Avoiding rookie mistakes: Fixing the draft
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

The college basketball season winds down, so NBA draft talk picks up. It's the order of things. Topics of the moment: Should the age limit be raised? Should the lottery be revamped? How "Beastley" will Michael's future be?

Currently unexplored: Should draft picks be able to say "thanks, but no thanks"?

So...let's consider it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth is, despite its pomp, we all know the draft is an anomaly (in some ways, that's what it makes it so much fun). Every other level of basketball, the player's granted some choice: He selects his AAU team and can transfer between high schools. He's wooed throughout the college recruiting process and, with some penalties, changes programs if desired. As a professional, he'll likely weigh a number of offers over his career. Even an undrafted player gets some say over his fate.

But a would-be rookie has to sacrifice at least a year of his NBA career if he doesn't want to sign with the team that selected him--and there's no guarantee that he'll have any more control over the next two drafts, either.


Strong arguments favor the draft: The need to aid struggling franchises, to diffuse talent throughout a league, to see giant men in hideous suits. Minnesota probably wouldn't have gotten Kevin Garnett for a dozen seasons if he could've picked his fate out of high school; ditto for a Karl Malone ending up in Utah, or even a shy Larry Bird going to Boston.

Widespread rookie free agency, meanwhile, could tilt toward the deepest-pocketed franchises--witness baseball, where the best Japanese "rookies" have been signed by the juggernauts in New York and Boston--although the NBA salary cap would mitigate that, somewhat.

But frankly, we're in the camp that teenage phenoms just *might* not know what's best for them. After all, Kwame Brown wanted to go #1--"I won't disappoint you," he told then-GM Michael Jordan, sealing his case--and has spent his entire career failing to live up to expectations that he helped create.

Of course, players can have excellent reasons to hold out. Can we really blame Danny Ferry for trying to escape the disastrous Clippers? Even petulant Steve Francis--who wrongly dismissed Vancouver for being un-liveable--was right that the Grizzlies were a mess.

Thus. We considered possible compromises, no matter how out-of-the-box-and-one. Should the NBA adopt a "Match Day" system? Should Michael Buffer be hired to run a dutch auction? Should NBA teams just turn their front offices over to fantasy basketball players (who clearly, value players more accurately than one-third of the league's GMs).

Here's our simple solution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On draft day, as soon as David Stern announces a team's selection, that player has a window--say, the five minutes until the next pick is made--to decide if he wants to accept his draft position. If so, it's business as usual; otherwise, the player's rights go back into the pool and the drafting team has two minutes to select again.

While this system gives players more choice, they're also accepting some financial risk--unlike today, when a draftee like Francis can get paid at his position and still force a trade. At the top of the NBA lottery, a contract is worth about 10% less for every subsequent draft slot, which translates to multiple millions of lost dollars. Nor would a player who rejected his draft slot be necessarily snapped up by the next team; that second franchise may have their own needs in mind or fear similar rejection. A player could fall--easily, unintentionally, and expensively.

Let's use Yi Jianlian as an example. Famously unhappy when Milwaukee selected him in last year's draft, rumors sprouted that Yi would prefer to play for Sacramento, given the city's location on the West coast and substantial Asian population. Under our system, Yi could've refused Milwaukee's selection at #6--and either refused subsequent selections or been passed over--until Sacramento selected him at #10. But for peace of mind, Yi'd be giving up nearly $3 million (assuming both teams exercised his third- and fourth-year options, as the graphic below indicates) over his rookie deal.



It's possible that, in Yi's case, California's greater endorsement opportunities would make up for his lost salary. Meanwhile, we're all spared a soap opera in Milwaukee; maybe GM Larry Harris actually selects a player who'll save his job.

Sure, the system would force players to make quick, momentous decisions of their own. But each team should have made its pitch weeks before, given that players spend months auditioning to be drafted; now, those auditions go both ways, as teams have a greater onus to convince players that their franchise offers them the best fit.

In some ways, this revisits PhDribble's open question on how teams develop their young players; although their locations may be less desirable than New York City, franchises like Portland and Utah can convincingly argue a track record of cultivating young players, giving them an edge over a dysfunctional team like the Knicks. Organizations would have new incentive to coach up rookies, rather than let them languish on the bench.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There'd have to be some protections against teams whipping around and dealing a player's rights, of course. And maybe the financial discrepancy between picks would need to be further staggered, to prevent against multiple players refusing to be drafted by some undesirable franchise (say, Oklahoma City at no. 16).

But imagine a draft using this system. And let's set aside the qualitative benefits to a player, or the jockeying of teams to convince a top prospect that their franchise is the right fit. Heck, let's even ignore that such a system would mitigate (to some extent) the need to tank; players might consider falling three-or-four extra draft spots to end up with a better team.

Instead, consider the moments after a pick's been announced, with the Green Room camera watching a draftee nervously ponder his decision. The added speculation--Will Derrick Rose accept the Timberwolves at #1 or fall to the Grizzlies at #3? Will anyone draft O.J. Mayo, after he said no to the Pacers at #2?--would push the evening's pure drama to an all-time high.

Sure, the NBA Draft would probably go on all night, as opposed to a relatively speedy four or five hours.

But since when has more NBA Draft been a bad thing?

Labels:

posted by Anonymous @ 22:45, ,


Dan Patrick leaving ESPN?
Tuesday, July 3, 2007

So the blogs are claiming today, as he purportedly will shop a national Syndicated radio show. Explains, perhaps, why Patrick was absent from his usual gig at the NBA Draft.

What's amazing--and possibly, just a giant concidence--is that last week marked the 10th anniversary of Keith Olbermann's departure from SportsCenter (tip of the cap to Awful Announcing). A loss that, quite frankly, I don't think the Big Show has ever recovered from. While Olbermann took some time finding his niche, he's carved out considerable success on MSNBC--and certainly has a better post-SC career than, say, Craig Kilborn.

How can Dan Patrick not itch to similarly branch out?

Labels: , , ,

posted by Crucifictorious @ 15:11, ,


Around the Web...
Saturday, June 30, 2007

From Salon: Anyone can break down the draft, but few do so like King Kaufman.

From Enjoy the Enjoyment: Shawn Kemp central--news about junior, with a few highlights from senior's prime.

From The New York Times: Maybe Mike D'Antoni reads Steve Danley?

From 100% Injury Rate: Everyone loves Barkley. Especially the Chinese, per the video below.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Anonymous @ 20:15, ,


Around the Web...
Friday, June 29, 2007

From Golden State of Mind: Jason Richardson will be missed.

From Sportszilla, All on the Field, and SonicsCentral: Ray Allen, not so much

From Tremendous Upside Potential: Joakim Noah, making new friends everywhere he goes.

From SactownRoyalty: Spencer Hawes might not be the answer.

From The Sporting News: A true class for the ages; NHL's latest Hall-of-Famers all shoo-ins. (Just making sure you're still reading).

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by Crucifictorious @ 16:30, ,


Post-hash post-draft

So, against our long-standing opposition, we seized an opening to participate in a mock draft as the Orlando Magic--a team the We Rite Goode crew wasn't especially attached to, but we liked the cap situation, the opportunity to pan for prospects in the second-round, the Dwight Howard. Also, Orlando was the only team still available.

When our mock draft ran a few days ago, the Magic held two second-round picks--nos. 44 and 54--although the team last night dealt both, mostly for cash considerations (and a no. 60 pick who's already anonymous). We weren't surprised; thanks to our encyclopedic research, it was clear going into the mock draft that the Magic are focusing their attention on Rashard Lewis, Vince Carter, and the inimitable Darko. So just like Otis Smith, we figured that anything the draft could turn up would be gravy; the team seemed thinnest up front, so we prioritized big men.

For the first 40 picks or so, there was litle doing...but when pick #42 came up (and our first selection was just two slots away), this was how our draft board stood:

1) Marcus Williams—SF/SG, Arizona
He didn't quite fit our need for a big, but Williams had too much talent to pass up if he slipped to no. 44. Sure, they call him a "lazy man's Steve Smith," with a game so smooth and silky he lulls himself to sleep. But get a Van Gundy brother in his ear and watch out: Dude may wake up and seize that starting-2 guard spot.

Failing that, we figured it was always good to have trade bait. Maybe Isiah would want another swingman.

2) Kyle Visser—C/PF, Wake Forest

Readers: Know this early and often--we love us some Hollinger. And J-Ho had Kyle as the 15th ranked collegian in his latest, greatest ratings system that sort-of predicts future pro success (Boozer: Called it; Luke Jackson: Err…).

Still, we knew that Visser's no intimidator or great rebounder, although we already had blocks and boards aplenty with Darko* (return pending) and Dwight. And Kyle's an ugly player, all layups and jump hooks with nary a J to befound. But truth be told, we felt a solid big man backing up the D&D boys would look beautiful down in the Magic kingdom.

3) Kyrylo Fesenko, C, Ukraine

We were saying "who?" after discovering him when scouting (aka: reading lots of websites) for second-rounders. But forget the name: Big man (7'1" tall, 9'4" reach) can play. Likely raised with Chernobyl superpowers, Fess is long, quick, and intense. And unintentional comic relief in the locker room.

But we were thinking outside the box. Namely, since the Magic are trying to lure back Darko (we are, which says more about the state of NBA big men than Darko) having a fellow escapee from the yoke of communism couldn't hurt. And there were no Cuban big men to be found.

----------------

Of course, Marcus Williams was immediately snatched up at #42, but we were delighed when Visser at no. 44 and later Fesenko at no. 54 fell to us. A Doleac-type big man for now; a Varajeo clone we can stash in Europe for a few years. Seemed like a pretty decent haul, all things considered.

But little did we know how wrong we were. In the opinion of Awful Announcing, who ran the Great 2007 Blogger's NBA Mock Draft:



Orlando- Kyle Visser, Kyrylo Fesenko
Grade: C+, I'm not sold at all on Visser (unlike Hollinger). He was an
average ACC player in a year that big men domintated. I have no idea who Fesenko
is.



(Now, before biting the hand that fed us, let us express our gratitude to AA for including this little-read, Pets.com of a venture alongside real bloggers. An enjoyable experience. We would do it again, in a second. Although not turn to Safari as our browser of choice.)

That being said...

Like the pre-med student attempting to up his score, we'd like a second review of our mock draft. Although we quibble with Kyle Visser's year--he was third-team All-ACC, not to mention All-Academic!--special exception is saved for the "I don't know of a player" rule to assess a draft. Forsooth, aren't the greatest draft winners those that unearth little-known prospects?

Alas, we were content to let history judge our performance...

...until Fesenko's selection at no. 38--16 slots ahead of where we actually stole him--began winning plaudits. Well, still not from AA. And admittedly, Visser slipped out of the draft. But today, thanks to Billy King's flyer on an unpronouncable Ukranian, we are still self-satisfied.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Anonymous @ 16:24, ,


Around the Web...
Thursday, June 28, 2007

From the Soul of Baseball: One man's take on the AL All-Star starters. No Corey Patterson?

From Slate.com: Kobe and Kevin. Paul Shirley lionizes one, bathes the other in oil. Can you guess which?

From The Wizards of Odds: It's all about the kids...making the old men oodles of money.
From Deadspin: Does anyone feel a draft?

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Crucifictorious @ 18:56, ,


We have become what we hate
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

So we were all set at We Rite Goode to go ahead and lambast the mock draft craze as inexorable, painful, and (generally) a waste of time.

Of course, when we saw the opportunity to be in a blogger mock draft ourselves...well, "threw ourselves at" doesn't do justice to how fast we tried to grab a spot.

Not to be confused with the mock blogger draft--we're still unsure what to make of that--nor an earlier blogger mock draft, Awful Announcing has organized an epic two-round, four-day, 800-blogger extravaganza (well, it just feels that way)...and AA promises an interesting wrinkle when all is said and done.

We're not sure what else we're at liberty to say, other than We Rite Goode is repping Orlando, but plan to return and offer some insight into our mock draft before tomorrow's real draft is done.

You know: why we picked who we did, what the pressure was like in the "war room"...how our witty comments kept getting rejected by the message board.

All the crucial, irrelevant details we know you can't live without!

Labels: ,

posted by Anonymous @ 12:58, ,


Sir, I respectfully disagree
Sunday, June 24, 2007

I'm a little nervous. I've been blogging for all of two weeks, and now I want to call out a much more tenured blog. Is there some sort of protocol to follow? Should I just head to the Heights of Weehawken (which has got some great oxymoranic style going on, by the way) now and get it over with?


If anything, I want to pick on lazy Pedro Cerrano, who's down in Cuba with Jobu and Michael Moore. But now I'm wading into it--albeit, in a polite way--with a heavy hitter like the Realests.

And I know The Realests. I like The Realests. Although he/they aren't friends of ours...and now probably won't be anytime soon.

It's this latest post--Sports Guy's Biggest Draft Blunders--that's got me riled. Kudos for looking...but really, what's the point?

Quoth the Realests:
But after repeatedly stating that Kevin Durant should be the No. 1 overall pick instead of Greg Oden, we can't help but call [Bill Simmons/the Sports Guy] out on some recent draft blunders he's made as an NBA columnist.

Let's just say he wouldn't make a much better GM than Danny Ainge based on his draft diaries from year's past.
The post goes on to lift previous entries by Simmons where he 1) Loves the Adam Morrison pick; 2) Mocks Utah for taking Deron Williams over Chris Paul; 3) Is excited that Joe Forte fell to the Celtics at #21; 4) Calls Orlando dumb for taking Dwight Howard over Emeka Okafor; and 5) In the worst blunder, compares Yao Ming over Jay Williams to Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan, etc.

Ok.

There are some iffy calls--but there's exactly one idiotic one, and that's bashing Yao in favor of J-Will. Simmons is right that Deron Williams is a worse player than Chris Paul; everyone got Morrison wrong; Emeka was the "safe bet" after a few years of bad high school selections (Kwame Brown, anyone?); and messing up at #21 isn't a huge mistake.

So even if the Realests are onto something (more on this in a sec), they make a pretty weak case for it. As others noted in response to the post, if that's the worst he's done in all his years blogging the draft (again, see below), Simmons must have a pretty good track record.

But there's a bigger bone to pick with the Realests: Selectively going through a guy's huge archive of stories to make him look bad. With Simmons, who was putting out 5,000 words three times a week for 10 years and writes volumes on the draft, it's not hard to find something. It took me all of 20 seconds. Keeping in mind the Hollinger rating system--where a PER of 15.00 is considered "average NBA player"--I looked at his 2005 draft blog, where he calls Francisco Garcia and Luther Head the year's two best picks. Err...they were OK, I guess, given that they were late-round selections. But neither can hold a candle to David Lee or Monta Ellis, who were picked even later in the draft and have way outperformed expectations.

However, looking quickly at Simmons' NBA Draft posts, you get the sense that he hits a lot more than he misses. Some say he just spouts the conventional wisdom, but he disagrees with a lot of the "draft experts" and is usually proven right over time. I'll come back later and use his 2004 NBA Draft write-up as an example.

Labels: , ,

posted by Anonymous @ 14:26, ,


link to onlinedegreeadvantage.com
online degree programs guide