Quote Originally Posted by DCwarrior View Post
I don't understand why the players association (at least the players themselves) would be against upping it to 2 or 3 years. They should be all about protecting the rights and increasing the longevity of players currently in the league, not those who may play in the league in the future.

Yes and no. They do have to look out for players who are going to be in the league very shortly. And changing the rules will not have a great effect on current players anyway. Yes, some might get beaten out for a roster spot by someone coming into the league a year or two earlier, but those are few. The players association wants to look out for players, present and future, and that means trying to get as much money out there as possible. There is a big incentive for players to get into the league as early as possible. Whenever a player leaves early, some of the fans complain. It is not fair to the school that recruited him and gave him a chance! We heard some of that when Wade left. Now take your typical NBA player. I do not know what the average career is, but let's say ten years, which might be about right. It is at any rate the longest most players can hope to play. Players' salaries are set and restricted for the first three years, which is why Jimmy Butler is just now looking for a big payday, and was not two years ago. Wesley Matthews OTOH benefited from not being drafted. He was not on a three-year contract, and could sign with whoever he wanted for whatever he could get. So players want to get past that first contract as quickly as they can.

Now figure that the years they are going to lose are not the ones at the beginning of their contract, but the ones at the end. Of course, if a player starts later, his body does not take quite the toll, but age does take its toll, so if a player has to sit out an extra two years before he can start playing, he is probably losing at least one year in the league. And that is a year off his last contract, when minimums go up, when veterans who are nearing retirement are getting overpaid based on past performance, etc. Not always the case. For some players, their last year will be the league minimum as they hang around for another season. But even then, it is the veteran minimum, a lot more than the rookie minimum. So assuming that average career of ten years, a player is looking at perhaps losing ten or twenty percent of his prime earning years. And again, he is probably looking at losing it from the high end of those years. For somebody like DWade or Lebron or Kobe, you have to wonder if it makes much difference. It's Monopoly money. How high can you count? But not necessarily for the guy who does not turn out to be a star, but is good enough to stick around.

The league really pushed for the one-year rule. Too many high school kids turned out to be complete busts. For every Lebron or Kobe, you had the kid who went to Dallas and was bought out before the season started. Lots of kids who got big three year contracts, but did not pan out. the league would love to push that back another year. I do not think the players necessarily do. And besides, it is one more thing for the players to fight about. Another bargaining chip.