In Football (soccer), teams can loan players on a season long term. This benefits all parties. Teams can loan young players to other teams for playing time and to raise their value. Other teams can get missing pieces that are not available in FA. So why doesn’t this exist in the NBA?

The Lakers for example could have loaned out T. Bryant, Bonga, Wagner… instead of loosing them for nothing.

What do you think?

View Reddit by IamRshadyView Source

Join the Conversation


  1. Actual (serious) answer: Why would a team who’s loaning out the player want to do this? G-league exists and they’d be able to more closely monitor their own players’ development. Also, I think it’s clear that the medical talent and quality of the facilities varies between each franchise. Not sure I’d want to lend my players out to a team that has a questionable reputation in that regard, possibly risking injury.

    For the team that receives the ‘loaned’ player: why would they do this/put time and money into developing another team’s players. Why not just focus on your own guys

  2. I think the people in the comments that are shooting you down have no knowledge of soccer or the benefits of loaning players.

    For those who don’t know, in soccer this is used for developing players. A younger player that is warming the bench for one of the best teams in the world can be loaned to another team for a year or more, where they can play and develop their talents. It’s usually to a smaller market team so they benefit in winning games, but also in sales etc. The parent team benefits by developing one of its younger players for the future. Sometimes the team receiving the loan has the option to keep a player after the loan is over.

    To be fair, I don’t know how this would work in basketball with such fewer teams, but it really isn’t a terrible idea. Obviously in this case you wouldn’t be loaning a Lebron or Kawhi, but for example a lot of younger players that fall out the league could have been developed on a smaller market or worse team. Additionally, in soccer players are purchased rather than signed to contract, which doesn’t exist in the NBA. This kinda complicated things but again, it’s really not a terrible idea

  3. I’ve been thinking about this scenario a bit, and the best player that comes to mind is draymond green. Dude is a difference maker, but he knows as well as everyone else in GS that they’re tanking this year. If that’s the case it’s a lost year for him and I’m sure GS doesn’t want to play him more than 20 MPG or something. He could be loaned to a contender, compete for an actual championship, then come back to GS next year and retry. I don’t think curry or klay would hold it against him either if they were both out for the season theoretically.

    I can’t think of many other scenarios though besides loaning talented rookies that clearly dominate g league competition but can’t get enough PT on a contender to gain a coach’s trust

  4. Draft and stash deals sort of serve the same purpose, although it isn’t all that prevalent yet and quite a different process. If the league were much bigger I think it’d be a worthwhile idea but like others said the NBA is tiny compared to the football world.

  5. Why would the Wizards have bothered developing those players for another team when the Lakers are just going to get them back and the Wizards are worse off with draft picks in future, and no where near the playoffs?

  6. I’ll have 1 Kawhi loan pls. XD In all seriousness tho it wouldn’t work. Divegrass and basketball have completely different schemes as sports. There isnt like 15 countries with 10 teams each most teams are neighbors and rivals

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *