The NBA continues to sicken me
Marvin Williams, the UNC freshman, is likely to make the jumpt to the NBA. Some scouts are calling him a potential number two or three pick.
This kind of idiocy is emblematic of what's wrong with the way the NBA is run. Marvin had, what, eight points in the title game? Yet he'll go above Sean May? The NBA GMs obsession with "upside," with physical features and speed above talent is just insane. If you draft a high schooler, you're first of all taking a huge gamble on whether he'll turn into a superstar of the Garnett-Kobe-Lebron variety. But even if that does in fact happen, he'll probably only really add value to your team in the final year of his initial rookie contract (except for Lebron, but he is such an exception it doesn't make sense to bring him up). So in essence, you are taking a huge risk in order to play an incompetent player for several years, just so he _might_ turn into a superstar who you _might_ be able to re-sign after four years. Wouldn't all that effort be better spent just trying to sign emerging superstars as they get out of their rookie contracts? Rather than wasting fans' time, forcing them to watch these teenagers struggle to compete.
MLB has it figured out--if you're intrigued by a pitcher's velocity, you draft him and put him in your minor league system. There he gets a chance to develop, and if he turns out to be good, you bring him up. You get six years of his service for developing him, and fans aren't forced to watch untrained bunglers try to play the game at the highest level. Dear God, will the next commissioner figure this out?
This kind of idiocy is emblematic of what's wrong with the way the NBA is run. Marvin had, what, eight points in the title game? Yet he'll go above Sean May? The NBA GMs obsession with "upside," with physical features and speed above talent is just insane. If you draft a high schooler, you're first of all taking a huge gamble on whether he'll turn into a superstar of the Garnett-Kobe-Lebron variety. But even if that does in fact happen, he'll probably only really add value to your team in the final year of his initial rookie contract (except for Lebron, but he is such an exception it doesn't make sense to bring him up). So in essence, you are taking a huge risk in order to play an incompetent player for several years, just so he _might_ turn into a superstar who you _might_ be able to re-sign after four years. Wouldn't all that effort be better spent just trying to sign emerging superstars as they get out of their rookie contracts? Rather than wasting fans' time, forcing them to watch these teenagers struggle to compete.
MLB has it figured out--if you're intrigued by a pitcher's velocity, you draft him and put him in your minor league system. There he gets a chance to develop, and if he turns out to be good, you bring him up. You get six years of his service for developing him, and fans aren't forced to watch untrained bunglers try to play the game at the highest level. Dear God, will the next commissioner figure this out?
posted by D at 4:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home