Vander Does Well In D League All Star Game

[Herman Cain]

Vander did well in the D League All Star game.  Also Fox is doing a nice job of promoting Marquette Basketball via this web article. That is one of the advantages of our relationship with Fox, they have a vested interest in promoting Marquette and others in the Big East.

http://www.foxsports.com/wisconsin/story/vander-blue-marquette-golden-eagles-nba-developmental-league-all-star-game-021316

[mileskishnish72]

Good research, they think VB is a "Milwaukee native."

[Litehouse]

Good research, they think VB is a "Milwaukee native."

He was born in Milwaukee.  I'm not sure how old he was when he moved, but I think that still qualifies him as a native.

[Daniel]

Good numbers for the year. Hope he gets picked up.

[tompopsicle]

Good research, they think VB is a "Milwaukee native."

And good editing...

"...as the East NBA Development League All-Stars lost to the West team in Toronto."


"The West team lost 128-124 to the East team, which Jimmer Fredette led with 35 points."

[brewcity77]

And good editing...

"...as the East NBA Development League All-Stars lost to the West team in Toronto."


"The West team lost 128-124 to the East team, which Jimmer Fredette led with 35 points."

Everyone playing in the D-League All Star Game is a loser.

Pretty sure Vander led the West in scoring in the losing effort. Jimmer Fredette was MVP for the winning East team. Really hope Van gets another shot, though if it doesn't work, maybe Europe would be better. Likely more money playing overseas.

[Goose]

I respect Vander chasing the NBA dream over the sure thing in Europe. If ultimately he ends up in the show I would be very happy for him. The kid is old school and rolling the dice on real score.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I respect Vander chasing the NBA dream over the sure thing in Europe. If ultimately he ends up in the show I would be very happy for him. The kid is old school and rolling the dice on real score.

Shame he didn't have to roll the dice at all.  Really poor advice.

[The Lens]

He's been bouncing around the NBDL & 15th man on NBA teams for 3 years. He's been working on basketball for 12 months a year, with no distractions.  And yet he's still bouncing.   So why was it bad advice?  What would 1 more year at Marquette accomplished aside from making us fans happy?  Vander's an undersized scorer.   1 more year of MU wasn't going to solve that problem.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

The same draft gurus that are saying Henry will be top 10, are also the same ones that said Vander should have stayed one more year and would have been drafted.  The sad part, with the way college athletics are, all he had to do was go one semester, then enroll for second semester and basically mail it in.

[GGGG]

The same draft gurus that are saying Henry will be top 10, are also the same ones that said Vander should have stayed one more year and would have been drafted.  The sad part, with the way college athletics are, all he had to do was go one semester, then enroll for second semester and basically mail it in.

I don't recall draft gurus saying that he "would have been drafted" had he stayed another year.

In retrospect it is very doubtful that would have occurred.  There is nothing to indicate that he would have improved that much his last year at MU to stick in the NBA considering he hasn't improved enough since then.  I hope he is saving his money and has a plan for the future.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Vander might have been one of the situations where staying an extra year would have increased his draft stock. Vander is too small to be an NBA SG but had never played PG before. If Vander had stayed I think he would have been the PG the following year. If he had done well, it might have convinced a GM to take a flier on him as a PG.

But the kid has gotten a cup of coffee in the NBA and is getting paid to do what he loves.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't recall draft gurus saying that he "would have been drafted" had he stayed another year.

In retrospect it is very doubtful that would have occurred.  There is nothing to indicate that he would have improved that much his last year at MU to stick in the NBA considering he hasn't improved enough since then.  I hope he is saving his money and has a plan for the future.

I interviewed the head of Draft Express, John Giovny.  He most certainly did say that.  He was puzzled why Vander was leaving.  Had him targeted in the late first round of the following year's draft.   Vander's problem was that he was 20 years old, very young and acted like it.  Didn't see the big picture.

What do you mean there is nothing to indicate he would have improved that much?  He improved every year he was at MU.   By about 3.6PPG, 3PT%, FG%, FT%.  The only place he went backwards was assists, which is one area he could have helped himself immensely his senior year.  His 3PT %, though it improved year after year, could have used another year as well.  He shot 16% as a Freshman, 26% as a soph, 30% as a junior.  A nice 34% to 35% as a senior was in order.

I hope it works out for him, I just think it's a shame that youth and some bad advice may have really short circuited a great opportunity.  Or at the very least, made the path much more difficult than it had to be.

[Herman Cain]

I interviewed the head of Draft Express, John Giovny.  He most certainly did say that.  He was puzzled why Vander was leaving.  Had him targeted in the late first round of the following year's draft.   Vander's problem was that he was 20 years old, very young and acted like it.  Didn't see the big picture.

What do you mean there is nothing to indicate he would have improved that much?  He improved every year he was at MU.   By about 3.6PPG, 3PT%, FG%, FT%.  The only place he went backwards was assists, which is one area he could have helped himself immensely his senior year.  His 3PT %, though it improved year after year, could have used another year as well.  He shot 16% as a Freshman, 26% as a soph, 30% as a junior.  A nice 34% to 35% as a senior was in order.

I hope it works out for him, I just think it's a shame that youth and some bad advice may have really short circuited a great opportunity.  Or at the very least, made the path much more difficult than it had to be.

I remember watching Vander in the garden hit the Game winner against St. Johns when the whole arena knew he was going to get the ball. I thought one more year of fine tuning and this kid will have him self in a good position.

Vanders first year as a pro was a essentially the completion of his college career at the University of Hard Knocks.  What he gave up by turning pro to early  was another year to build equity in his brand which he would have earned by leading us to another sweet sixteen or better as was likely the case. He is a marginal NBA player so any little bit one can bring to the table helps.

I think he will eventually earn a meaningful chance in the league at some point. His performance has been very good and he is working hard to hone his game. At this point the leap of faith a GM has to take is not far.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Vander might have been one of the situations where staying an extra year would have increased his draft stock. Vander is too small to be an NBA SG but had never played PG before. If Vander had stayed I think he would have been the PG the following year. If he had done well, it might have convinced a GM to take a flier on him as a PG.

But the kid has gotten a cup of coffee in the NBA and is getting paid to do what he loves.

Vander was a PG in high school, and played it situationally at MU against the zone where Junior struggled with turnovers.  More so, folks forgot Hiroshima where the (then) MU regime imposed higher academic advancement rules on upperclassmen weighed on him as the kid didn't like school much, barely stayed MU (not NCAA) eligible his junior year. He and others were impacted by this, and if your passion is basketball, it was easier for him to move on to his dream. 

Vander was Buzz's starting PG his senior year.

[We R Final Four]

Shame he didn't have to roll the dice at all.  Really poor advice.

Really Chicos? ..............we have heard your opinion of VB's decision since the day he declared.

YOU THINK IT WAS A BAD IDEA.  We get it for the 50th time--we get it.

[GGGG]

I interviewed the head of Draft Express, John Giovny.  He most certainly did say that.  He was puzzled why Vander was leaving.  Had him targeted in the late first round of the following year's draft.   Vander's problem was that he was 20 years old, very young and acted like it.  Didn't see the big picture.

What do you mean there is nothing to indicate he would have improved that much?  He improved every year he was at MU.   By about 3.6PPG, 3PT%, FG%, FT%.  The only place he went backwards was assists, which is one area he could have helped himself immensely his senior year.  His 3PT %, though it improved year after year, could have used another year as well.  He shot 16% as a Freshman, 26% as a soph, 30% as a junior.  A nice 34% to 35% as a senior was in order.

I'm sorry but if he told you he "would have been drafted," then he doesn't know what he was talking about.    Because if he was *that* talented, he would have been drafted or at least stuck as a free agent the year he came out.   But he doesn't have that talent.

And my point about improvement is that he has clearly improved a lot about is game since getting into the D League.  He has increased his range and the accuracy of his shot.  The problem is that he's small, not accurate enough and can't play the point.  So while he has improved, he simply isn't good enough.

One extra year at Marquette wouldn't have helped that, just like two plus years in the D League hasn't helped that.  In retrospect, him leaving Marquette didn't harm him basketball-wise one iota. 

[MerrittsMustache]

I'm sorry but if he told you he "would have been drafted," then he doesn't know what he was talking about.    Because if he was *that* talented, he would have been drafted or at least stuck as a free agent the year he came out.   But he doesn't have that talent.

And my point about improvement is that he has clearly improved a lot about is game since getting into the D League.  He has increased his range and the accuracy of his shot.  The problem is that he's small, not accurate enough and can't play the point.  So while he has improved, he simply isn't good enough.

One extra year at Marquette wouldn't have helped that, just like two plus years in the D League hasn't helped that.  In retrospect, him leaving Marquette didn't harm him basketball-wise one iota.

Exactly. He's better now than he would have been after another year at MU, yet he isn't currently on an NBA roster. That's all you need to know. If he was good enough, somebody would have found him - college, D-League, Europe, Rucker Park - doesn't matter. If he was an NBA player, he would have been signed.

I've said this before in regards to a few MU basketball alums, but he's not good enough to be a rotation player and doesn't have a niche that's often needed to be the 12-15th guy on an NBA roster. He's not a PG, he's not a pure scorer, he's not a shooter, he's not a wide-body, he's not a rebounder. He's an incredibly gifted basketball player but he's a shooting guard in a point-guard-sized body. Those guys are a dime a dozen in the D-League.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get another cup of NBA coffee late in this season and fully expect him to get looks in the summer league.

[Lennys Tap]

Nobody, not even the great John Glovny (WTF?) can predict with any accuracy that a junior not taken in 60 picks will be taken as a senior in 30. Total nonsense, just an opportunity for Chico to indulge in some name dropping. Too many variables, too much speculation.

What we can say with near certainty is that Vander staying would have helped MU that year. We lost our best offensive AND defensive player and replaced him with Jake Thomas (ugh!). If Vander plays 38 mpg (28 at the 2, 10 at pg spelling Derrick) 17-15, 9-9 becomes a whole lot better. We make our 9th straight NCAA, maybe our 4th straight S16 or better.

I think Buzz leaves anyway and we're probably where we are today, but who knows?

[GGGG]

Nobody, not even the great John Glovny (WTF?) can predict with any accuracy that a junior not taken in 60 picks will be taken as a senior in 30. Total nonsense, just an opportunity for Chico to indulge in some name dropping. Too many variables, too much speculation.

What we can say with near certainty is that Vander staying would have helped MU that year. We lost our best offensive AND defensive player and replaced him with Jake Thomas (ugh!). If Vander plays 38 mpg (28 at the 2, 10 at pg spelling Derrick) 17-15, 9-9 becomes a whole lot better. We make our 9th straight NCAA, maybe our 4th straight S16 or better.

I think Buzz leaves anyway and we're probably where we are today, but who knows?

Oh I agree completely.  Vander staying would have certainly helped Marquette. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Nobody, not even the great John Glovny (WTF?) can predict with any accuracy that a junior not taken in 60 picks will be taken as a senior in 30. Total nonsense, just an opportunity for Chico to indulge in some name dropping. Too many variables, too much speculation.

What we can say with near certainty is that Vander staying would have helped MU that year. We lost our best offensive AND defensive player and replaced him with Jake Thomas (ugh!). If Vander plays 38 mpg (28 at the 2, 10 at pg spelling Derrick) 17-15, 9-9 becomes a whole lot better. We make our 9th straight NCAA, maybe our 4th straight S16 or better.

I think Buzz leaves anyway and we're probably where we are today, but who knows?

But if we had less Derrick, would Scoop still have Ners?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm sorry but if he told you he "would have been drafted," then he doesn't know what he was talking about.    Because if he was *that* talented, he would have been drafted or at least stuck as a free agent the year he came out.   But he doesn't have that talent.

And my point about improvement is that he has clearly improved a lot about is game since getting into the D League.  He has increased his range and the accuracy of his shot.  The problem is that he's small, not accurate enough and can't play the point.  So while he has improved, he simply isn't good enough.

One extra year at Marquette wouldn't have helped that, just like two plus years in the D League hasn't helped that.  In retrospect, him leaving Marquette didn't harm him basketball-wise one iota.

LOL.  I'm pretty sure the head of Draft Express knows what he's talking about.  His point was, Vander was too young, not developed enough, needed another year in school, and would have been drafted in the late first round if he had continued to progress.  Is it possible he wouldn't have progressed?   Of course.  However, in his opinion as a draft expert, he should have stayed and would have been drafted.  Some guys need a bit more seasoning, things to work on.  We can list those guys all day and I'm sure we would be in 90% agreement on most of them.

[GGGG]

LOL.  I'm pretty sure the head of Draft Express knows what he's talking about.  His point was, Vander was too young, not developed enough, needed another year in school, and would have been drafted in the late first round if he had continued to progress.  Is it possible he wouldn't have progressed?   Of course.  However, in his opinion as a draft expert, he should have stayed and would have been drafted.  Some guys need a bit more seasoning, things to work on.  We can list those guys all day and I'm sure we would be in 90% agreement on most of them.

IOW, he "could have been drafted had he continued to develop."  That isn't "would have been drafted."

Two different things entirely.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

LOL.  I'm pretty sure the head of Draft Express knows what he's talking about.  His point was, Vander was too young, not developed enough, needed another year in school, and would have been drafted in the late first round if he had continued to progress.  Is it possible he wouldn't have progressed?   Of course.  However, in his opinion as a draft expert, he should have stayed and would have been drafted.  Some guys need a bit more seasoning, things to work on.  We can list those guys all day and I'm sure we would be in 90% agreement on most of them.

If he stayed he certainly would have had a chance to get in the first round (because that is all that really matters for guaranteed money).  I am sure the individual could also opine on what he would choose.  I am skeptical that a draft expert would deal with such certainties for a player on the line of the first and second round with all the variables that go into getting in those last 10 picks versus first few in the 2nd round.  But you were there not me.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Buddy Hield...where was he projected in last year's mock draft?   

Buddy Hield....where is he projected in this year's draft?   Lottery


Is Vander equal to Hield?  No, but the point is that there are endless examples of guys coming back to vastly improve their chances.

I hope like hell Vander makes it. He clearly is passioned about it and works his tail off.  The frustrating part for me is that he got bad advice.  I know for a fact that Buzz Williams was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED at his decision.  DUMBFOUNDED.   He had his mind made up and was looking for one person in the league to confirm it for him and it didn't matter if 99 were saying you would be better off staying another year.   The frustration is that the kid would be living his dream if he had better advice and more maturity at the time.  The path was so much easier, but he made a different decision.

Hopefully he gets there at some point, and maybe the longer journey will serve him well in life as a result.  It certainly can, and that would be a nice story book finish plus a silver lining to all of it.  I wish him well. 

[GGGG]

Buddy Hield...where was he projected in last year's mock draft?   

Buddy Hield....where is he projected in this year's draft?   Lottery


Is Vander equal to Hield?  No, but the point is that there are endless examples of guys coming back to vastly improve their chances.

I hope like hell Vander makes it. He clearly is passioned about it and works his tail off.  The frustrating part for me is that he got bad advice.  I know for a fact that Buzz Williams was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED at his decision.  DUMBFOUNDED.   He had his mind made up and was looking for one person in the league to confirm it for him and it didn't matter if 99 were saying you would be better off staying another year.   The frustration is that the kid would be living his dream if he had better advice and more maturity at the time.  The path was so much easier, but he made a different decision.

Hopefully he gets there at some point, and maybe the longer journey will serve him well in life as a result.  It certainly can, and that would be a nice story book finish plus a silver lining to all of it.  I wish him well. 

Vander's lack of sticking with an NBA team since leaving Marquette, despite his improvement, shows that he isn't an NBA product.  Staying at Marquette wouldn't have changed that.

That doesn't mean he SHOULD have left.  Buzz was right to be dumbfounded.  But you can't just say "from a NBA basketball perspective, Vander would have been better to stay."  Because I don't think that's the case. 

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I agree with you that staying would have been beneficial - particularly to focus on a degree (my opinion). 

I just think acting like it was some sort of lock if he played in an MU jersey for one more year is unfounded.  Only a small percent of all BBall players are drafted in round 1 - to act like playing 30 more bball games in college was the difference between him being there or not doesn't seem credible.

Is Vander equal to Hield?  No, but the point is that there are endless examples of guys coming back to vastly improve their chances.

I hope like hell Vander makes it. He clearly is passioned about it and works his tail off.  The frustrating part for me is that he got bad advice.  I know for a fact that Buzz Williams was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED at his decision.  DUMBFOUNDED.   He had his mind made up and was looking for one person in the league to confirm it for him and it didn't matter if 99 were saying you would be better off staying another year.   The frustration is that the kid would be living his dream if he had better advice and more maturity at the time.  The path was so much easier, but he made a different decision.

Hopefully he gets there at some point, and maybe the longer journey will serve him well in life as a result.  It certainly can, and that would be a nice story book finish plus a silver lining to all of it.  I wish him well. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Buddy Hield...where was he projected in last year's mock draft?   

Buddy Hield....where is he projected in this year's draft?   Lottery


Is Vander equal to Hield?  No, but the point is that there are endless examples of guys coming back to vastly improve their chances.

I hope like hell Vander makes it. He clearly is passioned about it and works his tail off.  The frustrating part for me is that he got bad advice.  I know for a fact that Buzz Williams was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED at his decision.  DUMBFOUNDED.   He had his mind made up and was looking for one person in the league to confirm it for him and it didn't matter if 99 were saying you would be better off staying another year.   The frustration is that the kid would be living his dream if he had better advice and more maturity at the time.  The path was so much easier, but he made a different decision.

Hopefully he gets there at some point, and maybe the longer journey will serve him well in life as a result.  It certainly can, and that would be a nice story book finish plus a silver lining to all of it.  I wish him well.

And if Wade had come back to MU for another season in order to work on his 3-point shooting, he would have led MU to a National Title in 2004, been drafted #3 overall by the Bulls and we'd be sitting here in awe of the Bulls dynasty led by Wade, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry and, of course, future HOF coach Scott Skiles.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Vander's lack of sticking with an NBA team since leaving Marquette, despite his improvement, shows that he isn't an NBA product.  Staying at Marquette wouldn't have changed that.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I can think of a ton of examples of college players on the fringe of getting drafted who came back for another year and were then drafted and stuck in the NBA. I can't think of many...or even any examples of guys who went undrafted, went to the d league, got called up, and then stuck in the NBA. Honestly, the D-League seems more like limbo than a path to the NBA. I think players who go overseas have a better chance of finding their way to the league.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Vander's lack of sticking with an NBA team since leaving Marquette, despite his improvement, shows that he isn't an NBA product.  Staying at Marquette wouldn't have changed that.

That doesn't mean he SHOULD have left.  Buzz was right to be dumbfounded.  But you can't just say "from a NBA basketball perspective, Vander would have been better to stay."  Because I don't think that's the case.

Disagree.  When you are drafted, your stick rate chance improves.  Your foot is in the door, so to speak.  Your path is much harder if you aren't drafted.  There are exceptions...Wes Matthews being one.  But if someone has taken a chance on you, and invested $$$, it is harder to cut bait.  Same is true in the NFL and other sports.  The willingness to go through multiple chances and opportunities are better, because SOMEONE took a chance on them, invested money in them.

Buzz was dumbfounded, as he should have been.

[GGGG]

Disagree.  When you are drafted, your stick rate chance improves.  Your foot is in the door, so to speak.  Your path is much harder if you aren't drafted.  There are exceptions...Wes Matthews being one.  But if someone has taken a chance on you, and invested $$$, it is harder to cut bait.  Same is true in the NFL and other sports.  The willingness to go through multiple chances and opportunities are better, because SOMEONE took a chance on them, invested money in them.

You are again making the assumption that he would have been drafted. 

Many assumptions in your analysis.  The fact that Vander still sits in the D-League pretty much shows that your assumptions are misguided.

[GGGG]

I don't think that's necessarily true. I can think of a ton of examples of college players on the fringe of getting drafted who came back for another year and were then drafted and stuck in the NBA. I can't think of many...or even any examples of guys who went undrafted, went to the d league, got called up, and then stuck in the NBA. Honestly, the D-League seems more like limbo than a path to the NBA. I think players who go overseas have a better chance of finding their way to the league.

I agree with you.  Just don't make the assumption that Vander would have been drafted.  There is no reason to suggest that would have been the case despite what Chicos says he was told.

Vander wasn't an NBA talent when he came out.  He wouldn't have been NBA talent a year later.  He's not NBA talent now.

[tower912]

If Vander had come back, had played the point his senior year, played it well, increased his numbers, shown everyone he could run the point at a high level, led MU to an NCAA tourney bid, put the team on his back, a la Kemba Walker (if you are going to play 'what-if', do it big), he would have gotten drafted.    IMO, he would have played 35 mpg at the point.   If he could have done it reasonably well, (18/7/5)  MU makes the tourney and he gets drafted.   But it is nothing but speculation at this point. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Different sport, but a good friend of mine that was in the Angels organization when I worked there and is now with the Rangers.  His comments to me over the years have been around incumbancy, his terminology.  When an organization invests a draft choice and money, they don't do so on a whim.  They do it after extensive background, analysis, data, interviews, etc.   So if that player doesn't work out for an organization, other organizations will look to those players FIRST before they look at undrafted guys.  Partly because the work has been done....someone made the investment after money and time spent.  Someone thought something of him to go through more than just lip service motions, but to actually invest.   

That is why so many guys are recirculated from organization to organization if they are drafted and committed to.  They get more chances to fail, as it were.  Again, exceptions to every rule out there, but this is where I think Vander didn't get good advice.

As for Vander being better now because he didn't play his senior year...I just don't get that logic at all.  If he played his senior year and got drafted, he would also be getting better.  If he played his senior year and didn't get drafted, he would still be doing what he is doing today, playing somewhere and the improvement that comes along with it.

[MerrittsMustache]

If Vander had come back, had played the point his senior year, played it well, increased his numbers, shown everyone he could run the point at a high level, led MU to an NCAA tourney bid, put the team on his back, a la Kemba Walker (if you are going to play 'what-if', do it big), he would have gotten drafted.    IMO, he would have played 35 mpg at the point.  If he could have done it reasonably well, (18/7/5)  MU makes the tourney and he gets drafted.   But it is nothing but speculation at this point.

If 18/7/5 is "reasonably well," I'd like to see what numbers would impress you 

Is Blue playing PG in the D-League?

[mileskishnish72]

Born in MKE? Didn't know that - thanks, House.
Native or not, I hope the kid gets a chance to chase the dream.

[GB Warrior]

Love Vander and wish the best for him, but if it hasn't happened by now, it'd be wise of him to cut and head for greener pastures overseas while he's in his prime. At some point, you are who you are.

When is the last time someone sat and succeeded in D-League for years on end before jumping and becoming a regular contributor in the bigs? (NOTE: This is an honest question because I am lazy).

[BM1090]

Love Vander and wish the best for him, but if it hasn't happened by now, it'd be wise of him to cut and head for greener pastures overseas while he's in his prime. At some point, you are who you are.

When is the last time someone sat and succeeded in D-League for years on end before jumping and becoming a regular contributor in the bigs? (NOTE: This is an honest question because I am lazy).

No idea on your question, but I wouldn't bail quite yet if I were Vander. He's only 23. He doesn't turn 25 until the summer of 2017. He should give it through next year then he still has 10 more years to make money in Europe if it hasn't worked out by then.

[MerrittsMustache]

When is the last time someone sat and succeeded in D-League for years on end before jumping and becoming a regular contributor in the bigs? (NOTE: This is an honest question because I am lazy).

I don't know if there's anyone who played in the D-League "for years on end" before becoming a contributor in the NBA but here are a few guys who spent more than one season in the D-League and went on to play multiple seasons in the NBA...

Kelenna Azubuike
Jamario Moon
Smush Parker
Ime Udoka
Jeremy Lin
Danny Green

[The Lens]

Different sport, but a good friend of mine that was in the Angels organization when I worked there and is now with the Rangers. His comments to me over the years have been around incumbancy, his terminology.  When an organization invests a draft choice and money, they don't do so on a whim.  They do it after extensive background, analysis, data, interviews, etc.   So if that player doesn't work out for an organization, other organizations will look to those players FIRST before they look at undrafted guys.  Partly because the work has been done....someone made the investment after money and time spent.  Someone thought something of him to go through more than just lip service motions, but to actually invest.   

That is why so many guys are recirculated from organization to organization if they are drafted and committed to.  They get more chances to fail, as it were. 

I can see that.  You are correct in the many drafted players get multiple chances.  Look at Michael Beasley. 

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I can see that.  You are correct in the many drafted players get multiple chances.  Look at Michael Beasley. 

Michael Beasley didn't get multiple chances because he was 'drafted' or an 'incumbent'.  He received multiple chances and was drafted because he had an insane amount of talent and potential that was wasted by a personal issue.  This is probably more-so the cause for multiple chances in the example above than some arbitrary draft position.

[MerrittsMustache]

Michael Beasley didn't get multiple chances because he was 'drafted' or an 'incumbent'.  He received multiple chances and was drafted because he had an insane amount of talent and potential that was wasted by a personal issue.  This is probably more-so the case in the example above than some arbitrary draft position.

Exactly.

Most players taken at the top of the draft are taken there based on talent and potential. Henry, for example, has both of those things, plus he's nearly 7-feet tall and appears to have his head on straight. Even if he goes #5 and is a bust, he's still likely to be on an NBA roster for a decade and it's not because his drafting team "invested in him." If Vander had been drafted, he'd likely still be in the D-League because, quite frankly, he's not currently an NBA-caliber player.

[Lennys Tap]

Michael Beasley didn't get multiple chances because he was 'drafted' or an 'incumbent'.  He received multiple chances and was drafted because he had an insane amount of talent and potential that was wasted by a personal issue.  This is probably more-so the cause for multiple chances in the example above than some arbitrary draft position.

Michael Beasley became a legend when he dropped 50 on us in a preseason scrimmage that destroyed our seed in the NCAA tournament! If that doesn't earn you multiple chances in the NBA, nothing will.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I can see that.  You are correct in the many drafted players get multiple chances.  Look at Michael Beasley.

It's kind of a group think mentality, but in that profession of scouts if someone's willing to throw coin down, there is this presumption that it was worth doing.  Of course we can all name examples of players that got bounced around 10 times and makes that analysis look really bad.  Ryan Leaf.