The Official Blazersedge Brandon Rush Thread

by Dave on Jun 18, 2008 11:47 PM PDT Comment 45 comments

If you've been following any of the mock draft action that we've been involved in the name that's popping up constantly for the Blazers at #13 (thanks mostly to yours truly) is Brandon Rush from Kansas. As much as anything it's because other bloggers have been wising up to the three players Portland would probably be most interested in--Russell Westbrook, DJ Augustin, and Joe Alexander--and snagging them well before Portland's pick. Rush does have a lot of qualities to offer this team, however. Portland might be able to trade down (or otherwise acquire a later pick) and still get him also. He could also free up some of our other swingmen for potential trades OR be a legitimate part of a trade himself. (If you use a point guard or center as a throw-in people pretty much know he sucks, but swingmen and potential scorers make good additional trade bait.)

So...how disappointed or overjoyed or nonplussed would you be if the Blazers walked away from this draft with Mr. Rush in hand? If Portland ends up using its 13th pick would you be OK taking Rush there? What do you know about him, what does he bring to the table, and what are the potential difficulties?

Let us know below.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

0 recs | Comment 45 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I've been on the Rush bandwagon

for a couple of months now. I have no problems taking him at 13. Considering that he’s ranging from 13 to 22 in most mocks I’ve seen, I don’t think taking him at 13 is much of a reach.

I like his shooting and his focus on defense. I don’t think we can have too many 3 point shooters, and our wing defense is a weakness. He might be somewhat redundant with Martell, but I personally am a little higher on Rush than Martell. Having both of these guys battle out their future of the team would be interesting.

by howlingfantods on Jun 19, 2008 12:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Felt so-so

I was thing/hoping you’d go with Gallinari, but I was in a swing for the home-run type of mood this afternoon. But, after Rush was the pick I was feeling okay. A safe pick, Rush is an ideal piece for a championship team (defense, outside shooting), but SF and SG positions are crowded right now for the Blazers. I don’t really know how he’d fit in the rotation for the first couple years, KP would have to trade some pieces to clear him some room. At 22 (23 in July) he’s older then Webster, and I’m not so sure you could say he is any better. If part of a bigger plan (trading Web, Jack or Trout for a PG) I’d be happy with it.

Joel Freeland=Stud

by hightide on Jun 19, 2008 12:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Part of it was

I didn’t really feel Gallinari would be there, which makes it hard to make a convincing argument why the Blazers would take him. I know you’re supposed to respond to what’s happening around you, but it still felt kind of weird saying, “Yes! Yes! We got Danilo!” while knowing that probably wouldn’t happen unless his stock fell enough that you wouldn’t really want him. Besides, Golden State or Phoenix getting him makes an even better story.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 19, 2008 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Faultless reasoning

I’m not sure what I’d say…. So what the Blazers don’t need him, or are a very good fit, but why not?

BTW, interesting rumor on Draft Express, it seems that the Nets really like Robin Lopez and Gallinari, but Gallinari (who has the same agent as Robin) might go 6th to the Knicks. So Robin is rumored to have a promise with the Nets at the 10th pick. I say the PTBs switch picks with the Nets, Nets still get Robin, and with the Knicks taking Gallinari and Bucks taking Alexander, Westbrook flouts down to us at 10th. You heard it here first!

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Word-on-the-Street-Who-s-Moving-Up-or-Down-2933/#

Joel Freeland=Stud

by hightide on Jun 19, 2008 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wishful thinking

Even if Nets are high on the second Lopez and we switch picks, Clippers will likely snatch Westbrook with their 7th pick. They’re more desperate for a point guard than we are.

So with our newly acquired 10th pick we select…. Augustin? Nah. I think our PG solution will have to be found in free agency.

by LMA on Jun 19, 2008 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Following that logic though Dave

you could only pick someone who would obviously be there. So your basically choosing from people who are rated #15 to #30. Anyone under that I cant rely on being there.

by RememberRastaMonsta! on Jun 19, 2008 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I would feel disappointed.

That with all the young trading chips that we have, any talk of “reaching” at somebody at 13 should be avoided. I like Rush and feel that he would be a solid player, borderline starter/great 6th man, but we have a lot of borderline starters/great 6th men and what we need is someone to come in and be that starting PG.

This draft sets up perfectly for us as it is G heavy, both with “true” PGs and mostly combo Gs, which is fine as KP said today on 1080 that having a pass first PG would be nice it is not nessasary to win the big game ala game 7 of the finals.

With Mayo, Bayless, Gordon, Westbrook, and Augustin all in the draft and all having the potential to be very good, even all-star level Gs in the league, I would feel that this would be the cheapest way to add that final piece at the G position. Once players are on teams they are automatically overvalued, or at least players that we would want on our team, ie non malcontents who are still in good standing on their team.

I really do like Rush but do not see him as much of an upgrade over what we have. Maretell was the 6th pick and still is about a year and a half younger than Rush, while I would hate to let go of Travis after all of the work we have put into him and he is only a little less than a year older than Rush.

I just think that the talent avalible in this draft at SF is not significantly better than the talent we have on our team at SF, while the talent at G is much greater than the talent at G we have on the team.

Bottom line is, would you trade Martell, TO or Jones for Rush and to that my answer is no.

by SpyderRyder on Jun 19, 2008 12:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Here are the draft positions

for the players I’d consider the top SFs in the league, pretty much in order of their quality.

1 – LeBron
#3 – Carmelo
#10 – Paul Pierce
#10 – Caron Butler
#23 – Tayshaun Prince
#17 – Danny Granger
#29 – Josh Howard
#16 – Hedo Turkoglu
#7 – Luol Deng
#16 – Ron Artest

Just because Rush is projected in the teens, that doesn’t mean that folks think he’s necessarily a bench player. It’s just that most SFs go in that range because folks look to fill their PG and PF/C slots first, unless it’s a Bron or Melo type of unstoppable scorer type.

And yes, I’d trade Jones for Rush any day. I’d probably trade Martell for him, although that’s a bit more of a gamble—I think Rush will end up better than Martell will end up, but Martell is closer to the finished product. Trout would be a tougher call. On the one hand, I’m not crazy about his game, but on the other hand, you can’t deny that he’s stepped up big time, and you hate to trade someone who can deliver in the clutch.

by howlingfantods on Jun 19, 2008 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well OK Jones of course,

but Webster is far from a finished product as he is a year and a half younger than Rush so how can you say that Webster is more of a finished product?

It will be interesting but I like I said, I just do not see Rush as as much of an upgrade at SF as we can possibly get at G with Mayo, Bayless, Gordon, Westbrook, or Augustin while at the same time hopefully trading Jack to free up time for new G and Rudy to play.

Rush< or = Webster, TO
while
Mayo, Bayless, Gordon, Westbrook, or Augustin>>>>>Blake, Jack, Sergio

So OK let me put it to you this way, would you rather trade:

Martell or TO for Rush,

Blake, Jack or Sergio for Mayo, Bayless, Gordon, Westbrook, or Augustin?

I think that answer is a little easier to come by.

by SpyderRyder on Jun 19, 2008 1:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of the reasons I like Rush

is that I don’t like most of the other players you’ve mentioned. I like Westbrook, although I think of him as much more of a gamble than folks around here seem to. I think Gordon has NBA talent but doesn’t fit this team. Don’t like Mayo or Bayless, and really don’t like Augustin. None of those guys are good fits for our team IMO.

I think this year’s draft has more overhyped players in the mid lottery than usual, and I’d much rather take a good two way player like Rush who potentially solidifies a weak spot for us than overpay to try to move up in the draft in order to draft one of a number of undersized two guards, shoot first combo guards, or shoot first out of control undersized pgs. On our team? I’d rather play Blake than those guys.

by howlingfantods on Jun 19, 2008 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A better way to look at this might be

which starting five would you rather have?

1) Augustin/Roy/Webster/LMA/Oden or
2) Hinrich/Roy/Rush/LMA/Oden

I like 2 better, by a pretty sizeable margin. So I’d rather use our pick for Rush and dangle Webster, Thrilla, Frye, Trout, etc to upgrade the back court.

My decision tree if I were KP would be Westbrook, Love, Rush, Hibbert, in that order. Of those, it’s looking like Love is very unlikely to drop that far, Westbrook pretty unlikely, Rush pretty likely to be there, and Hibbert’s the fallback.

by howlingfantods on Jun 19, 2008 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hibbert?

If we somehow find ourselves trading Przybilla, I can get behind it.

But I definitely would do a double take if we’re passing on guys like
Augustin and Green to get a guy who’s gonna be third on the depth
chart at his position to start the season.

by lyleleander on Jun 19, 2008 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes. Hibbert would be to solidify

the backup C, so Przy would be on the block. As much as I like Thrilla, I don’t like his injury history and his history of up and down play. Remember that as good as he was last year, the year before that he was losing minutes to Jamaal Magloire.

When a guy has two good seasons out of nine, I think it’s a mistake to rely too heavily on him, call me crazy.

I love the idea of the Oden/Hibbert rotation. Tired of running against a 7 foot 270 pound brick wall? Well, here’s a 7’2 280 pound brick wall off the bench for you to run into. I think we could play Oden 30 minutes and Hibbert 18 minutes, and both guys would be fresh and stay out of foul trouble. If Hibbert is as good as I think, he becomes an incredibly valuable trade piece that 3/4 of the league would kill themselves overpaying for—skilled, smart, hardworking 7’2 guys do not grow on trees.

But again, my standard disclaimer whenever I talk about Hibbert—I’m a Hoya and my evaluations of Hoyas tend to be overenthusiastic.

by howlingfantods on Jun 19, 2008 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now that you explain your position...

it definitely makes more sense. You’re right, if Hibbert did turn out to be productive and a defensive presence, that would be a HUGE advantage for us to run out Oden and him for the entire 48 minutes.

He is a fairly big gamble though, otherwise he’d be a LOT higher on the boards.

by lyleleander on Jun 19, 2008 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

no thanks

Rush is going to be a nice complementary piece but Martell could still turn out to be a superstar.

Hinrich is as big of a gamble as Westbrook is. He had a couple of nice years, but last year was terrible.

If we take a big it’s either Jordan or McGee.

by BlazerD on Jun 19, 2008 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Martell's chances of becoming a superstar

is pretty close to zero. I mean, I guess he could get bitten by a radioactive spider and suddenly become a completely different specimen than he is now, but otherwise, no.

You think if KP had any confidence in Martell at all, he would’ve still almost included him as a throw in to the Zach Randolph trade last year? Yall realize the only reason Martell was on the team instead of Fred Jones was because Tom Penn realized we could get a trade exception by throwing in Fred instead of Martell, and we could use that exception to get James Jones?

Not sure why you’re comparing Hinrich to Westbrook. Westbrook is out of our reach unless we trade up to 6 or 7, and I think what it’d take to trade up to 6 or 7 will cost substantially more than it would take to get Hinrich in trade. And whatever, I disagree. One bad year with a seriously dysfunctional team doesn’t prove that a guy can’t play when we’ve seen that a guy can play. Whereas a guy who can’t start for his college team at the position you want to play him at at the pro level, well, that’s a huge gamble.

Jordan or McGee? Good lord. Why not just buy a lottery ticket? That has a way better chance of paying out.

by howlingfantods on Jun 20, 2008 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not so sure about that

Names and variations are always floated out before trades happen. I’d assume NY wanted Martell included in that trade, and Portland did not, and NY leaked that variation of the trade talks.

What reason would KP have to move Martell in that sort of situation? He is cheap, not a bad kid at all, and has potential. It makes no sense.

To make the salaries work, Martell was there, from NY’s perspective. You use Dickau and Jones instead, and we move players we don’t even want and get a trade exception. Moving Martell made no sense in that situation, and just because it was leaked to the media doesn’t mean it was really considered.

The fact that it WAS leaked to the media makes me trust it was never really real to begin with.

Martell could become a good player. If we place so much trust in Outlaw to explode in his 6th season, I’m not sure why Martell doesn’t get the same leeway. Even if he doesn’t become an allstar, an athletic shooter isn’t exactly on every roster out there.

You know you can’t use leaks from the NY media as fact.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jun 20, 2008 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Details about subbing Freddy

for Martell came form Quick or Canzano IIRC, and was sourced to a knicks official. I don’t recall any blazer denials, and I think the story was partly confirmed by Barrett. So, like, Oregon insider-ish media, not NY media.

by howlingfantods on Jun 21, 2008 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And in any case

this whole discussion is just about an appeal to a higher power (hi KP) for the general point that I think should be obvious to anyone watching hoop that Martell’s no superstar in waiting. Very few would say even a future all-star in waiting. The dispute is just whether he’s a scrub roleplayer off the bench or a quality third option starter in waiting.

by howlingfantods on Jun 21, 2008 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why not include Rose on your list.

It is fairly unlikely that any of the guards you mentioned will be around at 13.

As for trading up – you obviously don’t like any of our PG’s and think any of the guys on your list are better. If that’s so, why would another GM want to trade down in the draft to acquire a player that’s worse than what he can select at his current position? There has to be at least some degree of critical thinking here.

by timg56 on Jun 19, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is the last time we should add on

any young talent so we need to try and hit this as hard as we can this year.

You say that Jack is not that valuable but this article mentions him in the same breath as Ford, Tinsley, and Mo Williams

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06192008/sports/knicks/knicks_on_point_patrol_116234.htm

You see him through the Blazer fans eyes and what he cant do for our team, disregarding his positive attributes. Jack has trade value in this league and we need to move him while he still has it. Add to that the 3 2nd round picks, which 2/3rds of them are very valuable that we have little to no use for, not even going into our 2009 1st which we will have no use for as well and we have a lot of ammo to move up if we want.

Many times the Blazers have been discussed about as a team with a lot of assets to be a mover in this years draft, yet you seem to disregard many of those said stories, so how can you say that any of those Gs are out of reach?

So my critical thinking is spot on.

by SpyderRyder on Jun 19, 2008 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see Jarrett Jack through my eyes.

And what I see is a decent young PG that looks like he can be good and possibly very good. I see the guy I expect to be the starting PG of the Blazers when they win their first title (be it division, conference or league).

Spyder, you are the guy suggesting he (or any of our other PG’s) are not good enough for us and that it is important to get that “championship caliber” guy to man the point. (My quotes, not Spyder’s.) Again, I ask, if he’s not good enough for you, why would Donnie Walsh or Sam Presti or any other GM think otherwise? The article you link to – it just lists PG’s who are possibly available. There is not a word on whether they are considered equal talent or even worthwhile targets for the Knicks to go after. If anything, the article suggests that there should be a guard available at #6 that will address the Knick’s need.

If Kevin Pritchard can trade up to the top 6 or so spots, then more power to him. I personally think it will take more than adding Jack or Blake plus a couple of 2nd round picks to our #13 to trade up significantly. Throwing in a future 1st rounder might get some nibbles. Look at the positive side – if he does manage it, you will be happy and can tell us (or at least me) that you told us so. I’ve had to eat my words on occassion. I can stomach them.

by timg56 on Jun 19, 2008 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know that I would trade any of those players for Rush.

But I would most certainly be willing to draft Rush and see if he beat any of them out, which is a distinct possibility.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on Jun 19, 2008 4:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But what if Rush is the better player...

than any of the guys you want us to take? That’s the reason I’m high on him. I think he has Josh Howard ; Caron Butler ; Loul Deng type possibilities. Teams that pass on those type guys are usually sorry.

by timg56 on Jun 19, 2008 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't take Rush... Especially at #13

Chad Ford did a great job of articulating why he liked KP’s draft style better than anyone else in the league. “You select players in the lottery that are safe, but with your later picks, you take a gamble on guys with potential.” While Rush would be a KP pick (solid in all facets of the game… not great at anyone facet) I don’t think that would be an appropriate pick given the Blazers current situation.

The Blazers have their core players for a long successful run in the NBA. Currently, their focus is on finding the final one or two players who could make this team a dynasty. With the Blazers already having a full rotation, they can afford a high risk/high reward player at 13… and they should go for it. Look for the player that has the potential to be elite even though they are currently raw (Russell Westbrook, DeAndre Jordan, Donte Green, Darell Arthur, Joe Alexander, Nicolas Batum)

If the pick ends up being a bust, the team will be fine they still will have $25.5M in cap space in 2009 with (Oden, LMA, Roy, Trout, Rudy, Sergio, Blake and Pryz under contract.) KP needs to realize that we don’t need balanced low ceiling players to fill out our rotation. Within two years, the Kurt Thomas’, James Posey’s, PJ Brown’s etc. will be flocking to this team to fill out its rotation in the hopes of winning a championship.

While KP’s safe lottery pick mentality was necessary prior to the Blazers drafting Aldridge, Roy and Oden, we now have the luxury of being aggressive early in the draft in an attempt to find another elite starter to pair with our current cast. Our future is so bright, we can afford to risk a late lottery pick on a player that could be a bust or a star.

With that in mind, Rush doesn’t fit the bill. He is very undersized for a SF and lacks the ceiling of the other SF’s available at #13 (Donte Greene, Joe Alexander and Nicolas Batum). Even if he was selected, he would be available at #20… so we should move down rather than take him at #13.

by Salem Stephen on Jun 19, 2008 2:21 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

#20? I've heard Phoenix is targeting him heavily at #15

I’ve even seen Milwaukee looking at him, although that was before Alexander worked out for them, who they really liked. But #15 looks to be as low as Rush will go.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on Jun 19, 2008 4:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How is Rush undersized for SF?

he’s the same size or bigger than Josh Howard, Paul Pierce, Caron Butler, Tayshaun Prince. You think those guys are “very undersized” for a 13?

I actually think the exact opposite. If you have a bad team, go ahead and gamble on boom or bust guys like Randolph or whoever. But if you’ve got a good core and you’re just drafting for complementary pieces, you absolutely draft guys who you have confidence can contribute.

by howlingfantods on Jun 19, 2008 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

At #13, I think Rush just might be the coveted Best Player Available.

And it creates a glut of players at nearly every position.

PG: Blake, Jack, Rodriguez, Roy, Fernandez
SG: Roy, Fernandez, Webster, Rush, Jones
SF: Webster, Outlaw, Rush, Jones, Roy
PF: Aldridge, Frye, Outlaw, McRoberts, LaFrentz
C: Oden, Przybilla, LaFrentz, Aldridge, Frye

That puts us five deep at every position with only fifteen players. Rush doesn’t have the amazing potential that other players ahead of him do, but at #13, a solid role-player is a good thing to find.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on Jun 19, 2008 4:46 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Of course, Roy wasn't supposed to have amazing potential either.

“Had a low ceiling” I heard.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on Jun 19, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That makes more sense to me too.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on Jun 19, 2008 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not likely

Rush is a safe bet in the 15-20 range, and the rumor has Phoenix interested in that range. On the other hand, I doubt that he’ll be around beyond the 20, given the rumors on hoopsworld, draftexpress, etc. As others have also pointed out, Greene and Batum should also be around in the 14 – 18 or so range – giving Portland three decent options at SF with the #13. However, if none of these are likely to be that much better than Webster/Outlaw, then I’m not sure why KP would go there. As you can see on the above post, you’ll have to move someone in order to give the rookie time to play and develop. And, if you move someone, it would be to trade for a vet or move up to get a better player at SF or PG than those likely to be around at the 13 to 18 slots. My bet is still that we either move up or trade to get a player KP feels will definitely improve a position. We don’t need more projects that are maybe’s or are just “a little bit better”. 8 – 10 players will get most of the minutes. And sandbagging talent rather than using that talent to definitely improve, rather than just possibly improve, isn’t our need anymore.

by Eben Calder on Jun 19, 2008 6:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's the 13th pick

You’re getting a project one way or the other this low.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Jun 19, 2008 6:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nonplussed

Rush has never impressed me because he is not an aggresive guy. Much like Martell, it seems like you need to smack him in the face before he decides to get serious and play some ball. The thing that I do like is that he is Roy-esque in that he does everything well and does not have any obvious deficiencies.

I am just beginning to realize that I am not going to be a satisfied Blazer fan on draft day. I have been spoiled by all of the trades and the great picks. I think this draft will be ok, just like Rush.

by da34shadow on Jun 19, 2008 7:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I like Rush

because I like his defense and length, and I think he’d fit in with our offense. I’d be fine with him at 13.

by ranma on Jun 19, 2008 7:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't Give Up

Don’t give up yet. According to Hoops World, the price to buy a second round pick is $2 million. and a first rounder will cost $3 million. Remember that last year, we picked up two more #1’s and grabbed Fernandez and Koponen. That spiced it up. At the time, most us were so focussed on Oden that we didn’t see the value in the other lower pick #1’s. Now, we’re beginning to see it. Further, 2 of those #2’s we now have are very low in that round. That’s why KP calls them “liquid assets”. Both of last years picks would be picked higher this year than last. Further, we can also “buy” a number 1, just like we did last year. Never under-estimate the trading chips we have. Everyone keeps talking about hanging on to everything and everyone. Why on earth would we do that? If Koponen was #30 last year – could we get a #22 this year? And if Fernandez was #25, could we get a #15, or even a little lower. This is a very young draft. Potential and hype are fine – but teams have to ask themselves the obvious. For example, are most of these big men (Lopez, McGee, etc), really any better than Frye? What about Gallinari, Alexander, Greene or Batum? Are they really any better than Outlaw or Webster? And what about teams that may have that starting PG – but no reliable #2. Jack could be a very good long term rotation player – as opposed to a starter. And if that’s a need, where do you find that in this draft outside of the six guards everyone talks about? We have a lot of chips. #13 is only one. And then, some pretty decent vets are also floating around. Gordon is young and a good shooter, Barbosa may also be around. And, we haven’t even talked about the fact that a lot of teams have the same issues we have. After all, if you can’t fill a need (and there are no “great” big men in this draft), and you then go for talent, that means someone on that team that is already a pretty good player is going to get jammed up for time. Let’s face it – if six guards get drafted in the top nine, there’s going to be 6 other guards not playing a lot.

by Eben Calder on Jun 19, 2008 8:23 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

His workout is scheduled for Saturday.

I’d prefer not to comment until after that workout.
Hope this thread is still up where it gets discussion in a couple of days.

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on Jun 19, 2008 8:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So-So

While I think there are better choices in the draft, I can certainly think of worse. I am a big believer that production in college is a very good factor in deciding who is the correct choice. Rush did well in college which is why I would be excited to get a proven player, but I think there are better fits.

by RememberRastaMonsta! on Jun 19, 2008 9:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think

I really feel that Westbrook is the guy if we can get him. His size and athleticism would really help our back court, as we have the benefit of him not starting and being a defensive stopper off of the bench because of Blake. He could then start later as he progressed.
Now, if Westbrook is not there, then we go with Rush, or Jordan. Either of these guys allows us to acquire depth at positions that we are strong at; furthermore, allowing for us to trade several assets for a dynamite point guard. For example: say we draft Jordan, we can then trade, Pryz, and either RLEC, or Frye, or JJ1, or any combination, etc, for a quality PG. We could also add a back up 4 at 33, or 36, (or whatever the picks are) or even package them, move up and take a better player. I really like the PF from Memphis. He is a poor mans Ben Wallace, and should be a banger off of the bench.
I would give the same argument for drafting Rush. He makes Trout available, in turn giving us a great trading piece to acquire a solid PG. I would love to see us a get a perimeter stopper in this draft, whether it is Westbrook, or Rush, however a drafting of Jordan would be understandable, purely on potential.

I would be overjoyed if we could draft Rush at 13. Then trade into the first round (if we have to) to acquire a solid banger backup at the 4. If we did that we could trade Trout, Frye, and Jack for say Devin Harris. NJ would have a hard time saying no to that ( if they did, throw in an unprotected 1st rounder). Our roster would look like this (I realize we would take back some contracts from NJ, but we could just cut them ala Stevie):

Harris, Blake, Sergio
Roy, Rudy
Webster, JJ3, Rush
Aldridge, Memphis(other), Mcbob
Oden, Pryz, RLEC
#55 Pick

This is a solid team, and we would still keep our cap space to add solid role players in their prime in 09. I think this is what I would do if I were KP, although he is obviously smarter than I. In KP we trust

life is like a bank, you can only take out as much as you put in. -Cal Ripken Sr.

by winnerwinner on Jun 19, 2008 9:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Think BIG with Hibbert

I say enough already with the 6-6 combo players! I mean how many of those do the Blazers need anyway? Unless they can get their hands on Westbrook, I think they will go with a big body in this draft. They have got to have someone in practice that Oden can bang with, because with his size, he’ll turn guys like Joel and RLF into a battered, bruised and broken mess! Roy Hibbert has the size and bulk to withstand the punishment in pratice, and I do mean punishment. Oden is going to average around 4 to 5 fouls a game, so Joel will need to stay healthy for the long run, and I just can’t imagine he could do that going toe to toe with the big G.O. every day. Also I think that the competition of going against Oden every day would make him a much better player.

2-4 the who

by 24thewho on Jun 19, 2008 11:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rush already brings everything Webster brings and more

Rush can already shoot the three like Webster along with other skill sets. Rush can play the pick and roll, run a break, drive to the hole, and finish with floaters or layups. Rush is active on the court defensively and plays well off the ball.

Reminds me of Josh Howard. I like this pick if we end up picking at #13.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jun 19, 2008 12:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Number Crunchy - just the way the Blazers like it

I think that there are a lot of guys that can be had with our two top second round picks that will be as good as anybody in the mid-to-lower first round. Therefore, I would tend to lean towards big, like Hibbert if we decide to keep the pick.

Here is some text from Draft Express that lists a few guys with good PAWS:

Pat Calathes (5.2) put up strong marks against strong competition and over the past 2 years. Bill Walker’s numbers (1.9, -0.2 vs top 100) suggest he’s purely average. D.J. White (6.5), J.J. Hickson (4.6), and Ryan Anderson (5.9) put up similar PAWS/40 that appear superior to most mid-first round big men projections.

by ralphzillo on Jun 19, 2008 3:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not my top choice

but if he’s the BPA, take him. Why have one Brandon R. when you can have two?

We need D off the bench after all…

by EngineerScotty on Jun 19, 2008 4:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

All I know is ...

that with most of the recent Blazer’s draftees, I got chills thinking of them in a Blazer uniform. I remember seeing Roy tear people up in the NCAA Tourney his senior year—mostly being wowed by how he repeatedly finished with his left amongst taller players at the rim. I’ve never gotten that feeling with Rush. If anything, I’ve been underwhelmed. I thought he was more athletic than he appears when I see him. I thought he was a better shooter. I thought he was a better defender. All of these things add up to me not being too excited about the kid.

"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez

by bfan on Jun 19, 2008 8:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

More of a SG - we don't need another

If you want someone like Rush (who I don’t think we need), why not trade down and see if he is still there. If not, Chris Douglas Roberts presents almost the same skillset. Batum might also be available, and he presents more upside and a true SF.

At 13, those are probably the best playsers.

Scott

by hoopla-pdx on Jun 20, 2008 11:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs