NBA Bound Stephan

[nelsonmuntz]

I'm going to say again what I said last week.

You are probably right that what NBA GMs should be doing is placing a higher value on guys who have demonstrated they can produce in college.

We have no idea what NBA GMs will actually do going forward, but recent evidence suggests they will continue to go for the home run pick with younger, high-potential players whose ceiling and limitations hasn't yet been made evident, as much as it may hurt the NBA product.

Like every market, will it reach a tipping point? The Celtics have assembled a powerhouse without a single meaningful contributor from the last SIX drafts (Pritchard is a stretch). Bucks are the second best team in the East, and they have no one from a draft after Giannis. Timberwolves have Edwards, who was the first pick and is a bonafide superstar, but does an obvious star like Edwards justify all the terrible lottery picks made in the last 4 years? And the Timberwolves haven't won anything yet. Nuggets, 76ers and Clippers are all veteran teams.

How many 1 and done draft picks from the last 4 years are going to be meaningfully contributing to an NBA team playing in the second round this year? Orlando and Houston have a few if they make it, and some were 19 year old one-and-dones, so we will see about those teams. Holmgren was 20 when he was drafted, more mature, less risky pick. Suggs (1 and D) was 20 when drafted. Jalen Williams is killing it in OKC. Not a 1 and D. Keegan Murray (SAS) is also not a 1 and D.

I don't need a poster to compile a list of draft picks from the mid 2010's that shows that some percentage of 19 year old 1 and D players eventually develop. I get that as these players approach their mid-20's, some of them become quality NBA players. My point has always been that the cost to get those players to that point, especially when you include the higher percentage of failures from players that never get there, makes it a very low ROI investment to draft a 1 and Done player unless that player is Anthony Edwards or Paolo Banchero. If you are still grabbing 19 yo 1 and dones at 11, you are throwing your draft pick away. Even waiting one more year gives the NBA scouts so much more information that the risk of failure is much, much less.

 

[husky429]

With all due respect to Andre the Castle comparison should have been put to bed after watching him play for 5 minutes. In his entire UConn career did Andre take one midrange jump shot that looked anything like the one Castle stepped into yesterday? No. The comparison was always silly and based solely on Castle’s numbers in a limited sample. No one who watched Castle play in high school would make the comparison.

It's lazy. Andre couldn't finish at the rim either. Andre was a wild card who was out of control 50% of the time, and making spectacular plays the rest. Castle is entirely in control on the court. Totally different players.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Have a kid leave college, where they're receiving an education and making NIL money with the hopes of guaranteed money in the league, then pull the carpet out from under them and leave them with nothing when they don't hit the ground running their first year?

This will NEVER be considered by the player's association.

Why would the player's association want more money for future members and less money for current members? Do you think veterans who are productive contributors WANT high school kids who won't be able to contribute for years to get paid millions that could go into the veterans' bank accounts?

Do you go into work and ask your boss to pay you less so some high school kid that doesn't know anything can get paid more?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Seriously, let's bail out NBA franchises lmao

Players are guaranteed 50% of the NBA revenue, so AS I SAID IN THE POST, any money taken away would have to go back into the pot for veterans.

I hope some of these posters on this board are not UConn grads.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

He disproved you with facts and you resorted to strawman.

It is not a strawman when I restate EXACTLY the argument he was making.

 

[Deleted at users request]

So pretty much his 3rd and 4th game starting he’s looked much different. This was after he looked like he figured it out during the last few minutes in his 2nd game against St John’s too.

Almost like… he just needed time to get his feet under himself and he was good. Lol

Which is also why I advocate to get these young guys on the court as soon as possible. There’s no better way to help someone along than to play them.

 

[SoFla Steve]

Castle is the BE Freshman of the Week for the 3rd time.

 

[Chuck]

That's not what I am doing. I am making a relatively straightforward argument: That the current NBA draft is broken and teams are better off trading their draft picks than using them. I provided some evidence, such as the first round has become increasingly randomized in terms of where talent comes from within that round.

The current system strongly encourages kids to jump as early as possible. As a result, the NBA ends up with higher risk picks that take years to be productive, and quality players don't get a chance because so many roster spots are tied up with 1 and dones that can't play but are under guaranteed contract.

I even have some solutions:

1) More NBA player compensation should be production based. Players are guaranteed roughly 50% of NBA revenue per the current CBA. Under the current structure, productive veterans are punished because 19 year olds are tying up big chunks of the salary cap for years despite producing nothing. Why do veterans agree to that? Veterans should demand a component of players revenue share be allocated among the players based on production, and take that money out of the rookie contracts. If a kid wants to come out at 19 and ride the bench for 2 years, he would get paid, but not really get paid.

2) NBA G League - I think the wheels will come off college sports soon enough, but if I was the NBA, I would start promoting my minor league more aggressively now, and also give at least partial credit for minor league activity towards NBA seniority. This would push more players to the G League, making it more marketable, and would result in a better quality of player when they get to the NBA, compared to burying a kid on an NBA bench and hoping he develops. There are other things the NBA could do to promote the G League.

3) Quick Cut - An NBA team should have a "quick cut" option to walk away from a completely failed draft pick. If an NBA franchise decides by March of the rookie year that a player is just not working out, they should be able to walk away from the guarantee. There should be a limit on the number of times a franchise can do this, maybe once every three years or something, but there should be consequences to the player for completely sucking, and make a player think twice about jumping to the League when they are completely unready. And that player getting cut will open up a slot for another player.

1) I'm surprised that the union hasn't pushed for something like that. So many quality vets seem to sign consecutive 1 year veteran minimum contracts. It's not like the first round picks are going to stay in college or go to Europe. They're entering the draft regardless.

2) I agree that the NBA should fund the heck out of the G League and think giving seniority would be clever, but may not be practical. The problem is that with the direction college basketball is going, there's a good chance it will pay more than a well-funded G league. I don't know of any financially successful US minor league. Some scrape by OK, but none can pay their players like the NIL money that mediocre high major college players are getting nowadays. Look at English soccer. Traditionally, the second and even third level were profitable, but not anymore. It's become Premier League (or maybe Championship) or bust.

I think the NCAA will still be the minor leagues. I don't know that is particularly bad for the NBA. It allows them to truly see what a player is. I think your comments about Lottery failures is only part of the failure. A lot of the guys seem to take a number of years to get good. So even if they turn out to be a good NBA player, the team picking them just overpaid for a few years and stands to lose the player in free agency right when they are worth their salary.

3) I don't see this one happening. A contract is a contract, except in the NFL. Although it would be fun to watch. I can see better franchises jumping on the jetsam of notoriously bad franchises.

 

[Deleted at users request]

1) I'm surprised that the union hasn't pushed for something like that. So many quality vets seem to sign consecutive 1 year veteran minimum contracts. It's not like the first round picks are going to stay in college or go to Europe. They're entering the draft regardless.

2) I agree that the NBA should fund the heck out of the G League and think giving seniority would be clever, but may not be practical. The problem is that with the direction college basketball is going, there's a good chance it will pay more than a well-funded G league. I don't know of any financially successful US minor league. Some scrape by OK, but none can pay their players like the NIL money that mediocre high major college players are getting nowadays. Look at English soccer. Traditionally, the second and even third level were profitable, but not anymore. It's become Premier League (or maybe Championship) or bust.

I think the NCAA will still be the minor leagues. I don't know that is particularly bad for the NBA. It allows them to truly see what a player is. I think your comments about Lottery failures is only part of the failure. A lot of the guys seem to take a number of years to get good. So even if they turn out to be a good NBA player, the team picking them just overpaid for a few years and stands to lose the player in free agency right when they are worth their salary.

3) I don't see this one happening. A contract is a contract, except in the NFL. Although it would be fun to watch. I can see better franchises jumping on the jetsam of notoriously bad franchises.

The NBA has to figure out the right way to go about their G League before funding it. Right now I hear that their current setup is horrible and is not properly developing players.

The ignite team is a bunch of 18-19 year olds going against grown men. They are currently 0-6 with the worst point differential in the g league. They aren’t learning good habits and are pretty much playing for reps. Development wise, kids may actually be much better off going to college.

Not one G League player has burst onto the scene yet in a winning way.

 

[The Yakk]

That's not what I am doing. I am making a relatively straightforward argument: That the current NBA draft is broken and teams are better off trading their draft picks than using them. I provided some evidence, such as the first round has become increasingly randomized in terms of where talent comes from within that round.

The current system strongly encourages kids to jump as early as possible. As a result, the NBA ends up with higher risk picks that take years to be productive, and quality players don't get a chance because so many roster spots are tied up with 1 and dones that can't play but are under guaranteed contract.

I even have some solutions:

1) More NBA player compensation should be production based. Players are guaranteed roughly 50% of NBA revenue per the current CBA. Under the current structure, productive veterans are punished because 19 year olds are tying up big chunks of the salary cap for years despite producing nothing. Why do veterans agree to that? Veterans should demand a component of players revenue share be allocated among the players based on production, and take that money out of the rookie contracts. If a kid wants to come out at 19 and ride the bench for 2 years, he would get paid, but not really get paid.

2) NBA G League - I think the wheels will come off college sports soon enough, but if I was the NBA, I would start promoting my minor league more aggressively now, and also give at least partial credit for minor league activity towards NBA seniority. This would push more players to the G League, making it more marketable, and would result in a better quality of player when they get to the NBA, compared to burying a kid on an NBA bench and hoping he develops. There are other things the NBA could do to promote the G League.

3) Quick Cut - An NBA team should have a "quick cut" option to walk away from a completely failed draft pick. If an NBA franchise decides by March of the rookie year that a player is just not working out, they should be able to walk away from the guarantee. There should be a limit on the number of times a franchise can do this, maybe once every three years or something, but there should be consequences to the player for completely sucking, and make a player think twice about jumping to the League when they are completely unready. And that player getting cut will open up a slot for another player.

#3 is ugly and anti-labor. The draft itself is already a constraint on a player's freedom to sell his services in a market; if you allow that, then you should never allow #3 at the same time.

Also, it would probably incentivize teams to be even more reckless in drafting unproven prospects, knowing they have an out. That's the opposite of what you want.

I do agree in general that many teams suck at drafting.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

That’s the league. It’s a stupid model but it basically comes down to some combination of luck and good evaluation. Pick Markelle Fultz, oops, sorry. Pick Tatum, lucky you. Durant? Yay! Oden? Boo.

As far as I can tell, nobody has really figured it out. Drafting QBs in the NFL is similar.

As for Stephon, I don’t see any massive concern with his shooting form, unlike Andre. He will become a good shooter. Castle‘s level of effort and intensity on D and the boards has been beyond impressive. Most competitive guy we’ve had in the Hurley era. Physically he checks every box except explosive jumping. So yes, he’s absolutely worth a lottery pick because he has star potential and stars decide who wins in the NBA. I wish it was like MLB or NFL where balanced teams with few stars can win, but it isn’t.

He’s more athletic than I thought he was gonna be, I don’t think explosion is any type of issue. That one break away dunk he had early in the year showed it, Nd he wasn’t even going full speed. He also very often rises above everyone else for rebounds and tips.

 

[caw]

It's lazy. Andre couldn't finish at the rim either. Andre was a wild card who was out of control 50% of the time, and making spectacular plays the rest. Castle is entirely in control on the court. Totally different players.

Castle's body balance is fantastic.

 

[BGesus4]

Castle's body balance is fantastic.

As is his rebounding. He has a large number of facets of his game that are absolutely elite.

 

[husky429]

As is his rebounding. He has a large number of facets of his game that are absolutely elite.

He's be a runaway #1 pick if he had a 35% 3pt shot. He's got basically everything else you want in an elite big guard.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

#3 is ugly and anti-labor. The draft itself is already a constraint on a player's freedom to sell his services in a market; if you allow that, then you should never allow #3 at the same time.

Also, it would probably incentivize teams to be even more reckless in drafting unproven prospects, knowing they have an out. That's the opposite of what you want.

I do agree in general that many teams suck at drafting.

The current system is anti-labor. There are dozens of good players on veteran minimum contracts while 19 year old kids that will never be any good are making millions on guaranteed contracts.

 

[Greg]

He’s going top 5 according to the gurus here, we have him for just this season. Can someone explain to me after watching last night how that happens?
Hurley pulled him in favor of Ball. Sloppy ball handling, shooting touch, it goes on. We know he will be much better but geez no dominant talent came in off that bench when he got in there, up till now. Hope it changes.

The worry about this type of player is decide to sit out the tournament. I hope hoop stars don't follow the lead of football players

 

[imno1]

The worry about this type of player is decide to sit out the tournament. I hope hoop stars don't follow the lead of football players

I don’t think Castle Is “that type of player”

 

[Yardigan]

The worry about this type of player is decide to sit out the tournament. I hope hoop stars don't follow the lead of football players

Has that ever happened? Or, are we still waiting on the first?

 

[Huskyforlife]

The current system is anti-labor. There are dozens of good players on veteran minimum contracts while 19 year old kids that will never be any good are making millions on guaranteed contracts.

A player with 5 years of experience in the NBA will make a minimum of 2.3 million per year, with the amount slightly increasing up to 10 years. I think they’re doing alright.

 

[Deleted at users request]

I don’t think Castle Is “that type of player”

Or any other hooper.

Imagine the thinking a kid would want to sit out the tournament.

 

[Excalibur]

I'm going to say again what I said last week.

You are probably right that what NBA GMs should be doing is placing a higher value on guys who have demonstrated they can produce in college.

We have no idea what NBA GMs will actually do going forward, but recent evidence suggests they will continue to go for the home run pick with younger, high-potential players whose ceiling and limitations hasn't yet been made evident, as much as it may hurt the NBA product.

The NBA is a star’s league. You can’t win without top 10 players. It’s either tough, expensive, or both to acquire a star in today’s NBA. Free agency is huge $$$$$, and teams are less willing to give up stars for just draft picks unless they know they aren’t competing and want to unload salary to bid on the next free agent.

Role players, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen.

So you draft for the chance of getting a star, knowing that most of the time you’ll whiff. If you do hit, especially out of the top 5, it can change the direction of your franchise.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The NBA is a star’s league. You can’t win without top 10 players. It’s either tough, expensive, or both to acquire a star in today’s NBA. Free agency is huge $$$$$, and teams are less willing to give up stars for just draft picks unless they know they aren’t competing and want to unload salary to bid on the next free agent.

Role players, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen.

So you draft for the chance of getting a star, knowing that most of the time you’ll whiff. If you do hit, especially out of the top 5, it can change the direction of your franchise.

That is certainly conventional wisdom. Of course the NBA Final Four over the last 20 years completely undermines this assertion. How many teams got a big star win the Top 5 pick and then built up the team with "dime a dozen" role players? The 76ers are still trying to get out of the second round with that strategy.

Recent NBA champs and the source of their top players:

2023 Nuggets - Jokic (2nd round). Murray (7th pick), Porter (14th) and Gordon (acquired star)
2022 Warriors - Curry (7th), Thompson (11th), Green (2nd round), Wiggins (acquired star)
2021 Bucks - Antetokounmpo (15th), Middleton (throw in on trade between two mediocre point guards), Holiday and Lopez (acquired stars)
2020 Lakers - Lebron and AD (acquired superstars), KCP (acquired quality player), Kuzma (27th pick)
2019 Raptors - no lottery picks on team
2018 Warriors - Curry (7th), Thompson (11th), Green (2nd round), Durant (acquired superstar)
2017 Warriors - Curry (7th), Thompson (11th), Green (2nd round), Durant (acquired superstar)
2016 Cavaliers - Lebron (acquired superstar), Love and JR Smith (acquired stars), Kyrie (HOMEGROWN TOP 5 PICK)


You have to go back 8 years to find where one of the Top 4 players on a title team was a homegrown Top 5 pick.

The way teams actually win titles is to find that superstar, which generally comes out of the first round, and then fill in stars around him through trades and free agency. With the exception of the 2020 Lakers, the Covid champ, the other recent champions were deep with quality players that could actually win games for teams.

 

[Deleted at users request]

That is certainly conventional wisdom. Of course the NBA Final Four over the last 20 years completely undermines this assertion. How many teams got a big star win the Top 5 pick and then built up the team with "dime a dozen" role players? The 76ers are still trying to get out of the second round with that strategy.

Recent NBA champs and the source of their top players:

2023 Nuggets - Jokic (2nd round). Murray (7th pick), Porter (14th) and Gordon (acquired star)
2022 Warriors - Curry (7th), Thompson (11th), Green (2nd round), Wiggins (acquired star)
2021 Bucks - Antetokounmpo (15th), Middleton (throw in on trade between two mediocre point guards), Holiday and Lopez (acquired stars)
2020 Lakers - Lebron and AD (acquired superstars), KCP (acquired quality player), Kuzma (27th pick)
2019 Raptors - no lottery picks on team
2018 Warriors - Curry (7th), Thompson (11th), Green (2nd round), Durant (acquired superstar)
2017 Warriors - Curry (7th), Thompson (11th), Green (2nd round), Durant (acquired superstar)
2016 Cavaliers - Lebron (acquired superstar), Love and JR Smith (acquired stars), Kyrie (HOMEGROWN TOP 5 PICK)


You have to go back 8 years to find where one of the Top 4 players on a title team was a homegrown Top 5 pick.

The way teams actually win titles is to find that superstar, which generally comes out of the first round, and then fill in stars around him through trades and free agency. With the exception of the 2020 Lakers, the Covid champ, the other recent champions were deep with quality players that could actually win games for teams.

FWIW, all these teams outside of the Warriors are led by guys who went to the NBA as soon as possible. Lol

Whether one and done, HS, or European that declared once eligible.

 

[The Yakk]

The current system is anti-labor. There are dozens of good players on veteran minimum contracts while 19 year old kids that will never be any good are making millions on guaranteed contracts.

Very true.

Maybe a better way to frame your #3 is not to let the team negate the contract, but just forgive them that amount in their salary cap calculation. They would still have to pay the player, though.

But it still doesn't address the core problem, which is teams failing in the draft by taking fliers on unproven potential and undervaluing proven winners. Probably you can't fix that through legislation anyway; the decision makers just need to wake up. Maybe they never will.

 

[Psolo12]

Players are guaranteed 50% of the NBA revenue, so AS I SAID IN THE POST, any money taken away would have to go back into the pot for veterans.

I hope some of these posters on this board are not UConn grads.

Then what is the incentive for players to ever leave college in the current environment, if the risk would be so high?

 

[The Yakk]

A player with 5 years of experience in the NBA will make a minimum of 2.3 million per year, with the amount slightly increasing up to 10 years. I think they’re doing alright.

They have reached the pinnacle of their profession and are doing fantastic by the standards of the general public. And it is a common thing for us armchair fans to observe that and conclude they are being paid fairly.

But of course, that is way too simplistic a view. Sports owners work non-stop to suppress player salaries and protect excess returns; many put more effort into that fight than into actually trying to win. In a truly free market, the middle class of good players would make a hell of a lot more.

Player salaries--and the players' shares of the immense wealth generated by professional sports--have been moving in only one direction over the last 100 years, and there is lots more to be gained. The arc of history is long and slow, but it bends towards justice.

 

[Huskyforlife]

They have reached the pinnacle of their profession and are doing fantastic by the standards of the general public. And it is a common thing for us armchair fans to observe that and conclude they are being paid fairly.

But of course, that is way too simplistic a view. Sports owners work non-stop to suppress player salaries and protect excess returns; many put more effort into that fight than into actually trying to win. In a truly free market, the middle class of good players would make a hell of a lot more.

Player salaries--and the players' shares of the immense wealth generated by professional sports--have been moving in only one direction over the last 100 years, and there is lots more to be gained. The arc of history is long and slow, but it bends towards justice.

Idk what to tell you man, the players union negotiates this stuff, nobody is holding a gun to an athletes head and demanding they sign a vet minimum contract, but they’ll sign it anyways, cause it’s a sweet deal. The market dictates that’s what they’re worth, or another team would outbid them. The middle ground exists between max contracts and vet minimum guys, they’re on almost every team.

 

[The Yakk]

Idk what to tell you man, the players union negotiates this stuff, nobody is holding a gun to an athletes head and demanding they sign a vet minimum contract, but they’ll sign it anyways, cause it’s a sweet deal. The market dictates that’s what they’re worth, or another team would outbid them. The middle ground exists between max contracts and vet minimum guys, they’re on almost every team.

Players unions are great. Since they have come into existence in all sports in the last 50 years or so, the players have made consistent incremental gains. That will continue going forward, because there is plenty more to be won.

You are correct, no one holds a gun to anyone's head to force them to sign a contract. But there would be a hell of a lot more money available to an NBA veteran player if there were not a salary cap, self-imposed by the owners.

All of these things--the draft, the salary cap, the franchise tag in football, the baseball luxury tax--they are all mechanisms to suppress player salaries. But in the long run they can only slow the tide, not stop it. The value of the players' labor to the owners is a lot greater than the amount players are paid. So the incremental gains will continue.

The owners know this too. They love it when casual fans take your attitude--that the players are getting enough, and they can do something else if don't like it--becasue that is a big PR victory for them. But in the long run it won't change anything.

 

[Hunt for 7]

Players unions are great. Since they have come into existence in all sports in the last 50 years or so, the players have made consistent incremental gains. That will continue going forward, because there is plenty more to be won.

You are correct, no one holds a gun to anyone's head to force them to sign a contract. But there would be a hell of a lot more money available to an NBA veteran player if there were not a salary cap, self-imposed by the owners.

All of these things--the draft, the salary cap, the franchise tag in football, the baseball luxury tax--they are all mechanisms to suppress player salaries. But in the long run they can only slow the tide, not stop it. The value of the players' labor to the owners is a lot greater than the amount players are paid. So the incremental gains will continue.

The owners know this too. They love it when casual fans take your attitude--that the players are getting enough, and they can do something else if don't like it--becasue that is a big PR victory for them. But in the long run it won't change anything.

Salary caps should lead to parity, which if you look at this years nfl ratings are a good thing. I just think the minimum salaries should be adjusted more frequently. The nba is already a mess because the players have too much power. All businesses need some type of structure to be successful.

 

[The Yakk]

The NBA is already a mess because the players have too much power.

I'm sure that's true from the owners' perspective.

The fans' perspective is probably mixed. Maybe depends on which team you root for.

Do you think it's true from the players' perspective? And whom do we need more, the owners or the players? The last 50 years of labor negotiations in pro sports is answering that for us.

Salary caps should lead to parity (...) All businesses need some type of structure to be successful.

There is truth in this. The massive fan interest and revenue generated by pro sports has to be partly due to the perception of parity in the leagues, and to some level of roster continuity. It helps fans form attachments to teams.

If you did away with the draft and made everyone in the world a free agent, for example, then who in their right mind would want to play in Oklahoma City? (Although maybe that's an argument that in a truly free market there would not be a team in OKC. But that's a different discussion. )

Anyway, I tend to agree that if you made the player labor market completely free and unfettered then there is probably a lot less money to go around for everyone.

But where is the fair balancing point? I think the athletes have a lot more to gain before we get there.

It also strikes me how many fans take the owners' side in this as a matter of reflex. Is it really that simple? Do we feel the same way about our own jobs--that the boss is always right, and whatever they deign to pay us is fair?