The Rookie Card Fallacy

[dnbman]

If any of you collected sports cards in the last 20 years, you've probably experienced the rookie card fallacy.

The idea is that when rookie cards come out, they are hot commodities since they have potential to be very valuable one day. As such, people buy up scores of these rookie cards, regardless of whether the rookie is really that great or not. The allure can be so great, that you trade multiple rookie cards of established stars just to get a new rookie card which may be worth a lot one day. It's a somewhat strange phenomenon that basically makes the increase in value of a rookie card very small-- at least compared to many years ago-- after the first year the card is out.

So, what's the point?

There have been a lot of folks banking on rookies to replace fairly solid players-- Wallace, Felton, and Okafor-- and make our team better. To me, this is exactly the same as the rookie card mentality. A player isn't the ideal player, so instead of figuring out how to best use him, you trade him for the next young player who might end up being perfect. Of course, the reality is most rookies aren't that great. Yet, in the convergence of a struggling NBA season with the peak of March madness, people seem to think that any number of guys in the tournament could step in and be an all-star.

Don't get me wrong: I recognize the value of young talent, and there's something to be said for stockpiling talent. However, as Chicago has shown most recently, you can stockpile draft picks all you want and never come up with the exact mix of ingredients to make you a successful team. Boston actually took the step of converting all of their young players for an all-star duo that has a very small window to be productive. However, Boston is probably one of the better examples of how to use young picks-- develop them and then trade them.

The Bobcats, however, have a lot of nice pieces. None of them are perfect, most even containing some significant flaw. However, we shouldn't be thinking about converting guys who are at least strong in a few areas for rookies who may not be strong in any. A draft yielding more than a few great players is rare. While there are a couple of interesting guards-- Mayo, Bayless, etc-- most of the guys after Rose and Beasley seem more like role players than significant starters.

I worked in a baseball card shop when I was a teenager and watched guys convert wonderful collections into cards that are virtually worthless now. I don't want to see the Bobcats make the same mistake, especially since we have such a huge coaching issue to address.

[MattD]

If any of you collected sports cards in the last 20 years, you've probably experienced the rookie card fallacy.

The idea is that when rookie cards come out, they are hot commodities since they have potential to be very valuable one day. As such, people buy up scores of these rookie cards, regardless of whether the rookie is really that great or not. The allure can be so great, that you trade multiple rookie cards of established stars just to get a new rookie card which may be worth a lot one day. It's a somewhat strange phenomenon that basically makes the increase in value of a rookie card very small-- at least compared to many years ago-- after the first year the card is out.

So, what's the point?

There have been a lot of folks banking on rookies to replace fairly solid players-- Wallace, Felton, and Okafor-- and make our team better. To me, this is exactly the same as the rookie card mentality. A player isn't the ideal player, so instead of figuring out how to best use him, you trade him for the next young player who might end up being perfect. Of course, the reality is most rookies aren't that great. Yet, in the convergence of a struggling NBA season with the peak of March madness, people seem to think that any number of guys in the tournament could step in and be an all-star.

Don't get me wrong: I recognize the value of young talent, and there's something to be said for stockpiling talent. However, as Chicago has shown most recently, you can stockpile draft picks all you want and never come up with the exact mix of ingredients to make you a successful team. Boston actually took the step of converting all of their young players for an all-star duo that has a very small window to be productive. However, Boston is probably one of the better examples of how to use young picks-- develop them and then trade them.

The Bobcats, however, have a lot of nice pieces. None of them are perfect, most even containing some significant flaw. However, we shouldn't be thinking about converting guys who are at least strong in a few areas for rookies who may not be strong in any. A draft yielding more than a few great players is rare. While there are a couple of interesting guards-- Mayo, Bayless, etc-- most of the guys after Rose and Beasley seem more like role players than significant starters.

I worked in a baseball card shop when I was a teenager and watched guys convert wonderful collections into cards that are virtually worthless now. I don't want to see the Bobcats make the same mistake, especially since we have such a huge coaching issue to address.

Honestly, you make a great point, but what jumps out at me, is that we obviously have some great pieces, but its not working out.

Gerald and Jrich dont seem to play to well together. I have to say, I liked our team while gerald was out. So what it tells us is that we need some kind of shake up within the team. This draft has some pretty strong talent, and its time to chance it and look for a new solution.

As far as getting it right and wrong, your absolutely right, look at Darko, people thought he was going to be a huge star, and Detriot picked him OVER Dwayne, Melo, and Bosh. The horror.

I think the idea of shaking up the team is really what is perpetuating this acquire draft pick mentality. We got Wallace at such a steal contract, to risk it for draft picks may seem crazy, but the Bobcats need something, and sometimes that is found by taking big risks, something that I havent really seen the bobcats take yet.

Obviously we dont want to screw ourselves, but getting draft picks pretty much protects us from that. Low contracts, three years, then a fourth team option. It could set us up for a bright, bright, future or just be a mistake we can navigate around.

So far, Okafor hasnt worked out (in my opinion), so we dont resign him for 13 mill, and instead we have space to pick up someone else and move on. If we decide to move away from Wallace and to somewhere else including draft picks, we have potential to set us up extremely well, or we can continue to work around it.

Chicago's mistake shows everyone that talent does not equal wins. Which is why the bobcats need to change it up too, because I definitely think we have some serious talent.

[spectre]

Well said!

I've been one of those who don't put a lot of stock in the draft to be a savior (my trade Crash/draft Mayo scenario notwithstanding) and I do believe a LOT of our issues are with the coaching.

I sit here and watch UNC just dominate Arkansas...they're very methodical and systematic and it makes me think we'd have a hard time beating those guys ourselves. UNC isn't loaded with superstars, heck most probably won't even make it in the NBA. What they have that we don't however is Roy Williams, a damn fine coach who knows how to run plays and get guys open...how to play lock down D within a system.

Vincent is most of our troubles guys.

That being said our young guys are hitting the contract evaluation mark and decisions have to be made. This year it's Mek and the next could very well be Felton. It's one thing being patient on a rookie deal, but if I'm paying someone 13 million (or 8-9 in Felton's case) I want some consistency.

[ohara831]

Dont forget, these scenarios we are throwing out there as trade fodder are all based upon IF we get the right deal. No one is talking about trading Crash for a mid 1st rounder. Only if the numbers work right should we make any moves. Except for Okafor - get his butt out for anything in the Lottery!

[Icky Thump]

As I've said over and over I don't really want to trade Wallace and hope he can maintain his health. I haven't always wanted to trade Okafor but he has been almost worthless to us for a while considering his injuries and this seasons lack of effort but I pray we trade him somehow and get SOMETHING for him whether its a draft pick, rookie, or whatever; otherwise we just pretty much wasted a #2 pick (I know it happens).

So again if must be give me the 2008 Rookie Card for Okafor and we've got a deal!

[dav7z]

Good topic and a very smart and well said post Dmbman.
I KNOW Okafor is going for somthing or he would be geting his playing time. For the next rookie card i don't think so. A sign and trade is a lot more likely . If a draft pick is included it's going to be compensation for a lesser player.
Okafor is a restricted free agent so we have the right to match any offer he gets. That to me means we will get fair trade value out of him .For who or what i don't know.

[Slam]

People like to place blame. People like things that are shiny and new. It's human nature - especially when it comes to fans of sporting teams.

That's part of what makes rookies so attractive.

Spectre also hits on a very valid point. Money. Would you rather pay someone 10 mil a year and have their contract have huge implications on your cap or pay a someone via a set rookie scale?

I do get a laugh though when people suggest trading for more pics in the same draft. Not sure how a team with a starting line up of 3 rookies, a sophmore and a vet guard/forward would get it done!!

[dnbman]

Spectre also hits on a very valid point. Money. Would you rather pay someone 10 mil a year and have their contract have huge implications on your cap or pay a someone via a set rookie scale?

Yeah, but these days anyone worth their salt gets a big contract. (look at Kapono for exhibit A) Eventually you have to pay your rookies, and it's always a gamble. We could be looking for the right rookies (and by that, I mean guys playing through their rookie contracts) for a decade and never find the guys worth the big contract that someone else will pay them.

I'm all for signing the "right" talent and not paying guys just to pay them. I just want to place in bold letters over all of the Bobcat related message boards the following:
[size=10pt]
DO NOT JUDGE OUR TALENT BASED ON THIS SEASON WITH THIS "COACH!"[/size]

[Keetch]

Well said to all and a nice thread Dnbman. I agree with your "Bold" statement of course.

Honestly; I'd sign up again for a team with Okafor, Wallace, JRich, Felton + 1 darn good Power Forward in a minute if I felt we had a good coach on the sidelines.

As a fan, I see all these guys as "Bobcats" and would miss any one of them if they're traded. I'm kind of a home town guy and tend to prefer to not throw players under the bus, (up until they throw the team under it anyways, as often happens in pro sports).

Well unless they are really really bad (Primoz, McInnis, Harrington, Vincent). I mean you can't be a total homer or the next thing you know you'll be a 50 year old guy wearing an Okafor jersey two sizes too small to all the games (uh oh).

I think I can tell the difference between a player that is a serious drag to a team and a coach that is. The problem is compounded when the coach is the problem of course...because they tend to favor the worst players don't they? Hmmmm....

At this point, I'm not in the camp that any of our players are drags on the team. I can be happy picking 7th or 8th in this draft, picking up maybe Mayo (who I don't think I like haha), McGee, Augustin, Love, Arthur or Randolph. Heck, after watching UNC/Arkansas, I'm starting to think Hansbrough would be pretty darn cool too. How can you not like that guy? Oh well; sorry, thats another thread .

[timang]

i thought this rookie card thing was for ham biscuit


i could have been wrong, but then again...