OT: Korleone Young

[THE HCP]

Some of you guys might remember him. HS star who came out to soon! This is a great article about what happened.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...ife-former-prep-pro-nba-player-korleone-young


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5...FAMS!

 

[jlprk]

I got halfway down the page. Then I decided, what am I doing. I could be memorizing the Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

There is no way of knowing if college would have helped him either. I guess it could not have ended up worse.

 

[crandc]

No alternate universe, but he may have gained a little maturity had he gone to college for a couple of years. Sad that so many realize their wasted talent too late.

 

[Pinwheel1]

It was long, but I found this one statement relevant to our debates every year before the draft:

"Stanley, the agent, also had not heard from Young in years. "The league doesn't draft ready players," he said. "What they do is they develop them. What they look for is, Are you willing to work with me? Are you showing me enough that I can see what the end result looks like?"

Next years draft may have a few more "draft ready" players, but the reality is this statement is becoming more and more true. Hopefully we can identify those players who are willing to work to get better, and hopefully we have the coaches that can help develop them.

 

[Eastoff]

It was long, but I found this one statement relevant to our debates every year before the draft:

"Stanley, the agent, also had not heard from Young in years. "The league doesn't draft ready players," he said. "What they do is they develop them. What they look for is, Are you willing to work with me? Are you showing me enough that I can see what the end result looks like?"

Next years draft may have a few more "draft ready" players, but the reality is this statement is becoming more and more true. Hopefully we can identify those players who are willing to work to get better, and hopefully we have the coaches that can help develop them.

An example of this is Terrence Jones. He exemplifies what you don't want in a player. No work ethic, not a good human being, not ready for the big lights.

 

[THE HCP]

It's just sad......the wrong people get ahold of these kids and just steer them in the wrong direction.

 

[THE HCP]

I just read this last spring and it was a great book. Shows how shady the AAU circuit is and how it (affects/effects) these kids. Highly recommend.

http://www.amazon.com/Play-Their-Hearts-Out-Basketball/dp/0345508610

 

[THE HCP]

I got halfway down the page. Then I decided, what am I doing. I could be memorizing the Encyclopedia Britannica.

That's unfortunate, it was a fantastic article!

 

[Wizard Mentor]

At the age of 18 he had the maturity of an 8 year old. He made MULTIPLE bad decisions. He should have entered the NBA when he had a lot more maturity, and yes a couple of years of college would have really helped. But, as he says in the article, he shouldn't have switched high schools which is where things started really going down hill for him.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

It was long, but I found this one statement relevant to our debates every year before the draft:

"Stanley, the agent, also had not heard from Young in years. "The league doesn't draft ready players," he said. "What they do is they develop them. What they look for is, Are you willing to work with me? Are you showing me enough that I can see what the end result looks like?"

Next years draft may have a few more "draft ready" players, but the reality is this statement is becoming more and more true. Hopefully we can identify those players who are willing to work to get better, and hopefully we have the coaches that can help develop them.

I dunno. I think the draft has become a little bit less like that. There were guys jumping from HS to the pros who were dropping into the 2nd round, if they were even drafted. Guys that showed enough potential but were not ready for the NBA were being drafted just because they looked like they had potential, and since they were only 17-18, who knew what their ceiling was? I kinda feel like the college rule has exposed guys that would have made the prep-to-pros jump, and when they were playing higher competition as a freshman in college, people weren't as high on them, and they'd have to stay in school.

 

[Draco]

Not allowing HS kids in the draft has been great. Teams can make much better choices with the additional information one year of college provides. We don't have Kwame Browns or Martell Websters anymore. I do hope the NBA can change the policy to two years, it'll again improve the evaluation of prospects that much more. It'll probably help the college game more than the pros since there won't be one and done guys.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I dunno. I think the draft has become a little bit less like that. There were guys jumping from HS to the pros who were dropping into the 2nd round, if they were even drafted. Guys that showed enough potential but were not ready for the NBA were being drafted just because they looked like they had potential, and since they were only 17-18, who knew what their ceiling was? I kinda feel like the college rule has exposed guys that would have made the prep-to-pros jump, and when they were playing higher competition as a freshman in college, people weren't as high on them, and they'd have to stay in school.

True the one year rule has helped. But look at the top 15 players in this year's draft and tell me how many are ready to play this year.
http://www.nba.com/draft/

Granted it may too soon to tell for sure, so look at last years as well:
http://www.nba.com/draft/2012/

Maybe 1/3 of the top 15 players were ready?

It's just the reality of the draft these days. To me it is like college football. A few players are ready to play as true freshmen, but the rest really need a year or two to develop. So you better have the right staff in place to teach them, or you might as well trade the picks or only draft Juniors and Seniors who have been better coached.

 

[Eastoff]

Not allowing HS kids in the draft has been great. Teams can make much better choices with the additional information one year of college provides. We don't have Kwame Browns or Martell Websters anymore. I do hope the NBA can change the policy to two years, it'll again improve the evaluation of prospects that much more. It'll probably help the college game more than the pros since there won't be one and done guys.

 

[THE HCP]

Wondering how all those teenagers do when they play in the NHL. Is there failure rate just as high? Does that 3rd world sport just not register as much or might there be a racial twist?

 

[Pinwheel1]

Wondering how all those teenagers do when they play in the NHL. Is there failure rate just as high? Does that 3rd world sport just not register as much or might there be a racial twist?

It's not that the kids need to go to college, but they need to go somewhere before the NBA. Not sure how many teenagers play in the NHL, (since I do not follow it) but I remember going to Winter Hawk games and being amazed at how young they were. The minor leagues in Baseball and Hockey are much better than playing BB at Grant

 

[THE HCP]

You just never here people bitch about Steve Wilson who's 17 and is from a farm in Alberta not panning out. Just wondering if the hockey fans on here know if there is the same stories in their sport.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

True the one year rule has helped. But look at the top 15 players in this year's draft and tell me how many are ready to play this year.
http://www.nba.com/draft/

Granted it may too soon to tell for sure, so look at last years as well:
http://www.nba.com/draft/2012/

Maybe 1/3 of the top 15 players were ready?

It's just the reality of the draft these days. To me it is like college football. A few players are ready to play as true freshmen, but the rest really need a year or two to develop. So you better have the right staff in place to teach them, or you might as well trade the picks or only draft Juniors and Seniors who have been better coached.

I dunno. I think more than that are NBA-ready, they just have some serious developing to do to be more than bench players. If you read the rest of the article, it briefly touches on how the one-year rule has helped, and throughout it's pretty clear everyone feels the one-year rule would have helped Young. I think the one-year rule really changes the projected trajectory for a lot of players. Over the last few years, I've noticed several players that were highly-rated, but not at the top of their high school class, shoot up and surpass a lot of guys that were higher ranked coming out of high school. Some guys dominate at one level, but not the next. Having to go to college for a single year helps clear some of that air.

Malik Hairston was considering going from the preps to pros. He was considered a lock as a first-rounder. He chose college, and he ended up staying four years. He was drafted mid/late second round. He'd arguably have had more chances in the NBA out of high school, simply because of potential. Teams will ALWAYS draft on potential. That's the point - generally, you want to draft the guys with the highest ceiling (but you have to balance that out with the odds of reaching the ceiling or a certain talent-level). Generally, the one-year rule forces players to develop a bit more while exposing players' weaknesses and strengths better than skipping college.

 

[Draco]

Well its not possible to protect idiot decision makers from themselves. Jordan also took Kwame #1. Most educated basketball fans had serious doubts with Morrison just like the majority of rational football fans see the drawbacks of Tim Tebow.

There will always be mistakes in the draft as its an imperfect science but an extra year of information against improved competition helps a lot. The one an done rule also moves a years worth of players, 60 guys, from NBA rosters to college rosters. So more players on NBA rosters are ready to play today and fewer players are sitting there being taught the basics.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I dunno. I think more than that are NBA-ready, they just have some serious developing to do to be more than bench players. If you read the rest of the article, it briefly touches on how the one-year rule has helped, and throughout it's pretty clear everyone feels the one-year rule would have helped Young. I think the one-year rule really changes the projected trajectory for a lot of players. Over the last few years, I've noticed several players that were highly-rated, but not at the top of their high school class, shoot up and surpass a lot of guys that were higher ranked coming out of high school. Some guys dominate at one level, but not the next. Having to go to college for a single year helps clear some of that air.

Malik Hairston was considering going from the preps to pros. He was considered a lock as a first-rounder. He chose college, and he ended up staying four years. He was drafted mid/late second round. He'd arguably have had more chances in the NBA out of high school, simply because of potential. Teams will ALWAYS draft on potential. That's the point - generally, you want to draft the guys with the highest ceiling (but you have to balance that out with the odds of reaching the ceiling or a certain talent-level). Generally, the one-year rule forces players to develop a bit more while exposing players' weaknesses and strengths better than skipping college.

Everything you said is pretty much accurate. One year of College helps the gM's evaluate the players better.

But it does not change the fact that in today's NBA, if you want to get better through the draft, then you will often have to take a chance on a young player who has a high ceiling as you mentioned, and then be willing to develop him. That was my whole point. Players are not as fundamentally sound, from either playing one year or no years, in college.

Let's use Ben McLemore as an example. He is not ready to play big minutes. (Although he will) He needed one more year at Kansas. But you still have to take him because he has a HUGE upside. But again, you have to have a staff that can teach him how to play the right way. That is all I am saying. Things have changed. You actually have to teach/develop young players and many ex-nba players who become head coaches don't know how. So their assistants better know how.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Everything you said is pretty much accurate. One year of College helps the gM's evaluate the players better.

But it does not change the fact that in today's NBA, if you want to get better through the draft, then you will often have to take a chance on a young player who has a high ceiling as you mentioned, and then be willing to develop him. That was my whole point. Players are not as fundamentally sound, from either playing one year or no years, in college.

Let's use Ben McLemore as an example. He is not ready to play big minutes. (Although he will) He needed one more year at Kansas. But you still have to take him because he has a HUGE upside. But again, you have to have a staff that can teach him how to play the right way. That is all I am saying. Things have changed. You actually have to teach/develop young players and many ex-nba players who become head coaches don't know how. So their assistants better know how.

Well, yeah. I guess that was common knowledge for the last 2 decades (that is not to come off as a dick), so I guess I didn't understand your point. I mean, when I look through the last several drafts, you have guys throughout much of the draft that put up similar numbers, nothing that necessarily makes anyone stand out. But some of the guys are seniors, some are freshmen (some are foreigners), some play lesser talent versus player tougher talent. But some guys are fundamentally sound and put up the numbers they do while other guys look terrible at times, yet still put up their numbers. So the thinking is get them to cut their mistakes and reach their potential, and they'll be studs. And if you fail to get them to cut the mistakes and grow as a player, then they're weaknesses are exploited and they just continue to show flashes while never putting it together (like Travis Outlaw - though his issue was mostly in his head/brain). I think we pretty much agree. I just think the NBA went through this period where they overdid the youth/potential, and now the pendulum is swinging back where we're not drafting "more and more" non-NBA ready players. More NBA-ready guys are being drafted than a few years back, but still far less than a few decades ago.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

I think for a lot of these guys it is not going to matter whether they went to college or not. They have to want to work. If Young had worked to improve in Detroit, they would have kept him. I think comparisons could be made between Young and Lance Stevenson. Lance probably learned little about working on his game the one year he went to Cincinnati. However, Bird took a chance on him and put him in the right situation to mature. I still would not trust him enough to give him big money, but the Pacers were certainly helped by his play last year. The one year of college did not do much for Michael Beasley either.

A huge amount of the fault also has to go to his parents.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I think for a lot of these guys it is not going to matter whether they went to college or not. They have to want to work. If Young had worked to improve in Detroit, they would have kept him. I think comparisons could be made between Young and Lance Stevenson. Lance probably learned little about working on his game the one year he went to Cincinnati. However, Bird took a chance on him and put him in the right situation to mature. I still would not trust him enough to give him big money, but the Pacers were certainly helped by his play last year. The one year of college did not do much for Michael Beasley either.

A huge amount of the fault also has to go to his parents.

Yes, but I think college causes some of the negatives to shake out. A lot of people were scared by Beasley after his year in college. But many felt his potential was so great that you had to take him at number two. He's underachieving for what he could have been, and he's a knucklehead, but he's still having a better career than most that make it to the NBA.

It's never going to be an exact science. Sometimes that year of college (or more) is going to expose players, sometimes it won't. There will always be busts. But in the long run, forcing players to go to college at least one year is, without a doubt, better for the NBA and for the players.

 

[Draco]

Let's use Ben McLemore as an example. He is not ready to play big minutes. (Although he will) He needed one more year at Kansas. But you still have to take him because he has a HUGE upside. But again, you have to have a staff that can teach him how to play the right way. That is all I am saying. Things have changed. You actually have to teach/develop young players and many ex-nba players who become head coaches don't know how. So their assistants better know how.

Yeah you have some good points. I tend to think there is less development nowdays than years ago. There aren’t any high school guys that need multiple years of practice like Jermaine Oneal or Tracy McGrady.

With the new salary cap I think the smart GM’s will change the strategy of shooting for home run potential. Lets say a guy like McLemore has no business playing this year, well he probably will be an average player next year. Maybe he becomes a good player in his 4th year. At that time his rookie contract will be ending, so if he is beginning to develop into a stud a team has to pay him a max contract to keep him. Then when he’s on a max contract the team doesn’t have the resources to surround him with as many other quality players.

It used to not matter as much if a team had to give players these raises after their rookie contract since the team held his bird rights. Teams could collect as many studs as they wanted and have the bird rights to keep them all. That just isn’t the case anymore with todays NBA. Now the main value of draft picks is that they are on a small rookie salary while their production exceeds their cost. Drafting projects players or guys with high ceilings robs a team of that beneficial value.

Yes if you have all-star potential some team will put you on their roster, so its not as if these players will be out of the league. But a guy who used to be taken #2 like Marvin Williams might drop to #4. A guy who teams would take at #18 might drop to the second round. I think that will be good for the league. Also having more of the projects in college or oversees instead of sucking up a roster space and practice time from NBA ready players would be a good thing.

 

[jlprk]

An example of this is Terrence Jones. He exemplifies what you don't want in a player. No work ethic, not a good human being, not ready for the big lights.

The supposedly best GM in the NBA, Morey, had picks 12, 16, and 18 in 2012. He drafted Lamb, Royce Williams, and Terrence Jones. They played a combined 423 minutes as rookies.

That's unfortunate, it was a fantastic article!

I give up. I'll read the other half.