KP's Risk Assessment
by hightide on Mar 27, 2008 11:51 PM PDT
Email
PrintI think it is a good time to throw out an idea that has been ruminating in my head for about a week. Since this discussion involves draft pick, for the sake of the argument lets assume that the lower lottery draft order remains relatively stagnant.
KP recently said in an interview with Hoopsworld:
A couple people questioned what "Risk Assessment" meant, but on the last Trail Blazers Courtside KP alluded to the meaning:
"If you look at the last 15 or 18 years of the draft, there is potentially 7 or 8 really, really, top notch players. This season seems to be up holding that way. There are potentially seven or eight stars. I think from 8 to 12 you can still get an impact player, it may not be an immediate impact... But your risk goes up... As usually we'll be active as anyone in the draft.Right now Portland is 13th, and that isn't likely to change, just outside of KP's 2nd range of talent. So, what to do, trade the pick for a good veteran? Or, take a chance at trading up in the draft? Then again, the Blazers could just keep the pick and draft the best player who falls to them. All these possibilities deserve a good hard look, so here I go.
The problem with trying to trade for a vet is that when you look at the options and mechanics of a trade, I don't see how that is actually going to happen. It sounds good in theory, but especially when you look at PGs there doesn't seem to be a lot available (good PG aren't just traded), it will eat up 2009 cap space, and will require some money magic from Tom Penn to make salaries close. Ideally, the Blazes would receive a good player in return, and good players have large salaries. This would require more involved then just the pick, players would be needed to match salaries, which is a problem because Portland has very few disposable assets (McRoberts, VonWafer) and one huge expiring contract (Reaf) that is instrumental in a 2009 free-agent spending spree. If KP works something out more power to him (Like King or Absolute Emperor would be more deserving then GM).
Another option is stay at 13ish and take whoever falls. There will be many good prospects fall to this pick, players like D.J. Augustin, Darren Collison, Nicolas Batum, Kevin Love, Donte Greene, or Anthony Randolph (according to the wonderful sites draftexpress.com and nbadraft.net) could be available if they chose to declare this year. Of those Darren Collison or D.J. Augustin could potentially be an upgrade over the dependable and lovable Steve Blake at the vital PG position. There has been much support for Darren Collison (good read, comments are great with both sides of the story clearly stated) and Collison does look like a great PG prospect that will fall to our pick. But, I didn't post KP comments just to fill up your brain, I think this is where KP's risk comments come in.
By playing connect-the-dots, I think we can decipher the breadcrumb trail KP has left for us to follow. In the Hoopsworld article, KP indicated that risk was a major factor in the draft, every pick is like reaching into a black box and pulling out a NBA career, you never know what if you will pull out a Ryan Leaf or Payton Manning (before you point it out, I know it's the wrong sport). At Trail Blazers Courtside, KP disclosed that the way to reduce risk is to get one of the 7 to 8 impact players, because after that "your risk goes up." Each year at draft time every player looks like a sure-fire impact player, but in reality the same pattern repeats itself. Some live up their high billings, most disappoint softly, sleepers emerge, and others become ugly busts. Now the Jayhawks taught KP statistics good, while there is no way to tell who will be who (otherwise there would be no busts), outside of scouting, there is only one way to reduce your risk. To reduce risk you change the Black Box you pick out of... That's it. Lets participate in an exercise using the last 10 NBA drafts, simply pick the box you would want to randomly select a player out of.
Black Box #1: Corey Brewer, Randy Foye, Charlie Villanueva, Luol Deng, Kirk Hinrich, Nene Hilario, Eddie Griffin, Chris Mihm, Richard Hamilton, and Jason Williams.
Black Box #2: Julain Wright, Thabo Sefolosha, Sean May, Sebastian Telfair, Marcus Banks, Marcus Haislip. Richard Jeffersion, Courtney Alexander, Corey Maggette, and Keon Clark.
Black Box #2 was the last ten 13th picks in the NBA draft and the players Black Box #1 where the last ten 7th picks (13th is were the Blazers are now, and 7th is just in KP's first tier of talent). As KP said, " We all like to say that we are basketball experts but in truth ... You just don't know exactly how it is going to turn out." While the Blazers have great scouts, their impact is limited, a kin to removing a Eddie Griffin or Keon Clark out of their respective boxes, it is still a crap-shoot, but the odds are better. It's not like the best players taken 13th were not as good as the 7th pick players, but there are a lot more of busts at 13th than 7th, so statically if you wanted to reduce risk you would pick out of box #1. To those of us detached from reality and in love with economic theories and statistics, this is the most reasonable way of looking at the draft. The 7th pick gets you the success rate of Box #1 and the 13th pick get you the same rate as Box #2.
Basically, I just gave you a long-winded reason why KP's risk assessment and his Trail Blazers Courtside interview means KP is looking to trade up in the draft. Now lets expand on risk assessment and why this course is superior to staying pat. This year will probably be the Blazers last year in the lottery for the next 10 or more years. The Trail Blazers are looking for a feather in their cap, one more player to help them win championships. This is their last chance to make the Big 3 into the Big 4 (or 5 if you include Rudy) before a decade of Playoff runs. KP knows that this pick maybe the difference between one championship banner in the rafters and a dynasty (that's fun to say) and he is looking for blood!
If you believed you were one great player from a dynasty, would you want to pick from Box #1, or Box #2? If I were KP, I would break open Paul's piggy bank, pile up our picks, make profession portfolios of our players (everyone not named Roy, Aldridge, or Oden), and make sure that every team in the top 8 gets the message that Portland wants to trade up. Just for that extra 20% chance of getting a great player, that extra 20% of having a dynasty (20% is an arbitrary number). Not only will trading up in the draft get us a better chance of the prospect turning out, but will also preserve the Blazers 2009 cap room, something trading for a good vet, and the probable large salary, doesn't allow.
Now, I've spent the whole time talking without any specifics, which is fine in the "long run", but this is a concrete draft with players who have defined skills and positions. So, lets look at the top of the draft. The 7 or 8 impact players KP was probably talking about are looking like Michael Beasley, Derrick Rose, Jerryd Bayless, Brook Lopez, O.J. Mayo, Danilo Gallinari, Blake Griffin, and Eric Gordon (maybe Russell Westbrook too) according to the draft websites.
One of the best arguments for staying at 13 is the best pass first PG's outside of Rose (D.J. Augustin and Darren Collison) will probably be there and no way will KP be able to trade for Rose without giving up a core piece. But, lets look at the blueprint/prototype for the Blazers. 5.8 assists doesn't sound like a true pass-first PG, but that is what Tony Parker averages this year in 34 minutes. Parker assists per 48 minutes only 8.2 (same as Mo Williams), but the Spurs have won it all with him as their "QB". So, what gives with Trail Blazer fan's obsession with pass first point guards? (See poll and tip of the hat to the astounding knickfan). What gives is the Blazers shoulda/woulda taken Chris Paul or Deron Williams in 2005, and like a lover-boy who realized that his dumped ex was the best he'll ever get, we've built a shrine and keep calling, begging for a second chance in 2009. Get over it! It is time to stop living in the past and instead settle down with the first passable substitute that comes our way.
If the Spurs can live with "fleet-footed, scoring PG" because they have a playmaking SG and a post presence, I don't see why Portland needs a pass first PG with a playmaking SG and TWO post presences. Half the time the Blazers point guard will just pass the ball into the post, and a quarter of the time Roy will have the ball. And running the pick and roll with an athletic big men with good hands doesn't require a passing wizard either, just look at Jemeer Nelson in Orlando. The Blazer nation should realize that having Mayo, Bayless, or Gordon would be an unbelievable coup and shouldn't be turn off because they aren't pass-first point guards (well, Gordon's true SG). I'll take a shoot first PG with a much better chance of become a solid player than Darren Collison with the smaller chance. I don't mean to pick on Collison, I just bring up his name because if we stay pat at 13th, KP would be crazy not to take a hard look at drafting him.
While there may be good choices at 13th, I think that the Blazers will try desperately to move up, not because there is a player who is a better fit at higher up, but because the chance that player will turn out is much higher then a lower tier talent. KP and his risk assessment talk (and the fact that he was probably scouting Bayless the same day as the Courtside interview) seem to indicate his intentions of moving up. Whatever KP's plan is, I know draft day will be fun.
That is all folks, weigh in with any comments, critiques, or your own interpretation of our much beloved GM's comments.
58 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We don't need an elite PG
ALL WE NEED at the PG spot is a guy who can adequately defend the PG position (Blake is FINE but will always be abused by quick PGs) and hit the outside jumper. If Blake was just a lil' more athletic, he'd be perfect. Alas, he'll always try hard and do decently but ultimately will be overly burned by even mediocre quick point guards.
Obviously, a Paul or Deron would be awesome. But, we don't need that to get over the top as long as Oden is Oden and Roy is Roy and LMA is LMA. Roy is all the playmaker we'll ever need, so we just need the RIGHT role player at the PG spot.
The same argument can be said for the SF spot. We just need the right type of SF, not necessarily a star. Good defender, can hit the outside shot. That's all we need.
Personally, I don't take what KP said as a hint that he's looking to trade up, but more a hint that he'll possibly look to trade the pick for a real player OR as a warning to fans that the later the pick the less likely you'll get an impact player. That should be obvious, but KP is just being honest.
If KP identifies the exact player he wants and he (or she!) won't be available at #13, then sure, he'll do what he can to move up. But I don't think that is necessarily the plan, because getting even younger might not be fun and if we don't get a top 3 pick, any player that is what we need might not be trade-up-a-ble.
Since we need to upgrade our starting PG, getting that player in the draft and working to develop a rookie PG gotten with a late lottery pick doesn't sound like a good idea, since so many other key positions are being developed as well. We need solid play from the PG spot, and Blake has given that, especially while everyone else is young and developing. If we have a PG who still has a lot of learning left, we will have a very difficult time developing the rest of the roster.
Oooh I dunno what we'll do.
Mortimer
Hey
A few comments
- You've demonstrated effectively why KP will try to trade the pick. It's high risk. Given that it is already high risk, if he can't trade it, I could see him really gambling on a Euro (like Rudy) or trading down to draft a project. If you have to gamble anyway, why not go for the big win, or trade down to reduce the stakes?
- You haven't, in my opinion, demonstrated that he will try to trade up in the draft. He still could trade it for an established player. If doing so kills our cap space, so what? Cap space is useful for getting players. If we get the player we need by trade, we no longer need cap space. Cap space is an asset which can be traded or saved, it isn't untouchable.
- Good analysis as to why "pass-first" is not the greatest need. Much of the time, Roy will be running the offense. We don't want a guy who has to be a big scorer to provide value, but a scoring PG (especially a deep threat) would be a good fit.
- I think you are overlooking the fact that Collison provides the thing we need most in a PG -- excellent perimeter D. That, alone, makes him a decent option for us to draft.
- Drafting for defense lowers the risk at #13. Excellent D is pretty low risk -- if you draft an excellent perimeter defender, the likelihood that he will still be able to defend in the pros is pretty high. Even if he is never much more than a defender, you got what you paid for.
- There is no guarantee Collison will be available at 13. If KP wants him, he could try to move up to 9-10 to be sure. Some highly rated guys could stay in school another year. The UCLA guys could do the Florida thing and come back for one more year together.
- Bayless and Gordon are not the defenders we need, I believe. I will be disappointed if we draft either of them, though their talent is undoubted. We need defense. Mayo and Rose would fit that bill. So would Westbrook, I think. I would be happy with Westbrook.
Follow KP's comments
Perimeter D: Like I said, Collison would be a great pick that really fit the Blazers. But, I don't think you can say he has a great advantage in D over the other short people in the draft who are projected to go over him. Mayo, Bayless, and Gordon all have good perimeter D, maybe not as good at the moment, but respectable D. And their ceilings may be higher because they are all stronger then Collison and are younger (well, O.J. just by a few months). Though Collison may be the quickest and have the longest arms.
Safe: There are illusions of safe picks, but if they really are that safe of a pick they won't look like they will fall to the later lottery (boring/safe Roy only made it to 6th even with past knee problems). That is where KP's patterns based on where they are drafted come in. Sean May looked like a safe pick, he won a championship, but fell because he wasn't a run and jump athlete (sound like Kevin Love?). But, his knees are giving out, he still might become a great player but you should notice the risk.
Thanks for the response
Perimeter D -- Is Gordon's that good? I personally think Mayo can be a better defender than Collison, because he is too big for taller PGs to post up, but he'll cost us more. To get him, you have to invest in offensive potential as well as defense, which increases the cost (in tradeable assets) and therefore the risk. But great upside potential, obviously.
Safe -- my point was simply that if you have limited expectations (all you want is a good perimeter defender and a reasonable ball-handler), you greatly reduce the risk of your pick.
If we trade all the way up to #2 to get Rose, on the expectation he will be great both offensively and defensively, etc., there's a lot of risk. If we trade up to get Gordon, expecting him to be a great scorer and good defender, there's a lot of risk. There's always the chance some of those skills won't make the grade in the NBA.
Defense is defense. A great perimeter defender is unlikely to forget how to play defense once he becomes a pro. The guy who stopped everyone may get burned by Nash and Paul, but if he played great D in college, he's likely to be able to defend/slow most NBA PGs. If all you want is D, you can lessen your risk significantly. Anything else you get becomes a bonus.
Of course, if all you want is D, you aren't Pursuing Everything. ;)
I'm jumping the gun
You have good points that are more reasonable at the moment. If you do trade up it does raise expectations, but it's not like the Blazers will ask some one to lead a team. I will concede some skills do transfer better to the pros, and I'm sure KP has all of that on a matrix. But, I think KP believes that if you trade up, your chance of that player turning out is higher, which I guess is the heart of my message.
Nothing wrong with speculating about the future
I read it differently
It's all about making your list and checking it twice......
Yeah--WHOSE tiers is a key.
Who actually GOES top 7 or 8 versus who goes in the middle of the round is something else altogether.
Those aren't the 1st-tier/2nd-tier groups KP (or hightide, either, for that matter) are talking about.
Tiers isn't a perfect word
He goes on to say that he thinks from 8 to 12, there are some impact players, but your risk goes up (tier two).
I was just trying my best to convey what KP said, even if he didn't say it out right. But in the interview, he made a clear separation between the two groups. To me he seems to indicate that it is sequential, when he says "I think from 8 to 12 you can still get an impact player." KP seems to be implying that the 7 or 8 star players are taken up and from picks 8 to 12 there has been historically, higher risk, slower developing players, but still have star potential.
If last night was any indication...
Case in point is Rajon Rando (21st pick in 2006). He isn't an offensive impact player game in and game out but he doesn't have to be with the players on the Boston roster. However, he has tremendous quickness, an above average defender and distributes the ball well. I am a fan of scoring (who isn't?) but with Oden, LMA, Roy and Rudy coming over next year, why do the Blazers need a score first point guard/combo guard?
If the Blazers can stay pat and get either Collison or Westbrook at 12-14 in the draft, I am all for it. If KP makes any trades, I hope that it is for a vet who can play defense...Harris anyone?
very interesting
this draft isn't all about the #13 pick. of equal importance (and greater difficulty) for KP is the 3 second rounders. by your reasoning these are all high risk picks.
i say they factor into this discussion in a major way.
Thoughts, hightide?
Some thoughts:
A tourney run can be the difference between (quite EXACTLY) going at #13 and going at #7 for someone like Collison.
Oh hey--HIS team won last night. (Even though it was against Possum Chaw U.)
So don't rule out moving up in the draft to get a 7-ish pick . . . LIKE COLLISON.
On the flip side, let's see how Augustin does tonight.
2) With his stats background, Pritchard's first comment (the one about the "Black Box") may need further scrutiny.
In late-high-school/early-college math classes (specifically algebra), one familiar metaphor that kept coming up was:
A function is like a black box, where you put one thing into it, and one thing comes out.
You don't have to know what's going on in that box to understand this, and sometimes,
knowing what's going on in that box, it's processes and mechanisms, can be a distraction from
the essential "Function" status (and the importance of that status) of that box.
If the box is "4-x/3", you don't have to follow the math to see that for any x you put in, one thing's coming out.
You may not see how it turns 6 into 2 and 114 into -34, but you can accept that IT DOES THAT,
so this "4-x/3" is a FUNCTION, a black box that turns any one thing you put into it into some one thing comin' out.
So yeh: I've heard this one in enough basic alg classes which I KNOW KP's been in to wonder
if THIS is what he means by the "black box", that when you draft a player,
even if you know what you're getting, you don't KNOW what that's going to turn into.
Of course, in a function, each input has just one result, so for KP to apply that here would mean
each college player has an NBA player he's gonna become, that scouting is everything in who you end up with
DOWN THE ROAD, and development is nothing (except maybe to get in the way of that down-the-road result,
or, for trade purposes, to make the end result look way better than it really turned out to be).
Awfully close to classic Determinism philosophy, and I'd be surprised if KP hewed to that line,
but the "Black Box" reference, coming from a guy who's heard that phrase to describe a function--
it would be an odd coincidence for him to use that phrase with some other meaning,
especially such an inherently different meaning (a black box where The Thing is already in it, and you just get it out,
as opposed to a box that does something to what YOU have, and gives you a thing back--
a box with no "thing" in it, but rather a process, a transformation, an abstracttion rather than a concrete IT).
Besides, the thought that each draft prospect (college, high school, Euro or otherwise)
has EXACTLY ONE possible NBA player that he's gonna become is an intriguing notion.
That, no matter how he looked during draft season, Kwame was gonna become Kwame,
Darko was gonna become Darko, Arenas was gonna become Agent Zero, Jordan was going to become Jordan,
and there was nothing any of the teams involved could do about it,
and what they did isn't really responsible for how things turned out.
That's a really cool notion to ponder. Good shower-thinking material. And what about Len Bas?
3) The roster thingy.
We're maxed out as it is. Darius MIGHT go, but we need some help from
an unknown, independent medical guy of the NBA's choosing for that to happen.
Other than that, nobody is coming off the books this year (but WOW--wait 'til NEXT year!).
Meanwhile, we're going to add Rudy AND at least one draft pick to the roster?
Plus, we've got a mid-level exception we've been sitting on (I THINK--slightly unsure on this one).
I'm sorry, but we've hit the too-many-bodies, can't-add-NOBODY situation, and KP dang well knows it.
Between some White Unit players and the draft pick in the teens, we have three nickels, and the change bank is full.
Obviously, we'd rather turn those three nickels into a quarter than a dime, but I don't think we can keep three nickels.
This isn't Division-I NCAA football in the 70's, where you can just keep stacking the roster.
We're gonna have to turn two or three roster occupants into one, 'cause one spot is all we can spare.
We're gonna HAVE to trade--unless the draft pick is necessarily a Euro-stashable player like Rudy & The Petter.
Also, Rudy coming over would be totally dependent on getting Miles off the roster, which is beyond our control.
Unless we're COUNTING on a favorable Miles ruling ("Yep--that's the end for him. 'Career-Ending Injury', OFFICIALLY."),
then all this we-want-Rudy talk from Blazer HQ (which I believe to be sincere)
necessitates turning multiple nickels into one single coin, the best coin we can get.
4) Yeah, your post was too long. Waaaaayyyyy too long. I'd NEVER do something like that. Heck no, not me.
Oh yes--what Ben just said about 3 2nd-rounders.
(Although, 2nd-rounders make just dandy D-league players, stashed for an emergency or improbable development.
But I don't think you can take that attitude with that lottery pick in the first round.)
AND I SHOULD ADD (because I said so little):
is TOTALLY contingent on finding a trade partner in the exact opposite situation:
A team with too few bodies, with a lot of contracts coming off the books.
This isn't the same thing as a team with too low PAYROLL, with a lot of MONEY coming off the books.
That would be a cap-space team, and those guys aren't looking to trade; they're looking to SIGN. That's us next year.
No, we need a team who's losing a lot of expiring rookies and vet-minimum type of dudes.
No idea who fits that bill.
That'd take, like, you know--RESEARCH.
Anyone know of any such team off the top of their heads?
Like, Boston?
What do they have that we might like? Rondo? Would they part with him to get two young, talented players to improve their depth and future? Would he improve us at the point?
Could KP be phoning Danny Ainge? Could Ainge be saying that he wants to see certain players on the court before making a deal?
..... and you're also getting T-3'd up!
roster issues
- Blake
- Roy
- Webster
- LMA
- Oden
- Sergio
- Jack
- Jones*
- Frye
- Pryz
- Outlaw
- Raef
- McRoberts*
- Darius
- OPEN (Von Wafer)
Of course this assumes no trades. I find that highly unlikely. I think at least two of Jack, Outlaw, Frye, and Martel will be sent packing in the offseason, likely packaged with draft picks and/or Raef's expiring contract.
Lastly, you can't stash 2nd rounders in the NBDL unless they are also on your 15 man roster. So, that option is not really very likely.
Jeez--GREAT points.
And I forgot Wafer expires this year--thought he was a 2009 guy, like all the rest of them.
And I like who you focused on for trades.
I still think Rudy plays on the bench unit, with Sergio.
That a) rules out Sergio being traded (and sure enough, you omitted him), and
b) needs to clear out one of the two wings spots for Rudy. Those are currently occupied by the JJ's,
one of whom you include on your trade list, the other of which is, as you mention, able to opt out.
And as far as Jones opting out: How much more likely is that if Rudy comes?
There's certainly not room for FOUR perimeter-dependent shooters, and Rudy, JaJo, JJ and MarWeb all qualify.
And between Frye and Trout (both of whom you mention), ONE of them will be the backup PF alongside Joel next year.
And between Trout, Jones and Marweb, ONE of them will be the small forward next year.
If this Rudy noise is for real (and I think it is), I see JaJo opting out, unless he gets that starting 3 spot.
(now comes the too-long thinking-out-loud stretch; people might wanna stop reading here. big-picture time again.)
So, let's see how this adds up: Assuming Roy, LMA, Oden and Blake are all starters next year,
and Sergio, Rudy and Joel are the guards and center of the second unit,
then that means 3 spots are up for grabs (starting small forward, both bench forwards).
Fighting for those 3 spots are:
JJ
MarWeb
Trout
Jones
Frye
Whoever would be our first-round pick
That's SIX players, for three spots. That adds up to three players gone--but wait!
Gotta add WHO THEY'D BE TRADED FOR to the list, and specifically the list of three forwards who stay.
So that'd be four guys gone.
Keeper is probably either Frye or Trout as the backup PF; I'd guess Trout.
He's got the recent contractual commitment, showing keep-him faith from the front office.
I think the only way Frye stays is if Trout gets the starting 3 nod, which is possible.
That would mean JaJo opts out, and we trade JJ, either Frye or MarWeb (depending on where Trout's slotted)
and our first-round pick for either an existing NBA-er or a high pick, either way someone who plays
SMALL FORWARD--backup or starter doesn't really matter, it'll be a small forward slot.
JJ, Frye/Web and a mid-first-rounder for the best 3 available, draftee OR vet.
And it's gotta be with a team with room for multiple players.
[looks pointedly at Atlanta]
After all, that Bibby trade DID reduce their roster--they sent out more players than they took back.
Granted, this all assumes the following:
- Rudy IS coming, next year, and is not yet ready to be the starting 3.
- Since that puts him on the bench unit, we want Sergio as THE point guard for that unit.
- Blake has the starting point guard slot nailed down, if only for next year.
4) The blazers would make this sort of trade move now, rather than simply let players go and payroll fall next offseason.
After all, JJ, Webster, Frye,and JaJo all come off the books then--why trade their contracts en masse a year before they expire anyway,
in an offseason when we'd look to be under the cap and do some signing?
But if the option is carrying (does a quick count) fifteen players (I do think if Rudy comes, Jones leaves, so you can't count both),
well, I'm surprised that we're not DOOMED to be over without a trade.
But more to the point, this Jones-or-Rudy thing is going unnoticed; I think that's EXACTLY what it is.
And, if he comes, Rudy's gonna need max Sergio time, at least in his first year.
Right now Sergio's frozen out, and rightfully so with a lot of his play, but could that continue on a Rudy bench squad?
So them JJ becomes the odd man out, after being last year's starter and slipping to a backup slot with good minutes.
And the whole Trout-v-Frye for the backup PF slot can't take all of next season to resolve.
Unless Jones and Rudy ARE the two wings, of course. Which, without JJ, that's what we'd need.
But then we'd be maxed out at 15 before the draft pick. What do we do with the draft pick? And in a JJ trade?
So is it that simple? JJ-and-the-pick for a worth-both player?
And the two units filled out at 1=Blake/Roy/Web/LMA/Oden and 2=Sergio/Rudy/Jones/Trout/Joel?
Where does that man-we-get-back GO?!? Where does FRYE go? Those two players are too good to go to Raef/McRoberts land outside the two units!
We'll see. Namely, if Rudy comes, and if he does, if that prompts a Jones opt-out.
Kinda at the mercy of those two players' decisions, in sequence.
(WOW, that ran on)
I like the enthusiasm
But you do bring up a point, maybe this dairy was a little premature, I should have waited until the basic order of the draft was figured out. But, I had time to write a good diary and wanted to strike while KP's comments were still hot.
I certainly hope not!!!
THAT would be a catastrophe, if KP doesn't fix the untenable situation at backup PF. THAT'S what this draft is for...
t
One thing doesn't work...
t
The analysis of risk was interesting.
I think you are leaving one one possible aspect. In addition to trading up in this draft, Pritchard could trade up in a future draft. By offering his pick to a team in exchange for one of their future picks, Pritchard gives himself the opportunity to add a possible lottery level pick a couple years down the road, when Portland is hopefully selecting well down in the draft. Memphis, Boston, Chicago, New Jersey, Miami, Indiana, even New York are all teams that 3 years from now could reasonably be lottery teams and who might consider adding Portland's pick this year as a good move.
That still leaves 3 2nd round picks to use or package. Two of them are fairly high. He could select for a need if a guy like Nathan Jawai is available and have to benefit of not having to use up a roster spot next year.
In the end, I have no good idea what Pritchard is going to do. It wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't know exactly what he'll be doing. Right now I think he has multiple possibilities mapped out that could include trading up, trading into the future, keeping the picks or packaging them. What he actually does will likely depend on what other GM's do. Ultimately, I trust that we have one of the sharpest and hardest working GM's in the league, which means whatever he does, it has a decent chance of being good.
I think this is exactly what we do,
comments...
Jones stays most likely. If he goes, it's about longer-term stability more than anything else.
I think you can pretty much guarantor that either Sergio or Jack is traded, and possibly both, with Jack being the preferred candidate for reasons stated above. You can also guarantee that either Outlaw or Frye is traded, but not both. If Jones opts out, Martel won't be traded. If Jones stays, Martel is a trade possibility if we are trading for an upgrade at the 3 spot.
Personally, I'd trade Outlaw. I think he has the most value of the potential candidates, especially given his very reasonable contract compared to his production this year. I think his trade value will only go down, and I don't think his game meshes well with the rest of our main guys going into the future. In short, trade him now while he has maximum value.
So, answering your lineup question, I think the answer to the 3 open spots are Martel, Jones, and Frye/Trout (one will be traded). Jack is gone.
As you said, this doesn't account for our 1st rounder or who we get in trade. Whoever we trade, figure it's a 2 or 3 for 1 deal most likely. We need to shed players, and we need to upgrade the 1 and 3 spots. I'd say we are either heading for 2 players and the 1st rounder for a veteran point or small forward, or the 1st rounder and a player or 2 for some other team's much better 1st rounder (and cap filler garbage). Either way, figure we get one upgrade, whether it's a high draft pick or a veteran. If we draft where at #13 or trade down, that player is not a factor in our 10 man lineup. You can pretty much figure the upgrade is at the 1 or 3 spots.
So, either Sergio gets bumped out of the lineup or a SF does (likely Jones). If the trade is for a PG, I see Sergio getting added to the deal or traded in another deal. If the trade is for a PG, then Martel will be traded away or Jones would have opted out.
So, that leaves us with the following lineup possibilities:
A) trade up for rookie PG
1:Blake,Roy,Martel,LMA,Oden
2:rookie,Rudy,Jones,Frye/Outlaw,Pryz
B) trade up for rookie SF
1:Blake,Roy,Martel/Jones,LMA,Oden
2:Sergio,Rudy,rookie,Frye/Outlaw,Pryz
C) Trade for veteran PG
1:veteran,Roy,Martel,LMA,Oden
2:Blake,Rudy,Jones,Frye/Outlaw,Pryz
D) Trade for veteran SF
1:Blake,Roy,veteran,LMA,Oden
2:Sergio,Rudy,Martel/Jones,Frye/Outlaw,Pryz
In order of likelihood, I'd say it's C,D,B,A
Yeah
Easily the best draft diary posted so far
So we may try to pull off what Seattle did last in obtaining Boston's # 5 pick.
It cost Seattle Ray Allen for Delonte West and Wally World. The difference in value between Ray and those two is pretty huge. That was an "A" player for 2 "C" players and a "B+" draft pick.
First Problem: We are not trading away any "A" players... no question.
Here is what we've got to trade:
*Straight up without taking back any salary filler:
13th pick
Jarrett Jack (I love the guy, but I'm not blind)
Sergio
McRoberts (not sure about his contract)
Two mids 30's 2nd round picks
One late 2nd round pick
Joel Freeland
Petteri Kopponen
Channing Frye
*Players to trade that will require salary filler:
Outlaw
Jones (again not sure how his contract works for an off season trade)
LaFrentz (probably wait on trading him)
*Ain't going anywhere:
Roy-duh LMA-duh Oden-dun
Pryz
Blake
Rudy (and probably Sergio argggh)
I want Bayless and only Bayless if we move up and we just don't have the goods to get him. Memphis is our best bet to move up. I bet they would like to get Outlaw or Pryz from us, but that isn't enough.
Maybe KP will bust out the pritch-slap like he did on Danny Ainge with the Uncle Theo & S-bass for Raef & Broy.
Hightide, will you do my taxes?
Seriously though, very good thoughts. I'm looking forward to the draft already.
Great diary
- Are they entertaining?
- Are they thoughtful?
- Are they sane?
As far as the content of your diary, I've learned not to run with any of KP's newspaper quotes, and that predicting KP's next move is even more uncertain than predicting the next sleeper in the draft.
But this was an excellent lecture, professor. Thank you, and I too look forward to this offseason.
I would always add one more criterium:
and "medium" for "media". "Criteria", "data", and "media" are all plural nouns: multiple THINGS. So there.)
Anyway, a diary should stimulate good conversation from the repliers.
And yes, this one works dang well on that level, too.
I am pretty sure I knew this
and "medium" for "media". "Criteria", "data", and "media" are all plural nouns: multiple THINGS. So there.)"
I am almost positive
by 92wastheyear on Mar 29, 2008 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Is not criterium
by broggerboy19 on Mar 31, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Neato Diary and Comments
Not really a dairy
That Would be too Hard
As all ways
Nice
Blog-quacious
A: On-and-on Anon
by 92wastheyear on Mar 28, 2008 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey Tom: How about "Blogocious"???
Absolutely Excellent!!!! Did you coin that word?
It's what I do...
It's a good one
by tominhawaii on Mar 30, 2008 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Just a lil' Trailer
Therefore, a slight remix of a previous comment;
KP's comin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be sum' trades comin' down.
When KP comes around.
The hairs on your arm will stand up.
At the terror in each trade and each cut.
For you partake of that last offered pick,
or disappear into the "D" league bound.
When KP comes around.
Hear the rumors, hear the analyses.
One hundred million fans singin'.
Multitudes are marching to the big Kool Aid.
Voices callin', voices cryin'.
Some are born an' some are dyin'.
It's Alpha's and Omega's Team to come.
And the season is in the final run.
The fans are all timing their kick.
The season is in the final run.
It's hard for thee to pick against the pricks.
Till The Finals, no Slack, no Sympathy.
Then the Coach will call his Players home.
The wise Stars will bow down before the Team.
And at Coach's feet, they'll cast their future.
When KP comes around
Jhooooooooonnniiiee!
"The Team with Caricature!"
OT but OT on this
Cool
but right now, it's Game Time Baby!
"The Team with Caricature!"
by Lizzy Lowblow on Mar 29, 2008 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Alison Krauss
well
Actually, if past behavior is any indication . . .
That Roy-Aldridge draft was a classic case in point.
(And of course, there was no way TO trade up last year. Woo-hoo!)
douglast
The cost of getting up into the top 5 area could be pretty steep, and then we are still faced with the prospect of trying to train a young Point Guard for the next several years. Everything I'm hearing and reading, and my own intuition tells me that the Blazers don't want to keep gettiing
Thus, I think it much more likely that we trade down from 13 in the the 20s and grab a Euro or the 13 pick gets moved in a package to bring back a veteran PG or SF
*edits*
1 more young dude...
I've had it with so-called power forwards with the main game of the 17 foot jumpshot (Frye, Outlaw).
Travis will make a FINE 3. Frye, well, he got rid of Zbo for the good of team culture, but he doesn't have the right ATTITUDE to play the position he purportedly plays. He doesn't WANT to muck it up in the pit...
So, yeah, one more guy to draft.
t
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- David Stern changed the competition committee to push new rules, report says
- Nazr Mohammed films Oklahoma City Thunder fans welcoming the team back at 5:30 in the morning (VIDEO)
- The Orlando Magic finally part ways with both Stan Van Gundy and GM Otis Smith
- Mike D’Antoni breaks silence on New York Knicks exit: ‘An obstacle had to be removed’
- Adam Morrison looks great, everyone
