They can be one and the same thing, but I know what you're saying.

His points rating means that maybe the end for Cadee?

apparently he is still a 1

Must have had an option year like PEtrie. Good job Adelaide.

Definitely one of the better 1pt players you will find in NBL, great signing by Adelaide

I don't see how he gets a 1 if it says multi year option. Also, why did Luke go from an 8 to a 9 if his career is on the downward slope rather than upwards?

Schenscher went from a 9 to a 8, but he will still be a 9 if re takes the option on the existing contract. Perhaps he might "test the waters" and then sign a new deal in Adelaide as an 8.

Get the points system gone, its terrible. Because he has gone to a 5 for next season, he most likely wont even get signed beyond this season

With more teams coming in if Teys and others like him continue to play hard and well in their given opportunities as Teys did, they will get gigs in the NBL even at 5's.

I agree with Paul and anons suggestion about Luke 'testing the waters' and signing a new, longer term, less money (ie more money overall say 80k for 3 years as apposed to say $140k for 1 season) at his 8 point rating.

One thought i have with the points cap is perhaps have a rule that it can only go up or down by 2 points per season, which will reward clubs for having a crack and signing guys like Jervis, as they get him at a bargain as 1, then again as a 3, then a 5 after 3 years and a 7 after 4 years, which between 5-7 is probably a true reflection of what he contributes, that way the player who performs above expectations isnt punnished as much by making it harder to find jobs and the club that takes the chance on him gets rewarded by having a bargain under their points cap for 2-3 years.

This would also apply to someone like Teys, im glad he was able to retain his 1 point rating and the 36ers kept him, a win win again, Teys for his efforts and the 6ers for giving him a shot.

"One thought i have with the points cap is perhaps have a rule that it can only go up or down by 2 points per season, which will reward clubs for having a crack"

Interesting idea, although it might lead to players being rated more conservatively as they approach a 'breakout season' e.g. players originally rated a 4-5 instead of 1-3, without putting together a season like Jervis did this past year.

I like the look of this for a 36ers team:

Johnson or Wilkinson/Schenscher
Petrie/Anthony
Creek/Steindl or Crawford
Gibson/Teys
Wilson/Carter or Cadee

Yea i dont mind it either, Steindl would help address the outside shooting and if DJ ends up staying we would have a import spot to play with or keep as insurance later in the season.

(Personally would prefer to keep Ervin over Wilson, but doesnt seem like Ervin is being kept and maybe there is more than just smoke to the Wilson rumours that have been around forums)

I was impressed with Teys.Goes about his business with little fuss, plays to his strengths and makes good decisions.

Get the points system gone, its terrible. Because he has gone to a 5 for next season, he most likely wont even get signed beyond this season

Most importantly I think the 36ers need to put a team on the floor without breaking the bank:

1. J.Wilson (9) / J.Cadee (5)
2. A.Gibson (10) / R.Carter (6)
3. B.Teys (1) / M.Creek (6)
4. A.Petrie (8) / B.Anthony (5)
5. L.Schenscher (9) / T.Jervis (7)

I would imagine that Jervis will be highly sought after by the likes of Townsville and Sydney, but think he would really compliment a well-rounded 36ers team.

Maybe not in terms of skill, but in terms of how he fits with the team I don't mind Wilson as our lone import. For everything that Ervin added to the team last season, he often stagnated the half-court offence and was picked apart on defence (e.g. switching onto Ennis in the GF).

DJ was a huge part of the team's success last season, but having some continuity should be helpful for Joey.

Te Rangi is probably the stand out 5pter on that list. Also one where NZ are laughing all the way to the points bank because they signed him as a 1 and he's still on that contract. A nice 4 bonus points for them.

Funny ol' system, innit?

Well done to him. I think it is a good reward for the hard work he put in last season. Joey obviously rates him and when he was asked to step up, he did and made the most of his chances.

Joey has made comments about Teys's basketball brain and his work ethic.

If he is a 1, then extremely good value, if he is a 5, then he needs to ensure that rating keeps heading north.

"If he is a 1, then extremely good value, if he is a 5, then he needs to ensure that rating keeps heading north."

Kind of highlights the peculiarity of the system's pressures and its various loopholes and quirks.

I would like to see Schensher leave if Johnson stays, I would only keep Schensher if Johnson leaves. I also don't think he is worth the big dollars.. 80 K? Alright.. anything in the 100's is simply eating away at money we could be using on impact players. the guy is a role player... he is best suited to his 15 minutes a game.. he should be paid as such.

GWB, you going to pay Schenscher out if Johnson stays? He has a player option. That would be a massive hit to the club. Might as well keep him as a back-up and at least get something for your money.

"Other players ranked 5:"
Put into that context, I think he's pretty spot on, really... Teys really stepped up in the finals and got the job done, looks like he's capable enough, just got a bit spoiled being out of the league for so long and really should have been higher than 1pt to begin with...

I've always thought Teys deserved a shot and good on him for grasping it with both hands.

At 1 point easily the biggest bargain.

Props to Joey for spotting talent.

PlaymakerMo, the team you are suggesting would be a weaker team that this year by far. if you didn't crack the title, would it not make sense to raise your talent level. You list below has no player in the 3 spot that is an impact guy, no 5 man that is an impact guy, a sub standard import and an even more sub standard back up PG. This looks more like a Marty Clarke dream team than a successful NBL team that will go up against squads with (Marquee Players) and a good import. Anyway, I'm glad you are not the GM or coach.

1. J.Wilson (9) / J.Cadee (5)
2. A.Gibson (10) / R.Carter (6)
3. B.Teys (1) / M.Creek (6)
4. A.Petrie (8) / B.Anthony (5)
5. L.Schenscher (9) / T.Jervis (7)

1. G.Ervin (10) / College Rookie(Maybe that Sobey kid) (1)
2. A.Gibson (10) / R.Carter (6)
3. B.Teys (1) / Marquee Player (10)
4. A.Petrie (8) / B.Anthony (5)
5. L.Schenscher (8) / DJ (10)
= 69 and a better team

Why would you have DJ backing up Luke and DJ probably won't return anyway.

KET, you are right, The marquee player and DJ should be on the other side. The mail I have is that DJ may actually be around.

It won't matter because Sobey like most college returnees will be a 3 rating anyway

I heard that Jacob Holmes wrote so something to the league about the players all wanting to scrap the system all together. It hurts their players futures and teams each year are uncertain about their roster.

Steven, out of interest, where is the info about returning college players being a 3?

Players want short term money over long term league stability so they'll always complain about the points system. Many will blame it for difficulty in finding a job when sometimes the truth is their ability or personality have put off coaches, or they didn't make an effort to sell themselves when a free agent.

College players have been a three point rating for years and years. In the last the info has been on the NBL site and might still be there.

Yes, but Isaac, is it not true that if Teys was a 5 he would find it more difficult than if he was a one? How about if a college kid is an absolute gun and four teams want him, but only have two points left each, is that not a restriction of trade? I think their needs to be some room to move in these cases!

Exactly... If a team overloads with players on multiple year contracts for longer term stability, then that's their choice. If they want to sign more to 1yr deals (with perhaps options) to provide a bit more flexibility, then they risk possibly losing a player or more, that's the chance they take...

Players, that could be said about any player, not just Teys... If you look at the other players rated a 5, he's within his skill bracket, so he's competing against players with a similar level of skill that he has. To be honest, he was quite lucky to be rated a 1 anyways, so there shouldn't be much to complain about now...

As Isaac said, if players are good enough, they will get the gig... Just because they HAVE played and want to play in the NBL doesn't mean that they deserve or will necessarily get another gig.

Thats where the club makes a choice between the college gun at 3 points and another player on the roster, it will usually come down to who the club wants more, i dont think any college gun is not in the NBL due to the points cap.

They are even too good and in Europe, in the NBL, or not seen to be good enough/boderline good enough and coaches have chosen another player.

The bigger issue is a lack of teams/jobs, which is soon to change, once that changes there will be plenty of room for players at any points value if coaches want them.

Maybe Daly gets a gig last season if he was 1 or there was no points cap, but maybe Joey would have chosen Teys over him anyway?

I dont think there is anyone who could purely blame the points cap for not being in the NBL, it could make it tougher for some, but if they are seen to be good enough and fit what the coach wants they will get a go.

An example ill give you is Jervis, he has gone from a 1 to a 7 in one season, and ill almost guarantee you he is in the league next season, even if 7 is a tad high for him. As he is a player who has attributes that coaches want, sure he may get squeezed out of Perth (but im pretty sure i read they can fit there whole roster in again) but not the NBL if he is willing to move interstate.

Maybe the players who think they have been left out purely due to the points, should work on their game, their marketability to clubs/coaches, etc and prove themselves to earn the spot instead of blaming everyone else, i really dont think there would have been too many roster changes if the points cap didnt exist, maybe Perth may have stacked the roster a bit more, kept Carter over say Burdon, but then Burdon misses out, why is he less important to the Players Association than Carter ?
but that just makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and destroys the parity, which is why we have the points cap.

There are the same number of guys employed each year (ie 8 rosters of 10 players), why are the guys who miss out more important to the players association than the guys who get a new opportunity?


Their were clubs at a point in time that could have fitted in anyone they wanted, they just chose not to for whatever reason, more likely they decided someone else fitted in their team better.

Or in a case like Perth, they wanted to go with 2 imports instead of 1, therefore they had to let go a mid range player for a 1 point player, which they would have had to do under the salary cap to fit the 2nd import in anyway, as no one would beleive that say Beal was earning the same as Tovey, but say Beal, U'U and Burdon for the same price as Tovey, Bartlett and Carter is a bit more feasible, so even without the points cap they would have still had to make that move. Carter ended up getting picked up and Bartlett missed out, but id say it was more form than points responsible for that.

Yes, but Isaac, is it not true that if Teys was a 5 he would find it more difficult than if he was a one? How about if a college kid is an absolute gun and four teams want him, but only have two points left each, is that not a restriction of trade? I think their needs to be some room to move in these cases!

Exactly Isaac, couldnt agree more.

I personally think the point system most effects the guys that are players 8 to 10 on a team. All teams would look at keeping and recruiting the best Aussie players first, those ranked 7 to 10, and after imports fill the gaps with whoever they can keep under the points cap.

The guys it affects most in my opinion are guys like treys, bj Anthony, Leon Henry, Rhys carter, Daniel Dillon, daly, burdon etc. guys that may have gotten an opportunity with a club based on their potential and low points ranking usually 1-3. But fail to make it to the top teir of first chosen in demand players. They are then essentially pushed out of their club because the club can't afford the new 4-6 point ranking and have to replace them with rookies on 1-3 points again.

Hopefully the loyalty bonus will go a long way solving this and giving players the chance to stay at their club longer. Perth for example I think receive 6 loyalty point deductions, which would allow them to keep their top guys and the likes of jervis.

Jonno and Isaac with back to back posts making sense. Good form gents

Kr, if you feel for that guy who misses out on a spot, do you care about the guy who gets the job instead? There are always the same amount of jobs going, with or without the points cap.

An argument against the points cap is whether we end up with the absolute best 80 players in the league and both the salary cap and import restrictions already work against that but don't draw too many complaints.

RE KR Post
I could well argue that Teys got a job BECAUSE of the points cap. He made the most of his situation and now will be in the league for the next few years.

Daly trialled with a few NBL teams that had points to burn and wasn't contracted. Sutton seems to be out performing him for the Pioneers too.

Dillon and Carter both have had euro stints with Carter being in the NBL the last 2 seasons

Burdon didn't show much this season with Perth and his signing was as much about the salary cap as it was points

I proffer that some of the players you have mentioned also maybe seeking mid range salaries where a kid with low points is usually happy to take a low wage on a 1st contract.

Exactly KB3, yes Daly missed out but Teys got in, so why is Daly more important??

If Daly had got in and Teys missed out would they still be saying the same thing?? All the sudden Teys is more important than Daly???

What about if they were both 1s and Joey still went Teys, which i wouldnt have been shocked if he did, then who would they blame???

BTW im not knocking either Daly or Teys, dont mind either of them as players both are decent young talents imo, just showing how flawed the argument is.

As i and others have said there are 80 NBL jobs last season, this season, next season, for everyone who misses out, someone else gets a go, player turnover would happen with or without a points cap. Its just a tough gig to get at the moment with so few jobs, considering of the 80 only around 64 go to Aussies. Nothing to do with the points cap.

Players just hold tight, there will be another 40-80 jobs opening up in the next 2-5 years, then those guys currently on the fringe should get a decent look at a spot with the points cap still in place. If they dont well maybe the coach just preferred the other player over you, they may have been better, had a skill set that suited the teams needs better, asked for less money, etc, none of these have to do with points cap.

I agree with the ? marks there. That team would be a backwards step. Wilson and Jervis is a massive step down from Ervin and DJ.

I've just spent a decade watching poor to horrible Sixers basketball. The last thing I want to see after finally contending for a title, is a return to mediocrity!

Beantown I agree
But the second season with Joey and what he does with his players is exciting
Wilson with Fearne V Wilson with Joey
Chalk and Cheese

Shawn Dennis wants Jervis as his starting centre.

I would too if i was Shawn Dennis, Jervis would be a good pick up for the Crocs.

'????', obviously the 36ers would look to retain DJ if possible and Jervis would be a step down - to pin our hopes on him not receiving a European contract, however, would be naive.

Clearly you didn't read anything that went with my proposed team, as I was going for continuity and sustainability. I'd rather the 36ers be competitive and actually survive in the long-run. Feel free to dip into your own pocket to pay for DJ and a Marquee Import since money is no obstacle for you, otherwise don't be foolish enough to take the financial viability of the club for granted.

Likewise, I too am glad you are not the GM or coach.

So PLAYMAKER, was this years team not finacially viable? why would you go for a worse line-up? The crowds are back and you want to put a worse team in front of them? I can tell you one thing Jamar Wilson is not going to put bums on seats and Luke/Jervis likewise. Back this up with Teys (who is good, but not bum on seat worthy) and you are in for a treat each game! Exciting stuff. Oh yeah, I forgot the BJ and Creek highlights. Yeah yeah I know you must have role players and each guy I have mentioned is just that, not stars.

So I must say it again, you should be banned from suggesting teams in the future!

I think both Mo and ???? make valid points.

Assuming DJ goes, Jervis would be a decent pickup. He wouldn't be too expensive what you lose in offensive production you also get some back in rebounding and keyway defence and intimidation (remember the 6'ers were one of the poorer defensive teams in the league).

Furthermore, Petrie can pick up some of the slack as a stretch four albeit less mobile than DJ.

This is a more financially conservative team of course that does not address the need for perimetre punch.

On the other hand, it is reasonable that the 6'ers were a good import away from a championship last season. The marquee rule comes in at the right time given NZ and Perth will likely also have one.

Of course we do not know the 6'er books, given there were an extra well attended playoff games, the 6'ers could be nicely in the black this year.

Could this player help fill the stadium?

Both approaches have merit / risk involved....so there isn't any cause for nastiness.