So who is more risky to lose in a trade Jamal Crawford or Josh Smith?

[terrell]

Who are these people that hate on high schoolers considering that 3 out of the top 5 MVP candidates are high schoolers and plenty of the lottery picks are "one and doners" who only go to college because they have to. If anything staying in school is actually a detriment to a player's NBA stock as many believe you lack upside. These are actual facts by the way, you are the one having trouble believing them. I already pointed out where Al excels in a previous post in this very thread, you are welcome to dispute it if you like. No I did not go to Florida.

Look it up. I'm sure you'll find some. And they're facts according to you, and you only. Nothing but an opinion to me.

And it was a joke for the last time. Just dont understand all the hate for Smith. But whatever. And btw, why cant high schoolers come out early again??

Edited February 1, 2011 by terrell

[AHF]

And btw, why cant high schoolers come out early again??

I don't think it is as good for the game. You can cite to the Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, etc. type flops of the world, but I think better test cases are Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady and Jermaine O'Neal. These guys have all had outstanding careers and are "success" stories for the HS to pros argument in most cases. I actually view them as failings of the system.

I start with a couple premises all geared towards what makes the NBA a better experience on the court for the fans (i.e., I am not addressing branding or PR issues and the like):

(a) Teams at the top of the lottery should be drafting the best players;

(b) Teams at the top of the lottery should be drafting impact players;

© Teams should minimize the amount of resources they spend developing non-contribution young players with one of their restricted 15 slots;

and

(d) Teams that land an impact player in the draft should be the franchise that gets value from them.

So let's see how these guys play out. Note that I am only looking at guys who were viewed as "top" prospects so they were as known commodities as HSers can get:

(a) The prep to pro players result in less correlation of the neediest teams getting the best prospects. Look at where these impact players were taken:

Kobe Bryant - Taken 13th Overall - Behind Vitaly Potapenko, Samaki Walker, Kerry Kittles, Todd Fuller, Lorenzen Wright, etc.

T-Mac - Taken 9th Overall - Behind Keith Van Horn, Adonal Foyle, Antonio Daniels, Ron Mercer, Tim Thomas and Tony Battie

Jermaine O'Neal - Taken 17th Overall - Behind Vitaly Potapenko, Samaki Walker, Kerry Kittles, Todd Fuller, Lorenzen Wright, Tony Delk, etc.

In each of those drafts, there were at least a half dozen teams that needed a better player much more than the team that ended up with our star-to-be-prep. This increases the failure rate of the draft to serve its intended purpose. Guys like Rashard Lewis are more recent examples. Even in the most recent draft that worked like it should have - i.e., Orlando landed the stud prep player with the top overall pick - preps Josh Smith and Al Jefferson slid way below where they would have gone.

The lack of scouting on the prep players hurts the talent distribution in the league. When you have a franchise player like Kobe, your league is better off when the teams at the top of the draft can get them. I don't know if the bust rate is higher, but it sure looks to me like the "misses" on big-time talents is a lot higher.

(b) T-Mac was a role player for his first years in Toronto. Jermaine was a very limited role player for years in Portland. These big-time NBA studs and they didn't hit the ground running when they joined the league like they would have with 2 years of growth under their belts. I view that as a bad thing. For the fans.

© The flip side of the above point is that teams use up roster spots that could go to higher impact veterans or draft picks because they want to develop these guys - let alone develop preps like Ndudi Ebi. As a fan, you want the highest level of basketball - not time spent getting the training wheels off Jermaine or Kwame.

(d) At least the Lakers got big value out of Kobe over the long haul. Teams that drafted players like Tracy McGrady picked that player, groomed them, and then watched them explode with a different franchise. Had McGrady been more mature when he reached the league, he could have had an impact more like his cousin Vince Carter. He would have been a star in Toronto instead of an up and coming player who became a star somewhere else.

McGrady may be the poster child. This is a guy who is a 7-time All-NBA talent but he didn't even make the All-Star game until he left Toronto. That is an abject failure of the prep to pro model.

[Watchman]

I don't think it is as good for the game. You can cite to the Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, etc. type flops of the world, but I think better test cases are Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady and Jermaine O'Neal. These guys have all had outstanding careers and are "success" stories for the HS to pros argument in most cases. I actually view them as failings of the system.

I start with a couple premises all geared towards what makes the NBA a better experience on the court for the fans (i.e., I am not addressing branding or PR issues and the like):

(a) Teams at the top of the lottery should be drafting the best players;

(b) Teams at the top of the lottery should be drafting impact players;

© Teams should minimize the amount of resources they spend developing non-contribution young players with one of their restricted 15 slots;

and

(d) Teams that land an impact player in the draft should be the franchise that gets value from them.

So let's see how these guys play out. Note that I am only looking at guys who were viewed as "top" prospects so they were as known commodities as HSers can get:

(a) The prep to pro players result in less correlation of the neediest teams getting the best prospects. Look at where these impact players were taken:

Kobe Bryant - Taken 13th Overall - Behind Vitaly Potapenko, Samaki Walker, Kerry Kittles, Todd Fuller, Lorenzen Wright, etc.

T-Mac - Taken 9th Overall - Behind Keith Van Horn, Adonal Foyle, Antonio Daniels, Ron Mercer, Tim Thomas and Tony Battie

Jermaine O'Neal - Taken 17th Overall - Behind Vitaly Potapenko, Samaki Walker, Kerry Kittles, Todd Fuller, Lorenzen Wright, Tony Delk, etc.

In each of those drafts, there were at least a half dozen teams that needed a better player much more than the team that ended up with our star-to-be-prep. This increases the failure rate of the draft to serve its intended purpose. Guys like Rashard Lewis are more recent examples. Even in the most recent draft that worked like it should have - i.e., Orlando landed the stud prep player with the top overall pick - preps Josh Smith and Al Jefferson slid way below where they would have gone.

The lack of scouting on the prep players hurts the talent distribution in the league. When you have a franchise player like Kobe, your league is better off when the teams at the top of the draft can get them. I don't know if the bust rate is higher, but it sure looks to me like the "misses" on big-time talents is a lot higher.

(b) T-Mac was a role player for his first years in Toronto. Jermaine was a very limited role player for years in Portland. These big-time NBA studs and they didn't hit the ground running when they joined the league like they would have with 2 years of growth under their belts. I view that as a bad thing. For the fans.

© The flip side of the above point is that teams use up roster spots that could go to higher impact veterans or draft picks because they want to develop these guys - let alone develop preps like Ndudi Ebi. As a fan, you want the highest level of basketball - not time spent getting the training wheels off Jermaine or Kwame.

(d) At least the Lakers got big value out of Kobe over the long haul. Teams that drafted players like Tracy McGrady picked that player, groomed them, and then watched them explode with a different franchise. Had McGrady been more mature when he reached the league, he could have had an impact more like his cousin Vince Carter. He would have been a star in Toronto instead of an up and coming player who became a star somewhere else.

McGrady may be the poster child. This is a guy who is a 7-time All-NBA talent but he didn't even make the All-Star game until he left Toronto. That is an abject failure of the prep to pro model.

Interesting observations. I might add that teams would be less inclined to select players who end up being busts based on "potential" or "upside" such as our beloved Marvin.

[AHF]

Interesting observations. I might add that teams would be less inclined to select players who end up being busts based on "potential" or "upside" such as our beloved Marvin.

This is possible and would make sense but you still have plenty of busts with older players ala Olowokandi and Joe Barry Carroll. IMO, you clearly miss more on the studs but I'd be interested to see if someone did a more thorough comparison of whether the young guys bust more often - clearly the 2001 draft (Eddy Curry, DeSagana Diop, and others) would be the starting point for anyone trying to make that case.

On the studs, it goes from the earliest prep to pros to the latest. Moses Malone was actually a 3rd round ABA pick when he came out. Shawn Kemp and Josh Smith were both the 17th overall pick, etc. Amare Stoudemire went after Nikoloz Tskitishvili, Chris Wilcox, Dejuan Wagner, Mike Dunleavy, etc. In my unscientific survey, this seems to happen a lot more with the prep guys.

Edited February 1, 2011 by AHF

[MaceCase]

Look it up. I'm sure you'll find some. And they're facts according to you, and you only. Nothing but an opinion to me.

And it was a joke for the last time. Just dont understand all the hate for Smith. But whatever. And btw, why cant high schoolers come out early again??

Still no response on my earlier post, typical. As to the high schoolers argument, sure I could find some that hate them for whatever particular reason usually dealing with such gems as "it sets a bad example for the kids" "or they need to understand the the importance of education" but the decision to increase the age limit for the NBA draft was strictly a business one.

The NCAA benefits from having the top highschool prospects increase their ratings for the year and the NBA benefits by having a minor league develop these players for free all while giving these same prospects wider exposure and therefore making them easier to market in the pros (read: more money). Where's the hate in that?

Schools receive more hype for carrying these "one and doners" as well because fans tune in to watch a future NBA prospect in his "beginnings." Just in the last draft alone 9 of the 14 lottery picks were underclassmen with John Wall headlining them. Where was the preference for guys that stayed in school?

This of course is an entirely bull s*** tangent because it has nothing to do with how a player drafted before the limit's inception is perceived. You are using a "joke" as really a poorly constructed disguise for you not really having an argument outside of your opinion about your favorite player. I posted facts as the first person to respond to your original post where I compared Al and Smoove "basketball wise". You proceeded to respond to everyone after me who quoted you with more of your baseless opinions but never bothered to address my response. I'm amused but I like dancers on the 'Squawk. To stay with your highschooler lolz joke observation, last I checked the Reddicks, Sheldens, Acie Laws, and Hansbroughs are not held to a higher degree than the Kobe's, Amar'es, Dwights, Lebrons, KGs or even Smooves. It seems that if you just so happen to be a better player then you are recognized as a better player. Go figure.

[terrell]

Still no response on my earlier post, typical. As to the high schoolers argument, sure I could find some that hate them for whatever particular reason usually dealing with such gems as "it sets a bad example for the kids" "or they need to understand the the importance of education" but the decision to increase the age limit for the NBA draft was strictly a business one.

The NCAA benefits from having the top highschool prospects increase their ratings for the year and the NBA benefits by having a minor league develop these players for free all while giving these same prospects wider exposure and therefore making them easier to market in the pros (read: more money). Where's the hate in that?

Schools receive more hype for carrying these "one and doners" as well because fans tune in to watch a future NBA prospect in his "beginnings." Just in the last draft alone 9 of the 14 lottery picks were underclassmen with John Wall headlining them. Where was the preference for guys that stayed in school?

This of course is an entirely bull s*** tangent because it has nothing to do with how a player drafted before the limit's inception is perceived. You are using a "joke" as really a poorly constructed disguise for you not really having an argument outside of your opinion about your favorite player. I posted facts as the first person to respond to your original post where I compared Al and Smoove "basketball wise". You proceeded to respond to everyone after me who quoted you with more of your baseless opinions but never bothered to address my response. I'm amused but I like dancers on the 'Squawk. To stay with your highschooler lolz joke observation, last I checked the Reddicks, Sheldens, Acie Laws, and Hansbroughs are not held to a higher degree than the Kobe's, Amar'es, Dwights, Lebrons, KGs or even Smooves. It seems that if you just so happen to be a better player then you are recognized as a better player. Go figure.

My favorite player? lol! When did I say that? Preciate the comments. Just love talking Hawks man. No hard feelings. Edited February 2, 2011 by terrell

[Diesel]

I don't think it is as good for the game. You can cite to the Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, etc. type flops of the world, but I think better test cases are Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady and Jermaine O'Neal. These guys have all had outstanding careers and are "success" stories for the HS to pros argument in most cases. I actually view them as failings of the system.

I start with a couple premises all geared towards what makes the NBA a better experience on the court for the fans (i.e., I am not addressing branding or PR issues and the like):

(a) Teams at the top of the lottery should be drafting the best players;

(b) Teams at the top of the lottery should be drafting impact players;

© Teams should minimize the amount of resources they spend developing non-contribution young players with one of their restricted 15 slots;

and

(d) Teams that land an impact player in the draft should be the franchise that gets value from them.

So let's see how these guys play out. Note that I am only looking at guys who were viewed as "top" prospects so they were as known commodities as HSers can get:

(a) The prep to pro players result in less correlation of the neediest teams getting the best prospects. Look at where these impact players were taken:

Kobe Bryant - Taken 13th Overall - Behind Vitaly Potapenko, Samaki Walker, Kerry Kittles, Todd Fuller, Lorenzen Wright, etc.

T-Mac - Taken 9th Overall - Behind Keith Van Horn, Adonal Foyle, Antonio Daniels, Ron Mercer, Tim Thomas and Tony Battie

Jermaine O'Neal - Taken 17th Overall - Behind Vitaly Potapenko, Samaki Walker, Kerry Kittles, Todd Fuller, Lorenzen Wright, Tony Delk, etc.

In each of those drafts, there were at least a half dozen teams that needed a better player much more than the team that ended up with our star-to-be-prep. This increases the failure rate of the draft to serve its intended purpose. Guys like Rashard Lewis are more recent examples. Even in the most recent draft that worked like it should have - i.e., Orlando landed the stud prep player with the top overall pick - preps Josh Smith and Al Jefferson slid way below where they would have gone.

The lack of scouting on the prep players hurts the talent distribution in the league. When you have a franchise player like Kobe, your league is better off when the teams at the top of the draft can get them. I don't know if the bust rate is higher, but it sure looks to me like the "misses" on big-time talents is a lot higher.

(b) T-Mac was a role player for his first years in Toronto. Jermaine was a very limited role player for years in Portland. These big-time NBA studs and they didn't hit the ground running when they joined the league like they would have with 2 years of growth under their belts. I view that as a bad thing. For the fans.

© The flip side of the above point is that teams use up roster spots that could go to higher impact veterans or draft picks because they want to develop these guys - let alone develop preps like Ndudi Ebi. As a fan, you want the highest level of basketball - not time spent getting the training wheels off Jermaine or Kwame.

(d) At least the Lakers got big value out of Kobe over the long haul. Teams that drafted players like Tracy McGrady picked that player, groomed them, and then watched them explode with a different franchise. Had McGrady been more mature when he reached the league, he could have had an impact more like his cousin Vince Carter. He would have been a star in Toronto instead of an up and coming player who became a star somewhere else.

McGrady may be the poster child. This is a guy who is a 7-time All-NBA talent but he didn't even make the All-Star game until he left Toronto. That is an abject failure of the prep to pro model.

I almost gave you a great big negative for your post. But instead, i offer this:

1. We have seen the system fail numerous time with players who have gone to college. ( Olowakhandi, Foyle, Marvin)

2. We have seen the system fail numberous times with Europlayers. ( Darko, Spitter, Yi, etc).

3. Prep players are probably the most scouted players out. Scouts don't start their work when players are in college? We knew about Lebron and OJ mayo back when they were in grade school. Hell, every Lebron HS senior game seemed like it made it to TV.

4. Your point about Josh and Al Jefferson makes no sense. Are you trying to say that they slid because Howard was drafted first? They slid because people wanted to look at these college players like Harris, Childress, Gordon, Okafor, Jackson, and Araujo. How do you think the GM who took Luke Jackson instead of Josh feels now? Can you imagine James and Smoove on the same team?

5. Do prep players go to different franchises more than college players? I don't think so. I wish they did... then maybe we'd have a shot at Howard. In fact, the only case where that is true is Tmac? Funny thing is Chauncey Billups was not a prep player but he was groomed by two organizations before making his way to Detroit. I think the truth is that using the rules of the CBA, most teams try to hold onto their Prep players because it's a longterm investment... The ones who "wash out" do so because they don't have enough talent or they have psychological issues. But even with that, Eddie Griffin, Isiah Rider and Bison Dele went to college.

The point is that when you consider the prep players that went straight to pro, they have a very good track record overall in comparison to the rest.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Diesel

[terrell]

Sorry fellas. Didnt mean to turn this into a highschool/college thing at all. Just puzzled as to why all the hate for Smith. Only brought up the high school thing because that's the only thing I could think of at the time. lol! And I was being sarcastic when I said it.

[AHF]

I almost gave you a great big negative for your post. But instead, i offer this:

1. We have seen the system fail numerous time with players who have gone to college. ( Olowakhandi, Foyle, Marvin)

The failures I was pointing out were not failures of drafting guys too high. They were failures of drafting guys too low. After two years in college, there is no way Kobe, Josh, Jefferson, etc. are double digit draft picks. Thus, the system isn't allowing proper identification of the future standouts.

2. We have seen the system fail numberous times with Europlayers. ( Darko, Spitter, Yi, etc).

The relative lack of scouting has seen a ton of Euros taken too high as well as some taken dramatically too low - like Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. Euros aren't really relevant to the conversation, though, because you are always going to deal with different rules, different styles, and different levels of competition in Europe that make scouting a challenge there. In the US, all you have to do is compare scouting someone coming out of HS versus after two years of college.

3. Prep players are probably the most scouted players out. Scouts don't start their work when players are in college? We knew about Lebron and OJ mayo back when they were in grade school. Hell, every Lebron HS senior game seemed like it made it to TV.

It is literally impossible that prep players are the most scouted players out. Take any prep player and then add two years of scouting against college talent and you have a MUCH better scouting report. I agree that the system worked in spite of its limitations with Lebron and Dwight. After Kobe won the HS Naismith and Gatorade POY awards and playing with pros like Stackhouse when he was in HS, he wasn't exactly unknown to the basketball world yet teams at the top of the lottery all missed this franchise player because they didn't know to draft him as high as he should have been. After two years of college, Kobe would have been a bigger impact player than he was out of HS and would have been taken by a team that viewed him as a franchise cornerstone. That is superior for fans than a system where he is drafted at the bottom of the lottery or Josh Smith goes 17th overall.

4. Your point about Josh and Al Jefferson makes no sense. Are you trying to say that they slid because Howard was drafted first? They slid because people wanted to look at these college players like Harris, Childress, Gordon, Okafor, Jackson, and Araujo. How do you think the GM who took Luke Jackson instead of Josh feels now? Can you imagine James and Smoove on the same team?

First, I have no idea what you are saying here. Dwight Howard was selected where he should have been. That is an exception to the trend with prep to pro stars - I wasn't arguing some kind of causation between Dwight Howard being in the right spot and other guys going too low. I was saying don't be deceived by the fact that Dwight was picked in the right spot because GMs egregiously missed on Al Jefferson and Josh Smith in the same draft - which is an all too common story with the prep to pro success stories. Fans near the top of the lottery got deprived of having guys who were top of the lottery talents because - like Kobe, like McGrady, like Jermaine O'Neal, like Stephen Jackson, like Al Harrington, like Rashard Lewis, like Amare Stoudemire....they were all drafted too low and I think a major reason was because they were high school kids that teams didn't have the same ability to meaningfully scout like college players. Scoring 40 points against other high school players doesn't mean much - heck, Kelenna Azuibuike scored 38 and 39 point per game his last two seasons in high school.

5. Do prep players go to different franchises more than college players? I don't think so. I wish they did... then maybe we'd have a shot at Howard. In fact, the only case where that is true is Tmac? Funny thing is Chauncey Billups was not a prep player but he was groomed by two organizations before making his way to Detroit. I think the truth is that using the rules of the CBA, most teams try to hold onto their Prep players because it's a longterm investment... The ones who "wash out" do so because they don't have enough talent or they have psychological issues. But even with that, Eddie Griffin, Isiah Rider and Bison Dele went to college.

Billups was traded by multiple organizations. McGrady was desperately wanted by the Toronto Raptors. They made the right call to draft him and did everything they could to keep him but they didn't even get to enjoy one of his 7 All-Star seasons because he was just baking in the oven in Toronto due to the immaturity of his game coming straight from HS. That is a shame for the fans and with two years of maturation before being drafted, McGrady would have gone at the top of the draft and been an impact star for whatever team drafted him. I am saying that is preferable for fans of the game compared to his actual career arc.

The point is that when you consider the prep players that went straight to pro, they have a very good track record overall in comparison to the rest.

You seem to have entirely missed my point about prep to pros. I wasn't arguing they were washout like you seem to suggest. I was arguing that teams didn't identify franchise-type HSers where they would have done so with a few more years of study and that they passed on too many very talented HSers because they didn't understand how good they were and that even when some of these guys became studs they were years into their careers before that happened and we, as fans, enjoy rookies who can step in and play a lot more than those that need years of grooming before they blossom into the stars they are. Please see my insertions above and take another look at my original post.