I think this would be an interesting topic.

[Eagles20]

I'd contstantly be trading away my picks. Theoretically, I'd prefer to see the player play more in college because the chances of keeping the one-and-doner long enough to capitalize on the extra 2 or 3 years of his career are slim. My answer is kind of on the fence because I'd only keep top 5 picks (maybe 6 or 7, depending on the draft depth), which would mean I'm picking a one-and-doner most likely.

you would be missing out on chance to build your roster then.

Ibaka- 24 dieng 21
batum- 25 Leonard 15
afflalo-27. vucevic 16
Ty Lawson 18. Tobias Harris 19
Rondo 21. Farried 22
Lowry 24. Reggie Jackson 24
granger 18. Jimmy butler 30
Greek freek 15

There are others just don't feel like writing more. It's with the picks outside of top 15 is where you can get some gems if you draft the right guy. It's not always easy but I would get rid of my first round pick.

 

[Cusefan0307]

This is the thing people forget, and I know I say this all the time, but when guys played in college for all four years you still had busts and you still had guys wash out of the league.

Don't get me wrong Sam Bowie was no Michael Jordan, but he still played ten years in the league and played in over 500 games. He was a bust, but I think the level of bust has increased so much in certain years.

Take for example Hasheem Thabeet who was the 2nd pick in the draft just five years ago and already out of the league

You're right in an earlier post, I agree with you that GM's and coaches seem clueless when scouting big men. I'd always pick the guard or sure forward first. Big men don't seem to pan out nearly as much.

 

[Brooky03]

you would be missing out on chance to build your roster then.

Ibaka- 24 dieng 21
batum- 25 Leonard 15
afflalo-27. vucevic 16
Ty Lawson 18. Tobias Harris 19
Rondo 21. Farried 22
Lowry 24. Reggie Jackson 24
granger 18. Jimmy butler 30
Greek freek 15

There are others just don't feel like writing more. It's with the picks outside of top 15 is where you can get some gems if you draft the right guy. It's not always easy but I would get rid of my first round pick.

I'd look for my gems in the second round.

 

[rhcuse]

And I don't understand why the NCAA insists that players forfeit their eligibility in order to test the draft. They should allow kids to be drafted and if they don't like the result, return to school no harm done.

Then you might as well only have one round in the draft. Why would a team draft anyone in the second round knowing they are likely screwed with an empty pick when the kid decides to go back to college? If the draftee can opt out there is no protection for the NBA team.

 

[Eagles20]

I'd look for my gems in the second round.

You'd probably be better off just focusing on picking up players in free agency. Most teams could care less about the second round. You will find a lot more gems from 15-25 than in the second round. I'm not saying their have not been solid players in the second round but id rather have a first rd pick.

 

[stuckinbig11]

only draft players named Darko

 

[tbonezone]

my benevolent dictator solution would be for the D1 schools (football and hoops) to establish a conditional 2yr "athletics" degree. the ncaa could devise some minimum course standards to be met. players who commit into any D1 program would be required to stay enrolled for 2 full yrs and upon successful completion may then enter the draft early . any failure to complete said requirements would mean either returning to school (or transferring) to satisfy the curriculum or else leaving school and/or playing overseas. no pro draft status for 1 yr!
those who elect to stay in school could of course could always pursue a traditional 4 yr degree and i would encourage them to do so. perhaps we could also hold the nba lottery draft and nfl 1st round 1 week earlier than the rest. any player who had declared early would then be given the opportunity to opt out and return to school if not selected. chew on that.

 

[Cheriehoop]

I don't understand why player's union is not against the one and done? Serviceable veterans lose their roster spot/paycheck and are out of the league a couple years earlier, so some kid with potential can ride pine or be sent down to the D-league.

That always made me wonder too. How are they protecting the players they supposedly represent who are already in the NBA? Why is the players union supporting high school, college players not in the NBA over the players actually in the union and already in the NBA?

 

[sufandu]

I'd contstantly be trading away my picks. Theoretically, I'd prefer to see the player play more in college because the chances of keeping the one-and-doner long enough to capitalize on the extra 2 or 3 years of his career are slim. My answer is kind of on the fence because I'd only keep top 5 picks (maybe 6 or 7, depending on the draft depth), which would mean I'm picking a one-and-doner most likely.

I'm not sure I was clear in my question. In the "80's" environment there would be no one-and-doner because those kinds of talents would be in college for three years. Judging from the first part of your response I take it you would prefer that.

 

[Brooky03]

I'm not sure I was clear in my question. In the "80's" environment there would be no one-and-doner because those kinds of talents would be in college for three years. Judging from the first part of your response I take it you would prefer that.

Yes

 

[sufandu]

Beyond whether it can be determined more easily if a guy is going to be a bust, is it possible elite talents are more coachable in college, if they know they're staying for more than one year? I've thought there is an element of stubbornness and "you can't teach me anything, I've already made it" that exists in some of the elite talents once they get their pay day. I've thought that a kid in college that's not getting payed is easier to humble and make realize that he doesn't know it all yet. I think some of the 19-20 year old one-and-doners today have immense talent and even skill level but are more reluctant to accept coaching in regards to team concepts (not all), and that stubbornness is reinforced by pressure from management and fans to play a guy that is considered a commodity, whereas a college coach often has more latitude to put a guy in his place until he "get's it."

Does anyone else think this is valid? If so, does that make the "80's" environment more attractive?

 

[pfister1]

Then you might as well only have one round in the draft. Why would a team draft anyone in the second round knowing they are likely screwed with an empty pick when the kid decides to go back to college? If the draftee can opt out there is no protection for the NBA team.

Or maybe you'd need more rounds because teams might not be guaranteed that players they draft even late in the first round would sign, but ultimately one round, two rounds or ten rounds why do I as a fan care? It's up to the teams and scouts to identify talent and figure out how, within whatever system is in place, to sign and develop it.