Clean wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:i wouldn't mind it - i'd rather the kids come into the league more polished, but i can understand how potential players wont like this at all.

I don't think it has anything to do with polish. This is to give the NCAA another year to milk these athletes for money. I can understand 19 year limit so we can see how these players do against better competition than in high school. The NCAA gets to milk them for 1 year and then they can make their own money. The NCAA makes soooooo much money and never gives the athletes any of it. The only way I would ever go for a wage increase is if the D league is turned into a real minor league. Where teams can gather young talent and develop them while paying them some money. The players should not count against the NBA teams roster either.

With the league as dilute talent-wise as it currently is a strong d-league is not feasible. Maybe once 2-3 teams are cut down. In baseball players bloom later and are developed longer so its much easier to find 20 and 21 year old studs bringing their games together before they tackle the majors.

IronWillGiroud wrote:it's good for me as a fan,

it's a more polished product and it's good for the lower leagues/colleges, so that they get a cut of the ballers,

win win

They already get a huge cut off the ballers, in fact they get the entire pie!

Dagger wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:it's good for me as a fan,

it's a more polished product and it's good for the lower leagues/colleges, so that they get a cut of the ballers,

win win

They already get a huge cut off the ballers, in fact they get the entire pie!

They gotta keep getting it! And it's not like the ballets don't get a uni degree in return

Win win

Let the NCAA GO BACK TO BEING A AMATEUR SPORT for these young men who choose to stay in school.

Let the ones who want to make a living but aren't ready, be developed with the D-League affiliate.

NCAA is the ones trying to get paid for free labor of young men that creates revenue for them called "entertainment"

if they pick someone who is young and unpolished, they essentially drafted someone who couldn't provide immediate dividends
therefore they could be putting a bad product out there on the floor if you are a young team.
20 plus years old or not, what kind of impact are you really having on a veteran team...? at the very best it is average.
in other words, this question really matters to teams who dont already have superstars.

well.. if you draft on "potential" like the bucks did with giannis, they have to take the hit for now by smaller revenue from the fans... they made the choice.
as far as the overall nba product day in and day out... there's enough stars in this league (and more will develop over time as some retire) for it to be entertaining.

if you draft for immediate dividends, you would probably have to go with a player who is 20 plus years old in most cases.

what the players don't understand is that if they come in the league out of highschool like amare did and rely strictly on strength and talent, you better have a work ethic like kobe's to survive in the league for that long. otherwise, you could be looking at knees like amare, and being on the knicks in their future.

silver is doing them a favor by raising the limit, how many players do we see that come in unpolished and last in the league for a max of 5 years and no one wants them.

jared jeffries is now doing a tv show on fishing. where is eddy curry and jerome james.

look at bird man, dude has no game, when was the last time he made a jump shot... he's surviving in this league simply based on hard work and hustle. that's what many 19 yr old players do not understand. I would even be ok with folks coming in at 21 yrs and over.

we see an overall better product. and we pay more. everybody wins.

Cartman718 wrote:only silver and stern and players care about the age limit...
the owners really shouldn't.

if they pick someone who is young and unpolished, they essentially drafted someone who couldn't provide immediate dividends
therefore they could be putting a bad product out there on the floor if you are a young team.
20 plus years old or not, what kind of impact are you really having on a veteran team...? at the very best it is average.
in other words, this question really matters to teams who dont already have superstars.

well.. if you draft on "potential" like the bucks did with giannis, they have to take the hit for now by smaller revenue from the fans... they made the choice.
as far as the overall nba product day in and day out... there's enough stars in this league (and more will develop over time as some retire) for it to be entertaining.

if you draft for immediate dividends, you would probably have to go with a player who is 20 plus years old in most cases.

what the players don't understand is that if they come in the league out of highschool like amare did and rely strictly on strength and talent, you better have a work ethic like kobe's to survive in the league for that long. otherwise, you could be looking at knees like amare, and being on the knicks in their future.

silver is doing them a favor by raising the limit, how many players do we see that come in unpolished and last in the league for a max of 5 years and no one wants them.

jared jeffries is now doing a tv show on fishing. where is eddy curry and jerome james.

look at bird man, dude has no game, when was the last time he made a jump shot... he's surviving in this league simply based on hard work and hustle. that's what many 19 yr old players do not understand. I would even be ok with folks coming in at 21 yrs and over.

we see an overall better product. and we pay more. everybody wins.

The cutoff age seems arbitrary. I don't think there are any studies out there suggesting that 19-year-old prospects are less likely to succeed than 20-year-old prospects. There are plenty of 20 and 21-year-old players who wash out after a brief period in the NBA.

I believe NBA teams and scouts are responsible for this age obsession. Prospects are penalized by scouts for being older because they have limited upside. Look at Shabazz Muhammad. He was a surefire top 10 pick until scouts found out he was year older than his listed age.

I think it's hypocritical for Silver to cry foul over a system that's being sustained by the league he presides over.

Plus, with kids reclassifying and enrolling in prep school, there is still the chance of kids meeting the age requirement with a limited amount of college experience.

I think Jerome James was 21 when he started playing pro basketball. Just goes to show how ridiculous it is to gauge that maturity of people between the ages of 19 and 21. I think the 18-year-old age limit is overkill.

y2zipper wrote:An arbitrary age limit isn't about protecting GM's from busts. It's about contract control. Generally speaking, an NBA player's prime is going to last from about age 26-32. Under the current system, a first round prospect can become an unrestricted free agent after 8 years in the league (assuming the guy is good enough to warrant the three-year deal, plus restricted free agency. The current system is about preventing what the Miami Heat did from happening again, and increasing the age limit gives ownership more control of a player's peak.

It's about contract control. NBA players peak from ages 26-32, roughly speaking. If that player comes in at 18, he gets to become a free agent at age 26, right as he's peaking. If he comes in at 21, the owner of the original team that drafted and developed the guy keeps control of him until he's 29.

Rookie contracts are 4 years. The RFA contract is a minimum of 3 years. So its actually 7 years with the team that drafted you (unless of course the player decides to accept the 1 year qualifying offer and become an UFA after 5 years with the team.

So with that and the 20 year old entry date that is being reported it puts the player right in their peak at 27 for the next contract right? Good time to sign your next contract no?