What Should Constitute an NBA Rookie?

[jambr380]

With the 'Tatum Youngest Rookie...' thread spiraling in the direction of whether or not Simmons should be considered for the Rookie of the Year award, I thought it would be appropriate to add a new thread with a poll. Right now, option 1 is the rule, but it has certainly become a point of contention in the wake of Simmons fever.

So, should a player who is injured, but with the NBA team who drafted them, or a player who was previously drafted, but played professionally overseas be considered for the award? Or, do you believe that a player is only a true rookie if he was drafted (or declared) in the most recent draft?

There are pretty compelling arguments for both sides in the other thread; however, if the G-League started to take on more of a MLB minor league system look, I would without hesitation choose option #1 since all teams would be on the same footing of drafting and bringing up players when they felt they were ready.

[Donoghus]

I'm actually fine with the status quo as is.

People just have to wrap their heads around the fact that not all rookies are created the same but the ROY trophy isn't indicative of that.  It's just a piece of hardware, anyways. 

[BringToughnessBack]

If they sit out for a year and are around the team and learn from coaches and players, they should not be considered a rookie the following year. They have been in the league for a year, to me, it is cut and dry.

If I was a senior in High School, and the college I was going to gave me permission to sit in with professors and other students the year prior, I would no doubt have a big advantage on knowing the college system vs. someone who never got that right and was coming in blind for the first time.

Experience is not only learned on the court but behind the scenes. Some of the best players in many sports are incredible students of the game and study and learn when not playing with coaches, watching live games and videos. A true rookie has never been exposed to his new teammates or coach, a one year injured player has- This is a big advantage in my eyes.

[tazzmaniac]

There are pretty compelling arguments for both sides in the other thread; however, if the G-League started to take on more of a MLB minor league system look, I would without hesitation choose option #1 since all teams would be on the same footing of drafting and bringing up players when they felt they were ready.

Why don't you think teams are on the same footing now?  All teams can decide when, where and how to play their young players. 

[jambr380]

If they sit out for a year and are around the team and learn from coaches and players, they should not be considered a rookie the following year. They have been in the league for a year, to me, it is cut and dry.

If I was a senior in High School, and the college I was going to gave me permission to sit in with professors and other students the year prior, I would no doubt have a big advantage on knowing the college system vs. someone who never got that right and was coming in blind for the first time.

Experience is not only learned on the court but behind the scenes. Some of the best players in many sports are incredible students of the game and study and learn when not playing with coaches, watching live games and videos. A true rookie has never been exposed to his new teammates or coach, a one year injured player has- This is a big advantage in my eyes.

It would seem to give some advantage. Do you think that injured rookies like Ben Simmons or Blake Griffin are different than a Euro who has been playing in professional leagues, but had been drafted (or attempted to be drafted) at least one year prior to their first year in the NBA (Saric would be an example of the latter)?

[jambr380]

There are pretty compelling arguments for both sides in the other thread; however, if the G-League started to take on more of a MLB minor league system look, I would without hesitation choose option #1 since all teams would be on the same footing of drafting and bringing up players when they felt they were ready.

Why don't you think teams are on the same footing now?  All teams can decide when, where and how to play their young players.

I was specifically speaking to the Rookie of the Year award in reference to injured future superstars - like Simmons/Griffin. Of course teams can decide to send a player to the G-League for the entire season if they so choose (obviously most teams would rather play their high draft pick) so I guess it doesn't really effect them; however, a player like Simmons stands to make a lot of money if he wins the award. This might be considered 'unfair' to a player like Mitchell who didn't have the same advantages Simmons did.

[BringToughnessBack]

If they sit out for a year and are around the team and learn from coaches and players, they should not be considered a rookie the following year. They have been in the league for a year, to me, it is cut and dry.

If I was a senior in High School, and the college I was going to gave me permission to sit in with professors and other students the year prior, I would no doubt have a big advantage on knowing the college system vs. someone who never got that right and was coming in blind for the first time.

Experience is not only learned on the court but behind the scenes. Some of the best players in many sports are incredible students of the game and study and learn when not playing with coaches, watching live games and videos. A true rookie has never been exposed to his new teammates or coach, a one year injured player has- This is a big advantage in my eyes.

It would seem to give some advantage. Do you think that injured rookies like Ben Simmons or Blake Griffin are different than a Euro who has been playing in professional leagues, but had been drafted (or attempted to be drafted) at least one year prior to their first year in the NBA (Saric would be an example of the latter)?

Good question, I think if someone played a form of professional basketball anywhere, they should not be considered a rookie.

[tazzmaniac]

There are pretty compelling arguments for both sides in the other thread; however, if the G-League started to take on more of a MLB minor league system look, I would without hesitation choose option #1 since all teams would be on the same footing of drafting and bringing up players when they felt they were ready.

Why don't you think teams are on the same footing now?  All teams can decide when, where and how to play their young players.

I was specifically speaking to the Rookie of the Year award in reference to injured future superstars - like Simmons/Griffin. Of course teams can decide to send a player to the G-League for the entire season if they so choose (obviously most teams would rather play their high draft pick) so I guess it doesn't really effect them; however, a player like Simmons stands to make a lot of money if he wins the award. This might be considered 'unfair' to a player like Mitchell who didn't have the same advantages Simmons did.

How does Simmons, or anyone, make a lot of money from winning ROY?  He's on a rookie scale contract.  His NBA salary is set. 

[celticsclay]

There are pretty compelling arguments for both sides in the other thread; however, if the G-League started to take on more of a MLB minor league system look, I would without hesitation choose option #1 since all teams would be on the same footing of drafting and bringing up players when they felt they were ready.

Why don't you think teams are on the same footing now?  All teams can decide when, where and how to play their young players.

I was specifically speaking to the Rookie of the Year award in reference to injured future superstars - like Simmons/Griffin. Of course teams can decide to send a player to the G-League for the entire season if they so choose (obviously most teams would rather play their high draft pick) so I guess it doesn't really effect them; however, a player like Simmons stands to make a lot of money if he wins the award. This might be considered 'unfair' to a player like Mitchell who didn't have the same advantages Simmons did.

How does Simmons, or anyone, make a lot of money from winning ROY?  He's on a rookie scale contract.  His NBA salary is set.

For somone that follows the 76ers as close as you I am honestly pretty shocked you don't know this. He has a huge bonus in one of his endorsements for winning it. Most 76ers fans suspect it is part of the reason he didn't play the last month of last season when he was fully healthy (that and tanking).

[celticsclay]

I don't think players that played professionally in other leagues or players that sat out a year should be eligible. There is a huge difference between sleeping in a dorm and going to classes and have limited amount of times you are allowed to practice to having the top doctors, trainers and nutritionists available to you for 15 months before you step on the court in the case of simmons, or years in the case of the euros.

[tazzmaniac]

There are pretty compelling arguments for both sides in the other thread; however, if the G-League started to take on more of a MLB minor league system look, I would without hesitation choose option #1 since all teams would be on the same footing of drafting and bringing up players when they felt they were ready.

Why don't you think teams are on the same footing now?  All teams can decide when, where and how to play their young players.

I was specifically speaking to the Rookie of the Year award in reference to injured future superstars - like Simmons/Griffin. Of course teams can decide to send a player to the G-League for the entire season if they so choose (obviously most teams would rather play their high draft pick) so I guess it doesn't really effect them; however, a player like Simmons stands to make a lot of money if he wins the award. This might be considered 'unfair' to a player like Mitchell who didn't have the same advantages Simmons did.

How does Simmons, or anyone, make a lot of money from winning ROY?  He's on a rookie scale contract.  His NBA salary is set.

For somone that follows the 76ers as close as you I am honestly pretty shocked you don't know this. He has a huge bonus in one of his endorsements for winning it. Most 76ers fans suspect it is part of the reason he didn't play the last month of last season when he was fully healthy (that and tanking).

I have little interest in endorsements or sneaker deals.  Have you actually seen any actual reporting on that huge endorsement bonus or is it just fan rumors?  Bringing Simmons back late last season after Embiid was lost for the season would have been a stupid move by the Sixers.   

[celticsclay]

There are pretty compelling arguments for both sides in the other thread; however, if the G-League started to take on more of a MLB minor league system look, I would without hesitation choose option #1 since all teams would be on the same footing of drafting and bringing up players when they felt they were ready.

Why don't you think teams are on the same footing now?  All teams can decide when, where and how to play their young players.

I was specifically speaking to the Rookie of the Year award in reference to injured future superstars - like Simmons/Griffin. Of course teams can decide to send a player to the G-League for the entire season if they so choose (obviously most teams would rather play their high draft pick) so I guess it doesn't really effect them; however, a player like Simmons stands to make a lot of money if he wins the award. This might be considered 'unfair' to a player like Mitchell who didn't have the same advantages Simmons did.

How does Simmons, or anyone, make a lot of money from winning ROY?  He's on a rookie scale contract.  His NBA salary is set.

For somone that follows the 76ers as close as you I am honestly pretty shocked you don't know this. He has a huge bonus in one of his endorsements for winning it. Most 76ers fans suspect it is part of the reason he didn't play the last month of last season when he was fully healthy (that and tanking).

I have little interest in endorsements or sneaker deals.  Have you actually seen any actual reporting on that huge endorsement bonus or is it just fan rumors?  Bringing Simmons back late last season after Embiid was lost for the season would have been a stupid move by the Sixers.

yea its not speculation. He really has the clause
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2016/06/08/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Simmons-Nike.aspx

Tazz I don't disagree with you that it wasn't beneficial for the 76ers do it last year. I do object to people just making up reasons for why it happened when there are a lot of different possibilities (and all of them probably played a role).

[libermaniac]

If you are under contract, whether you play or not, that should be your rookie year.  Imagine if Simmons pulled a Hayward, injured 5 minutes in, then he would not be a rookie, but if injured in last pre-season game, he's a rookie.  Doesn't make sense.

[Moranis]

There are pretty compelling arguments for both sides in the other thread; however, if the G-League started to take on more of a MLB minor league system look, I would without hesitation choose option #1 since all teams would be on the same footing of drafting and bringing up players when they felt they were ready.

Why don't you think teams are on the same footing now?  All teams can decide when, where and how to play their young players.

I was specifically speaking to the Rookie of the Year award in reference to injured future superstars - like Simmons/Griffin. Of course teams can decide to send a player to the G-League for the entire season if they so choose (obviously most teams would rather play their high draft pick) so I guess it doesn't really effect them; however, a player like Simmons stands to make a lot of money if he wins the award. This might be considered 'unfair' to a player like Mitchell who didn't have the same advantages Simmons did.

How does Simmons, or anyone, make a lot of money from winning ROY?  He's on a rookie scale contract.  His NBA salary is set.

For somone that follows the 76ers as close as you I am honestly pretty shocked you don't know this. He has a huge bonus in one of his endorsements for winning it. Most 76ers fans suspect it is part of the reason he didn't play the last month of last season when he was fully healthy (that and tanking).

I have little interest in endorsements or sneaker deals.  Have you actually seen any actual reporting on that huge endorsement bonus or is it just fan rumors?  Bringing Simmons back late last season after Embiid was lost for the season would have been a stupid move by the Sixers.

yea its not speculation. He really has the clause
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2016/06/08/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Simmons-Nike.aspx

Tazz I don't disagree with you that it wasn't beneficial for the 76ers do it last year. I do object to people just making up reasons for why it happened when there are a lot of different possibilities (and all of them probably played a role).

Assuming that article is accurate, we know that if there is a bonus with Nike it is no more than 1 million dollars because the Nike incentives were less than Adidas and the Adidas bonus was 1 million dollars with a rollover (and his Nike deal clearly doesn't have the rollover portion).  The article you posted as well as the yahoo story it quotes, don't actually confirm he has any bonus in his Nike contract related to the R.O.Y. award, though.  The numbers they use are clearly related to the Adidas contract he turned down, but even assuming there is a million dollar bonus, which isn't chump change, it isn't exactly this gigantic bonus that people have been making it out to be either.

What is made clear is that Ben Simmons turned down a lot more money from Adidas to sign with Nike, which sort of implies it isn't a money issue for him.

Of course that assumes any of that is accurate, which is always a big assumption.  There are other articles which say his Nike contract is worth 20 million and Adidas was offering a similar amount, so who knows what is and is not accurate and what, if any, bonuses are included.

[nickagneta]

Gotta stay the way it is. NBA is now global and different countries have different systems for what they do with their best basketball talent. Is Doncic to be penalized because his country's system of handling their best talent is to send them to play pro as teenagers? That seems pretty ridiculous.

And should American teenagers that decide to play pro ball rather than go to the NCAA also be equally penalized for not taking the road most other Americans take?