Around the League News - 2022 Offseason Edition

[TOO]

Kemba's cooked guys. He's a smaller guard, doesn't defend and isn't a great 3pt shooter. Just because he's a "name", doesn't mean we should be signing him.

He's still better than Payne as a backup PG.

Statistically, they were pretty much a wash last year, he's not going to add anything that Payne doesn't already do.

[Split T]

Kemba's cooked guys. He's a smaller guard, doesn't defend and isn't a great 3pt shooter. Just because he's a "name", doesn't mean we should be signing him.

He's still better than Payne as a backup PG.

Kemba lost his PG job to a SG.

You talking in Boston? Smart may be a SG, but he’s a very good G…and we’re not talking about a starting position. It’s to compete with Payne for backup pg. I don’t think anyone is thinking he’s the same player, but even in his lesser state last year he was still better than Payne. We may bring him in and find out he’s washed, but I don’t think it hurts to try. I’m also not going to be upset if we don’t sign him.

[Indy]

Kemba's cooked guys. He's a smaller guard, doesn't defend and isn't a great 3pt shooter. Just because he's a "name", doesn't mean we should be signing him.

He's still better than Payne as a backup PG.

Kemba lost his PG job to a SG.

You talking in Boston? Smart may be a SG, but he’s a very good G…and we’re not talking about a starting position. It’s to compete with Payne for backup pg. I don’t think anyone is thinking he’s the same player, but even in his lesser state last year he was still better than Payne. We may bring him in and find out he’s washed, but I don’t think it hurts to try. I’m also not going to be upset if we don’t sign him.

No, last year. He lost his job to Alec Burks.

And I get that we are talking about him competing for backup PG minutes, but I just don't see how he could help. He couldn't run on offense in NY and now Detroit cuts him before the season even starts. His defense might be the worst on the team, and the last thing we need is another tiny guard.

[Split T]

Did he lose his job or get hurt? He never came off the bench at all. Detroit is rebuilding and has no interest in him. I don’t think they’re cutting him because he can’t play. Maybe he can’t, but I don’t think his numbers indicate he’s definitely done.

[Indy]

Did he lose his job or get hurt? He never came off the bench at all. Detroit is rebuilding and has no interest in him. I don’t think they’re cutting him because he can’t play. Maybe he can’t, but I don’t think his numbers indicate he’s definitely done.

I thought I read that he was benched and he wasn't happy coming off the bench so he didn't play anymore.

[INFORMER]

I think "why are you taking away the rights of a certain group of people" is always the right question to ask. I am not worried about protecting billionaire owners from making a stupid draft selection to the point where we should be forcing these adults to go let the NCAA exploit them. If you have a marketable skill and you are a consenting adult, you should be able to market that skill.

I just don't understand this argument. I always find it over the top. The NBA is a company that says its product and work place is better off with employees that are at least one year removed from high school.

I don't see that as any different from required a GED, or a Bachelor's, or a graduate degree.

Is there any evidence that the NBA is more profitable when they force men to go to college for a year before employing them?

Force? Stop it. First, let's stop acting like playing a year of college basketball is this torturous experience, especially with the advancements on the NIL front. Secondly, let's stop acting like that is the only option. There is the G-League. There is working abroad (and those opportunities are very lucrative).

Third, let's stop acting like it's an inalienable right to be able to work in the NBA immediately out of high school.

It doesn't have to be proved that the NBA is more profitable asking prospective employees to be a year removed from high school.

It is extremely rare for a high schooler to make an impact in their first year. LeBron did it. Amare did it. KG is debatable. Dwight did it. But teams weren't better having Kobe, T-Mac, Jermaine O'Neal, Al Jefferson, etc. be non-contributors in their first year. From a business standpoint, if I can avoid paying a non-productive employee for a year and get them to bring more experience to the job, that is a benefit.

[Split T]

Did he lose his job or get hurt? He never came off the bench at all. Detroit is rebuilding and has no interest in him. I don’t think they’re cutting him because he can’t play. Maybe he can’t, but I don’t think his numbers indicate he’s definitely done.

I thought I read that he was benched and he wasn't happy coming off the bench so he didn't play anymore.

They did already have Rose off the bench, so really no need for him anyways if Burks took his spot

[Indy]

I think "why are you taking away the rights of a certain group of people" is always the right question to ask. I am not worried about protecting billionaire owners from making a stupid draft selection to the point where we should be forcing these adults to go let the NCAA exploit them. If you have a marketable skill and you are a consenting adult, you should be able to market that skill.

I just don't understand this argument. I always find it over the top. The NBA is a company that says its product and work place is better off with employees that are at least one year removed from high school.

I don't see that as any different from required a GED, or a Bachelor's, or a graduate degree.

Is there any evidence that the NBA is more profitable when they force men to go to college for a year before employing them?

Force? Stop it. First, let's stop acting like playing a year of college basketball is this torturous experience, especially with the advancements on the NIL front. Secondly, let's stop acting like that is the only option. There is the G-League. There is working abroad (and those opportunities are very lucrative).

Third, let's stop acting like it's an inalienable right to be able to work in the NBA immediately out of high school.

It doesn't have to be proved that the NBA is more profitable asking prospective employees to be a year removed from high school.

It is extremely rare for a high schooler to make an impact in their first year. LeBron did it. Amare did it. KG is debatable. Dwight did it. But teams weren't better having Kobe, T-Mac, Jermaine O'Neal, Al Jefferson, etc. be non-contributors in their first year. From a business standpoint, if I can avoid paying a non-productive employee for a year and get them to bring more experience to the job, that is a benefit.

That is the difference. You are looking at it from an owners' perspective, and I am looking at it from the workers' perspective.

[INFORMER]

Kemba's cooked guys. He's a smaller guard, doesn't defend and isn't a great 3pt shooter. Just because he's a "name", doesn't mean we should be signing him.

He is fine. Bringing him in to be insurance behind CP3 and Payne isn't asking a lot. He dropped 44 in a game last year. We wouldn't be asking him to play 30 minutes a night and be a starter. He can come in, handle the ball, score a little.

[INFORMER]

Kemba's cooked guys. He's a smaller guard, doesn't defend and isn't a great 3pt shooter. Just because he's a "name", doesn't mean we should be signing him.

He's still better than Payne as a backup PG.

Kemba lost his PG job to a SG.

Eh. Burks can fill it up from 3 and handle the ball. With Julius Randle and RJ Barrett, that is a better fit than a point guard that likes to create off the dribble.

[Indy]

you think he could start and run the offense for 20 games if Paul is out?

[INFORMER]

That is the difference. You are looking at it from an owners' perspective, and I am looking at it from the workers' perspective.

That's fine; my interest is in NBA basketball, not trying to get a teenager paid a year earlier. It doesn't improve my experience as a consumer, and it doesn't help my team. And I don't think it is a crime against humanity to ask a teenager to wait a year to enter the NBA.

And I don't think a business should make decisions that don't benefit the company and/or product or current employees to accommodate a handful of prospective employees on a yearly basis.

[INFORMER]

you think he could start and run the offense for 20 games if Paul is out?

I would probably start Cam Payne ahead of him, but I would like having Kemba there for when Payne gets hurt or is playing poorly.

[INFORMER]

Good move.

[Superbone]

I think "why are you taking away the rights of a certain group of people" is always the right question to ask. I am not worried about protecting billionaire owners from making a stupid draft selection to the point where we should be forcing these adults to go let the NCAA exploit them. If you have a marketable skill and you are a consenting adult, you should be able to market that skill.

I just don't understand this argument. I always find it over the top. The NBA is a company that says its product and work place is better off with employees that are at least one year removed from high school.

I don't see that as any different from required a GED, or a Bachelor's, or a graduate degree.

Is there any evidence that the NBA is more profitable when they force men to go to college for a year before employing them?

Force? Stop it. First, let's stop acting like playing a year of college basketball is this torturous experience, especially with the advancements on the NIL front. Secondly, let's stop acting like that is the only option. There is the G-League. There is working abroad (and those opportunities are very lucrative).

Third, let's stop acting like it's an inalienable right to be able to work in the NBA immediately out of high school.

It doesn't have to be proved that the NBA is more profitable asking prospective employees to be a year removed from high school.

It is extremely rare for a high schooler to make an impact in their first year. LeBron did it. Amare did it. KG is debatable. Dwight did it. But teams weren't better having Kobe, T-Mac, Jermaine O'Neal, Al Jefferson, etc. be non-contributors in their first year. From a business standpoint, if I can avoid paying a non-productive employee for a year and get them to bring more experience to the job, that is a benefit.

Plus, the earlier you draft them, the less you know about them and the potential for more busts increases. And believe me, I'm all about bust increases.

[Superbone]

I think "why are you taking away the rights of a certain group of people" is always the right question to ask. I am not worried about protecting billionaire owners from making a stupid draft selection to the point where we should be forcing these adults to go let the NCAA exploit them. If you have a marketable skill and you are a consenting adult, you should be able to market that skill.

I just don't understand this argument. I always find it over the top. The NBA is a company that says its product and work place is better off with employees that are at least one year removed from high school.

I don't see that as any different from required a GED, or a Bachelor's, or a graduate degree.

Is there any evidence that the NBA is more profitable when they force men to go to college for a year before employing them?

Force? Stop it. First, let's stop acting like playing a year of college basketball is this torturous experience, especially with the advancements on the NIL front. Secondly, let's stop acting like that is the only option. There is the G-League. There is working abroad (and those opportunities are very lucrative).

Third, let's stop acting like it's an inalienable right to be able to work in the NBA immediately out of high school.

It doesn't have to be proved that the NBA is more profitable asking prospective employees to be a year removed from high school.

It is extremely rare for a high schooler to make an impact in their first year. LeBron did it. Amare did it. KG is debatable. Dwight did it. But teams weren't better having Kobe, T-Mac, Jermaine O'Neal, Al Jefferson, etc. be non-contributors in their first year. From a business standpoint, if I can avoid paying a non-productive employee for a year and get them to bring more experience to the job, that is a benefit.

That is the difference. You are looking at it from an owners' perspective, and I am looking at it from the workers' perspective.

And that's where the discrepancy lies. I can see both sides.

[Superbone]

Kemba's cooked guys. He's a smaller guard, doesn't defend and isn't a great 3pt shooter. Just because he's a "name", doesn't mean we should be signing him.

He is fine. Bringing him in to be insurance behind CP3 and Payne isn't asking a lot. He dropped 44 in a game last year. We wouldn't be asking him to play 30 minutes a night and be a starter. He can come in, handle the ball, score a little.

This is just dying for an Archie Goodwin response.

[Aztec Sunsfan]

I think "why are you taking away the rights of a certain group of people" is always the right question to ask. I am not worried about protecting billionaire owners from making a stupid draft selection to the point where we should be forcing these adults to go let the NCAA exploit them. If you have a marketable skill and you are a consenting adult, you should be able to market that skill.

I just don't understand this argument. I always find it over the top. The NBA is a company that says its product and work place is better off with employees that are at least one year removed from high school.

I don't see that as any different from required a GED, or a Bachelor's, or a graduate degree.

Is there any evidence that the NBA is more profitable when they force men to go to college for a year before employing them?

Force? Stop it. First, let's stop acting like playing a year of college basketball is this torturous experience, especially with the advancements on the NIL front. Secondly, let's stop acting like that is the only option. There is the G-League. There is working abroad (and those opportunities are very lucrative).

Third, let's stop acting like it's an inalienable right to be able to work in the NBA immediately out of high school.

It doesn't have to be proved that the NBA is more profitable asking prospective employees to be a year removed from high school.

It is extremely rare for a high schooler to make an impact in their first year. LeBron did it. Amare did it. KG is debatable. Dwight did it. But teams weren't better having Kobe, T-Mac, Jermaine O'Neal, Al Jefferson, etc. be non-contributors in their first year. From a business standpoint, if I can avoid paying a non-productive employee for a year and get them to bring more experience to the job, that is a benefit.

That is the difference. You are looking at it from an owners' perspective, and I am looking at it from the workers' perspective.

The workers perspective would be from those currently playing on the NBA, and this is not a free labor market, the salary agreement is between a cartel and a syndicate, of course it have a lot of details against free economy. The players (specially stars) leave a lot of money on the table in exchange of security among other concessions. Current workers would lose their spots in favor of those teenagers, what is the incentive of letting this happen, from the current workers perspective? Not so different from a syndicate asking for the right of First Option on a open vacancy.

And I would highlight Informer's second point, there are working opportunities besides the NBA, and will add, how different is to ask one year of organized basketball under your belt, from the practices asked to health workers, to say one example?

And beyond the entry barrier, on the everyday life within a team, for every Jermaine (I will leave out the Lebrons) there were lots of busted experiments, and both sides had to deal with having underprepared, likely inmature (physical and psychological) people taking spots from veterans that could be useful at least as practice bodies. It's not a surprise both sides look at the experiment as an overall failure.

[Indy]

I always come down on the worker side, not the billionaire owner.

[Indy]

you think he could start and run the offense for 20 games if Paul is out?

I would probably start Cam Payne ahead of him, but I would like having Kemba there for when Payne gets hurt or is playing poorly.

If you could only have one going into the season, which one? I am not sure Kemba is better right now, but it could be the situation he was in. And I guess it depends on if you are getting Cam Payne of 6 months ago, or 15 months ago.