Soxbadger

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:53 PM) The example is irrelevant. In practice the NBAPA is fighting this. What you make up doesn't really matter. We both are making up their motivation for fighting it. You are saying its altruism. I am saying its not. At least I am honest enough to admit Im merely speculating, whereas you are acting as if you are part of the NBPA and privy to their negotiations.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) But they are fighting it. You are completely wrong here. The logic states one thing, but in practice the complete opposite is true. I could be wrong there is certainly that possibility as Im not affiliated with the NBPA. But (imo) this is just a negotiating ploy. Where you argue for something you dont really care about so you can exchange it for something you do want. This happens all the time, so Im assuming that is what the NBPA is doing. But you are right, its just an assumption.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) He only had to give up $75 million and 3 houses as a payment for his divorce. Btw, if his assets were $150 million at the time of his divorce, then he's probably blown through more than 50% of his lifetime earnings already. A lot of people who graduated college have had to give up more in divorces, and they didnt cheat/potentially rape a girl. Hes a pretty clever fellow all things being considered.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) But they did. Right they are smart at negotiating. I fight for things my clients dont really care about all the time (well call them X), if it means I can say "oh ill give you X if you give me Y" You dont give away a negotiating chip for free, even if you dont care about it. Thats just dumb. (edit) Ill use a quick example, divorce which is something most are familiar with. Husband loves dog more than anything Wife hates dog. Wife says she wants dog and that she is going to fight for it. Husband offers money if wife gives up dog. Wife gives up dog.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) Kobe has been paid so much by both the lakers and shoe companies that he'd have to have more kids than Cromartie before it started mattering. He's legitimately making $50 million+ a year on endorsements and his contract. But hes no good with money because he never went to college. How can this be?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:46 PM) Yet if all 29 NBA GMs decided not to draft an 18 year old at the same time, they would get sued for collusion, even if they were all acting in their individual team best intersts. How is this true? If a player isnt drafted in the draft they cant sue the NBA saying it was collusion that no one drafted them. To sue for collusion youd have to prove that each team talked to eachother and purposefully screwed the player. Not that each team came to their own independent conclusion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:45 PM) Really if it were up to the NBA alone, they would have a three or four year rule. The only reason it takes this watered down form is because of the NBA players forcing it lower. No its because they are worried if they make a rule that is to prohibitive a court will overturn it and then they lose everything. NBPA has no incentive to lower the age, its a good bargaining chip that they dont care about.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) Bad investment or no investment and yeah, that money is gone in a flash. People don't think they could ever spend $40 million or so, but when you get bounced from the league in say 5-6 years and then have nothing to do, you start to spend money very poorly. It's not like a lot of these guys have real world skills, and they generally will not subject themselves to cooking at a fast food restaurant or anyting along those lines. But this has nothing to do with college. Latrell Sprewell was college for 4 years and he wasted all his money. Kobe didnt go to college and hes seemingly good with money.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:39 PM) I'm sure you would. Unfortunately, I've seen this situation really go poorly and the same player be destitute by 30. Again, I don't think 1 year does it. I would go for 3-4 years if no true minor league system is available. Sometimes kids need to be told what is best for them in the long run and not be short sighted because as you said earlier not every kid could afford you or one of your brethren. but the reason they are destitute is because they arent getting good advice. If they took the 20mil, id immediately put Ymil in a trust that would pay out X per year and you cant touch principal. That would eb their safety net. They then would get other money to use as "fun" money. Scottie Pippen went to college for multiple years, he was bilked out of millions by a very well known law firm. You cant prevent bad things from happening to people. You can only put them in the best position to succeed. 99% of the world will never make 20mil in their life time, so if you can get that type of generational wealth, you do it, and you figure out how to protect it afterwards. The real issue is that during those 4 years if they get injured and get $0mil, no amount of growing up or knowledge is going to make that magically turn into $20mil.

I wish Zoom would have posted these stats as Im not a basketball stat guy but allegedly the salary cap in NBA is 58mil http://www.nba.com/2012/news/07/10/nba-sal...ease/index.html And according to: http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm Every team but 1 is spending at or above salary cap. This is why the floor means nothing.

And more importantly owners know that a lower floor wont really help them because fans expect a team to spend close to salary cap regardless. This is a classic "Well give you something we dont really care about anyways"

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) This is another thing I don't get: why is the salary floor like 85% of the salary cap? You're basically forcing teams that are rebuilding to sign stupid, cap-clogging contracts on mediocre players, and then they wonder why these teams are losing money. Make the salary floor something more reasonable (maybe like $25 million) and then lay off some of the crazy luxury tax penalties so teams that are actually trying to compete aren't forced to let good players go. Are we really going to see a substanial difference in the caliber of the team if the Kings or Bobcats only have a $20 million payroll? There is an odd phenomenon with a salary cap, it basically creates an inherent floor anyway. In baseball with no cap you can get away not spending cause you can always say "We just cant spend like the Yankees, they spend stupid money." In a sport like NFL, NBA where you have a cap, your fan base expects you to spend to cap, even if it means spending money stupidly.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:23 PM) I love that people are forgetting the INSANE f***ing perks these lottery picks get. If I were one of them, and I was amply covered by insurance (i.e., going from dirt poor to being insured by a few million even if I could never play another game in my life) I would stay for 4 years. f*** the money. You are a king of an entire student body of 35,000 people. You are a friggin' star. And if you win big, you're a hero for life to an entire fanbase. You go to the NBA and yeah, you get paid. But you also work your ass off. You're traveling/playing games constantly for 3/4 of the year. Who's having more fun in life - Cody Zeller or Kyrie Irving? I'm guessing Zeller. (Edit: and yes, I realize that this is a much more difficult choice to make when confronted with the REAL option of making tens of millions. But I'd like to think having a ball in college would be worth the 1-2 year wait) Hell to the No. I would take the money, and if I want to be a college pimp, Id go rent an apartment in a college town and use my celebrity to be the king anyways. But that sweet money is going to be in my bank yesterday.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:17 PM) One thing that would really be useful in the ideal situation is a working NBA minor league. It works spectacularly in baseball...but there's one difference. In baseball, you don't start earning time towards your free agency period until you make the show, and there are only limited protections for guys who are kept in the minors for multiple years. The NBPA would actually be the deterrent here. They're not going to give up the right to making FA 4-5 years after a player is drafted unless they get something really precious in return. Because there is an inherent conflict of interest between the NBPA and players not currently in the NBA. The NBPA has very little reason or incentive to look out for non-NBA players. So if they can bargain more for current NBA players at the expense of future NBA players, they take that all the time. This is why the 1 year rule is fundamentally flawed. The NBPA has no reason to fight it, especially if the NBA says "If you fight the 1 year rule we are going to lower salary cap and hurt players already in the NBA."

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:14 PM) 18 years olds don't have to like it. Most of them are too immature to know what is best for them. Playing in the NBA is not a right. It is best for the NBA and the player that they mature both physically and emotionally before they are thrown into professional sports. You presume that is best for the player. And you can presume most are to immature to know what is best for them. But as someone who is over 18 and who is paid for living to advise people, I would advise almost every 18 year old who can make a maximum of $20mil per year, who is being offered $20mil to take the money and run. Because when you are already being offered the maximum amount you can make, you have 0 reason not to take it. You are taking risk for nothing. And I am extremely risk averse. Now other people may advise differently, they may say you should stay in college for 1 year because in their opinion that 1 year is invaluable. I would strongly disagree, but that is opinion. And I guess when it comes to opinion, Id rather that the kid gets to use his own, as opposed to the NBA telling them that this is whats best. No one has a right to be in the NBA, no one has a right to an employment. But we all do enjoy the right not to be arbitrarily discriminated against and I believe that this type of age restriction falls into that box.

Zoom, I guess you just explained my NBA/NCAA working together better than I could. Its both entities screwing the player, thats why its such a problem. If 1 one of them was acting in favor of the player, it likely wouldnt be an issue.

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 03:34 PM) Just curious, are you not fond of the age requirements to serve in some political offices? Perhaps we should strip minors of their protective rights and also give them the rights that we take from them because they are minors. Those are also very arbitrarily based but are based on a reasonable assumption of when someone can be ready. Another issue I have with these anti-age requirement arguments is the central assumption seems to be that not making as much money is the only factor. The income of the player is the only measure of whether the player has benefited or not. Leading them to education, even if they would not have chose it otherwise, even giving it to them for free, has no value. Whether the financial gain of going to the NBA at 18 will offset the potential lifestyle issues that arise from it is immaterial. Also curious. Do you not like jobs that require college degrees? Sometimes it isn't technical training so much as wanting proof that you can make it in the world. Show up to stuff on time, get your heart broken and not drop out, have someone offer you drugs and not have it ruin your life, etc. Jake, 1) I am not fond of any age requirement. In general age requirements are arbitrary and hypocritical. You can be 18 and drafted, but you cant drink. The entire idea of age requirement is that somehow age makes you magically more qualified, which I dont agree with. If the people of the US wanted to vote a 20 year old President, why shouldnt they be able to? Why do a group of select individuals, get to make a rule about who can hold that power. And isnt it coincidental that the people who get to make the rule, are already over the age that its okay. Its a barrier of entry. If I am a Senator, I want less competition. An easy way is to say "No one under X can get my job". I hate it. 2) I am not making any assumptions about whether or not going to school or making money is more valuable. It would be impossible to predict. What I can say is that Id rather someone have a CHOICE. 3) I have no problem with merit based requirements. If the NBA rule was HS graduate, I would have no issue with that at all. A player can graduate HS early, they can graduate HS late, but its MERIT based. You had to accomplish something. I dont consider waking up 1 day and saying "Well yesterday I was 18, now Im 19" as merit. And thus I do not compare, College Degree, passing the bar, passing boards, which are merit based, to something that is arbitrary. There is a reason why Dr, lawyer etc is not based on age, but is instead based on merit.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 03:29 PM) No, it's evidence that they believe they will SOMEDAY justify that draft pick and be a worthy player in the NBA. They may not believe they can help them much that year. And dont they make that same decision with college players, when they draft a more raw guy over a guy who had better stats or production? Its the same whether they are 18,19, or 30. Zoom, If it was about both sides they would allow people to enter the draft and not lose college eligibility. That way if you are drafted top 5 you can leave and make your money. If you arent you can stay in college and hopefully get better. The only people it hurts is the NBA, who want to have, like you said, a free system to evaluate talent.

But if they are being selected isnt that evidence that NBA teams believe that they are ready for the NBA? Isnt it counter-intuitive that NBA teams are selecting players who they think are worse or not as ready? When they pick Kobe over a college player, isnt that saying someone in the NBA believes Kobe right then is better than numerous college players?

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 03:12 PM) You're making way too much out of this. There's been less than 10 guys since I started following basketball that can legitimately argue that they were ready to contribute to an NBA roster in their first year out of high school. And this whole thread started because instead of Noel going #1 and making like $22 million on his first deal, he's going to go somewhere around #5 and make somewhere around $14 million on his first deal. Wow, that guy is f***ed! I guess if this is no big deal, then there really is no reason such an unnecessary and prohibitive rule is in place to begin with. And I dont know whether or not $8mil is a big deal to you, to most people that is a pretty big deal. If you make $50k a year, that is over 100 years of income. So Im not really agreement that $8mil isnt a big deal. I just dont think that industries should be allowed to collude like this. Its one thing when the Bulls make a rule "no headbands" its another when every employer in a certain sector agree that they are going to create an arbitrary rule. For example, I dont think it would be fair if all the law firms in the US agreed that they would not hire any new lawyers under the age of 40. It would be great for me, but it would be pretty unfair to everyone else who wants to be a lawyer. (Edit) And in that example all these Americans can just go to Europe or other countries if they want to be lawyers, because that would make it fair.

Its clear the rule benefits the NBA. The question is whether its in societies best interest to allow entities to create rules like this. Some people think yes, some people think no. For the majority of history discrimination was allowed in hiring. The question is whether age discrimination is something that also should be protected.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) How about the notion that the if the NBA recognizes that drafting high school players is too big of a risk, the teams figure that out themselves and stop doing it? Allow market forces to determine what the League or its teams are willing to bear financially and what they aren't. As for the barriers to entry, I completely agree with Badger. There is not one justification currently being made that can be at all supported by data to suggest this rule actually accomplishes anything. If the drafting of these kids hurts the overall quality of the League, like Badger said, allow the League and its teams to devise protections for that. Making an arbitrary rule which hurts individuals from gaining entry is placing the burden on those that are the least well-suited to bear it. Usually, the law requires that burden to be placed on the individual or entity in the best position to bear that burden, generally. The mere fact that an individual can simply sit at home and age a year and then be magically qualified to enter the League, whereas he was not before for some reason or another, is evidence enough of it's inequity. I do enjoy the times we are on the same side of an argument

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) Stop f***ing talking down to me just because you're wrong. Top 10 NBA picks get pro bono agent work given their assumed millions. As for the bolded, the moment they sign an NBA contract they are rich and entitled. A pro bono agent? Those agents are being paid contingent on the contract. How about this, the NBA caring or not caring about players getting paid in the NCAA is pretty insignificant. So in an attempt to not care about this issue, I will just say that even if the NBA doesnt care about NCAA players being paid, it does not change my overall stance.

Kyle, My response would go down a very different road about how there is inherent conflict of interest between an attorney and client, and that the problem is that these firms do look at the player as a "gravy train" and thus take actions that are for the benefit of the attorney/firm and often not in the best interest of the client. That has nothing to do with the NBA though, just my general anger about how lawyers make money from clients. Its one of the few professions where you can be more profitable by being bad than good.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 02:21 PM) If that attorney is working on a contingency, sure. If a college superstar came to you with a contract to revue, you wouldn't be willing to delay payment until after their contract was signed? I have reviewed agent agreements, but it was not free. Sure if RGIII walks into the office and says he wants to retain our firm, wed do it. But the problem is that no one is giving a lot of these kids advice. They just do not have access to a lot of independent people who dont have something to gain from them. The school wants them to stay so they can make money. The agent wants them to leave so they can make money. This type of stuff there is nothing you can do to change. But due to all of the inequalities all of the potential issues that even the most successful student athletes face, Id just rather give them the benefit of the doubt about being able to enter the draft and not lose eligibility, etc. If Im going to err Id rather err on the side of the players.