or no years, so be it. That's the decision they have the liberty to make. Any other line of work or profession has rules to employment, whether it be degree, certificate, or training. This notion that this kids have a fundamental right to make a living at 18 is flawed, based on how things work in the grand scheme of society. And Stern said it, there's other places to make money in playing basketball, so one isn't "forced" to go to college.

billyk
Registered User
Joined: 12/05/2008
Posts: 1019
Points: 547
Offline
Its funny one minute the NBA

Its funny one minute the NBA is a business, but when NBA players make a business decision that fans/media don't agree with, it their decision becomes personal and everybody get emotional....

RUDEBOY_
RUDEBOY_'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/09/2010
Posts: 8188
Points: 16163
Offline
Why nobody never says that

Why nobody never says that the nfl rule is wrong or unfair? players have to wait until their jr. year to turn pros...

that rule helps the league and its players..

jimmy clausen was a guy that was labeled a cant miss nfl prospect coming out of high school..some nfl team would take years to recover from the mistake of taking him number 1 if they drafted him right out of high school ..

the nfl rules says a player must wait until his jr. year to enter the draft..and it has benefited the league and the owners....

NYK2010
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 2479
Points: 1528
Offline
Leave it the way it is 1 year

Leave it the way it is 1 year is good, out of high school not enough for teams to see.

Also some of the guys aren't motivated to work hard they are okay with being a high draft pick.

The 1 year gives them a chance to prove themselves in college or overseas and teams get a look at what they can do against players at the same level. If I had to bet one way though I think the Union will lose this battle in the long run and it will end up being 2 years.

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3657
Points: 5254
Offline
The team that didn't draft

The team that didn't draft Renardo Sidney when he came out of high school is doing back flips right now.

The league has the right to implement hiring restrictions, and it is good for the league to have the minimum in place.

kacey
Registered User
Joined: 06/16/2009
Posts: 1565
Points: -133
Offline
@Rudeboy The NFL ruling is

@Rudeboy

The NFL ruling is three years removed from HS, so a red-shirt sophomore can enter the draft as well, but I'm sure you knew that. Anyways, no one is questioning the NFL ruling because that is a completely different sport. How can you even compare the two? There is way more phyical contact in the NFL than in the NBA. Even if NFL teams could draft HS prospects they would be smart enough to either not draft them at all or to simply have them on the practice squad all year or ride the bench for a year or two.

BasketBalAllan
BasketBalAllan's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/20/2009
Posts: 1165
Points: 3681
Offline
kacey4321

Though the NFL is a bit more physical, the NBA definitely requires more talent. The NBA is the only sport where you are not locked into a single role as a player. The greatest players in the game are the ones who can do most things well, either from the post or the guard position, or sometimes a little of both. So why should the NBA not allow its decision makers more time to process the development of its young prospects. Everyone is acting like it will destroy young Garnetts and Kobes by forcing them to become millionaires a year or two later, but in the end they will be perfectly fine. This rule is not about them, it is about players who had potential but will never pan out for certain other reasons. If the NBA has more time to evaluate their product they can make the game more exciting for everyone. People are way too obsessed with wanting thing now and are not willing to wait a little while longer for a better result. I am not saying that they should extend it to two years but I think making it 18 again would be detrimental to the NBA in the long run.

kacey
Registered User
Joined: 06/16/2009
Posts: 1565
Points: -133
Offline
BasketBalAllan

I love your POV. But...

The NBA has the D-League that it can make more use of by teams sending their young prospects to which could then could even make the D-League more profitable (what did he just use the words D-League and profit in the same sentence, no way, how could that be?).

And are we really talking about giving team decision makers more time to think about a prospect? How many times have we seen NBA teams draft guys, not including HS early entrants, that turned out to be busts? How many more years would the Raptors need to scout Rafael Arajou to realize that he sucks and not to waste a top ten pick on him? Sure the same can be said about some HS school kids that were drafted early, but point is, more time apparently doesn't help some of these teams out.

You don't think the Grizzlies would have loved to have taken John Wall with the second pick in last years draft?

There are plenty of ways the NBA can protect it's teams and protect the prospects while still allowing HS prospects to enter the draft.

RSS: Syndicate content