The “One-and-Done” rule will likely remain intact for several years, even if changes are made in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN reports in a Twitter thread.
Lowering the current 19-and-over draft age is a significant part of NBA/NBPA CBA discussions — which have already begun in earnest — but there has been no progress regarding the elimination of the “One-and-Done” rule. Even if changes are made, it wouldn’t be instituted for several years due to commitments already made by teams to trade future draft picks under the current system.

wow let’s see, players I’m most interested to see play, that’s a tough one…

That’s a good topic, Geo, i’ll try to bring it up on today’s thread to see if we can stay away from dissecting FO’s (small?) moves.

We only have one pick in the 2024 draft so far. We’ll probably have zero after we trade it away for a protected 2029 pick.

Or we can have 2 picks, depending on how our protected picks fall. The Dallas pick is almost a lock to convey in 2023, but the Washington one might convey in 2024, it is top14 protected in 2023 and top12 in 2024. They don’t tank, just like the Knicks, and so there’s a decent chance they’ll be one of the last lottery picks in the coming years. Detroit’s one is top18 protected in 2023 and 2024, so i don’t think that one will convey before 2025 (top13). Our 2RPs will be good ones, it’s Detroit’s pick and the most favorable between Cleveland and Utah.

he seems to have such a mature presence out on the court…

I’m definitely rooting for julius to get it together, some of that stuff last year was pretty immature…he has the tools to play basketball at a high level, an all-star level…

now that it’s not his team anymore – who’s team is it?

I don’t really care how other people on the site view the team – to each their own, never been a big fan of bickering though…

people in life just have different perspectives, I imagine the knicks stand in place of other things to rail out…

wow let’s see, players I’m most interested to see play, that’s a tough one…

probably either mitch – to see just how much an impact he can make around the rim…and quik…

the second half of last year, quik looked like he was really starting to see the court better, and his shot started falling…

grimes is interesting, I just don’t feel like I’ve watched him play enough to see how his game might stand up against the rest of the nba..

we shall see soon enough thank goodness 🙂

you done stepped out in to the light darules – basketball/team wise – anything that interests yourself at the moment?

Well yeah, Geo, I’m excited to see how things develop with the young guys, from Barrette to McBride,

I’m high on Grimes,

I’m worried Brunson is going to be good in a way I loved when I was younger (a smart player, maximizing his underdog level talent in an efficient way) but less so today (because he’s not an exciting finisher, or passer like a Steph, or a Ja, or a LaMelo, and I want to be amazed from time to time)

and I hope Randle is going to have a bounce back year and become a reasonably productive 4.

Mostly I hope for a season that will result in people being less obsessively apocalyptic, and a bit more analytical, and funny. Humor is mostly gone since the 19th pick decision was made, and that’s really crappy.

There is a new athletic article that the “double draft” when the draft age limit changes might happen in 2024. I think we only have our own first round pick in 2024 but may have some extra seconds that year.

We only have one pick in the 2024 draft so far. We’ll probably have zero after we trade it away for a protected 2029 pick.

This is not what happened, or the very least it certainly does not characterize my part in the debate accurately. For my part, I always thought #19 was a mediocre pick and the trade-out, while dumb, only made it somewhat more mediocre. It was you and others who acted like that pick was some crown jewel and began rubbing the word “incinerated” into everyone’s faces ad nauseum until it became a KB institution. (Please don’t condescend and regurgitate some semantical bullshit about the meaning of “incinerated” in this context. I still think it was unnecessarily provocative at the time, and it’s disingenuous for anyone who used it to backtrack from it now.)

It’s pretty rich that TNFH now chooses to refer to the “incinerated” pick (multiple times I think) simply as a “first round pick” in making the case that when you give up a “first round pick” for Cam, it’s embarrassing not to play him. Yet I distinctly recall posting an article where Schlenk said that he considered the return “a first rounder” because it is more than 90% likely to convey as a first rounder; it was dismissed by guess who?

So I’ve been totally consistent. It was a shitty pick at #19 that was traded for an even shittier protected CHA pick that was traded for a shitty (but possibly salvageable) player who had no claim to a rotation spot but plenty of time to earn one.

While not suggesting that this is some sort of new era of good feelings between me and Hubert, I applaud him for at least giving an honest account of what my positions were and always have been, and that they are more consistent than what you suggested in your post. At least you and Hubert seem to agree that not playing Cam more minutes was no biggie.

The disagreement is in our respective valuations of those other moves. We see nothing that makes us want to overlook that series of transactions, and he does. We see that series as emblematic of a GM with a low ceiling, he sees it as part of the learning curve.

On the other hand, it’s actually inconsistent for Noble to claim we incinerated the pick and then be upset that we squandered something valuable on Cam.”

Thanks Hubert, this is pretty much an accurate accounting of what I have tried to represent. I will just say that “dwelling on it” is fine with me, just not inflating its ramifications in the big scheme of things.