Who's left? The college talent pool is getting thinner and thinner, forcing scouts to cast their nets down to high school and over to Europe, South America, and Asia - 2002 NBA Draft Preview - National Basketball Association

Basketball Digest, Summer, 2002 by Tom Kertes

THIS IS WHAT THINGS HAVE come to: Bad is good. Wrong is right. High-schoolers and barely-shaving college underclassmen are now actually preferred to college seniors by NBA teams because they supposedly possess oodles of that ethereal "upside." While a senior, after all, wouldn't even be in college anymore if he was any good, would he?

We hear of dozens of leech-like middlemen of extreme slimiosity who, drooling for the quick payoff, are urging 17-year-old high-schoolers to leap straight into, and wallow in, the NBA's tub of big bucks. Thinking of what's really good for the kid? Fohgetaboutit! Instead, they are bringing up "horrific examples" like UCLA senior center Dan Gadzuric who, judged purely on potential, would have been a sure lottery pick out of high school. But after four years of actual performance, he may not even make it into the first round.

In this world, even if you do happen to attend a finer four-year institution of higher learning--as a "student-athlete," natch--you'd be a fool to stay long enough to collect your first syllabus. It must be so, because the 2002 draft lottery will have a sorry total of one senior--Western Kentucky center Chris Marcus. And he's not projected to be particularly prominent, either.

"With Marcus, we already know what he can do," one NBA scout opines. "But with some of those younger kids, the sky's the limit."

Oh, really? For every Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett, there are 10 other Not Ready for Prime Tune early entries sitting on NBA benches stunting their own growth--and income potential--by not getting a chance to play. And could someone please explain why a 22-year-old with just four years of basketball experience necessarily lacks an upside?

Thank goodness this year's high school class is nowhere near the quality of last year's. But will the madness un-madden itself just a bit? Nah.

At least five to seven misguided preps are still about to make the jump. But, after three of the top four choices--and four of the first eight--were high-schoolers in 2001, with not one of them having contributed significantly in their rookie NBA seasons, only 6'10" Amare Stoudemire is rated at a (low) lottery level in 2002.

Why are the others even coming out? Why is Cal center Jamal Sampson, who averaged 6.4 points on pathetic 42% shooting and 6.5 rebounds per game as a freshman entering the draft?

Because he'll be a first round draft Choice. Yup, even with those nonexistent numbers, Sampson won't go far behind Marcus. "Upside," you see.

All of which makes the draft, if not irrelevant, certainly far more of a long-term proposition than it used to be. `I laugh--sadly--when people say stuff like, `Why don't you lose more games so you can get Jason Williams?" Knicks coach Don Charley says. "No draft choice can turn a bad team around all at once these days, not even Jason. There are no Patrick Ewing-type difference-makers in college any longer."

Of course not. If there were, like Garner or Bryant, they'd have been in the pros for years by now. Indeed, dramatic NBA turnarounds tend to be engineered more by savvy trades for veterans (the New Jersey Nets with Jason Kidd, or the Detroit Pistons with Ben Wallace, Cliff Robinson, Corliss Williamson, and Jon Barry) these days.

Even in a good rookie class--like 2001's stellar group--the best freshmen most often either languish on the bench or produce for bad teams (Pau Gasol and Shane Battier for the Memphis Grizzlies, Gilbert Arenas and Jason Richardson for the Golden State Warriors). On only rare occasions, a rook contributes in a supporting role (the Nets' Richard Jefferson) or even starts (the Indiana Pacers' Jamaal Tinsley and San Antonio Spurs' Tony Parker) for a good team.

Of course, there's still the future. So the draft is great fun--as long as you don't expect instant gratification, that is. Is there another foreigner who might turn out to be the next Dirk Nowitzki or Gasol? A slip-through senior great like Battier? And who are the unpolished gems with eventual superstardom stamped all over them? These are our top 50 prospects, rated in order of their eventual NBA potential:

1. YAO MING, China

Shawn Bradley or Shaquille O'Neal? Superstar or superstiff?

The mysterious Ming is probably something in-between, a versatile semi-power player along the lines of Rik Smits. At the moment, this towering 7'6" paint presence has got a long way to go strength- and experience-wise but, with that size and at only 21 years of age, who could possibly own a better upside?

According to Larry Brown, nobody. "Within four years, Ming will be one of the best players in the world." the Sixers coach says.

"I'm amazed by how agile he is, how he's able to move and run the floor," ex-NBAer David Benoit, Ming's American teammate on the Shanghai Sharks, agrees. "He's a very agile guy. He can dribble. He shoots threes like [Arvydas] Sabonis. His head is above the basket, I'm amazed every day just watching him."

2. JASON WILLIAMS, Duke

As NBA coaching great Bill Musselman liked to say, "You want to win, you'd better have a point guard who can get into the paint." No one gets into the paint, and makes better decisions once he's there, than Williams, a deluxe 6'2" package of strength and skills. Our guts tell us that JW will be a lot less of a 'tweener, and a far purer point guard, at the NBA level than his detractors--and surprisingly, there are quite a few--suspect.