Time to point out the obvious

by Devenex on Jun 27, 2008 12:27 AM PDT Comment 10 comments

Like everyone else I was disappointed when we traded Darrell Arthur and Joey Dorsey for Batum, but then I realized something that actually becomes blatantly obvious...we were never going to get Arthur!

Houston was probably going to just pick him themselves until we made them our accomplices in hamburgling (oh yeah, I did just type that) San Antonio.

So there you have it. KP was not taken for a ride, in fact he just used the #33 to move up 2 spots and snag the prospect SF that he targeted. Unfortunately the players from those picks just so happened to be guys that BEdgers really wanted, making it hard to really look into what just happened.

Anyway it was a great draft, and I am already SO PUMPED about next season!

2 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I really liked the trade.

Batum was slated in the high lottery for quite a while. His upside is a lot better than Arthur’s and we already have LMA/Frye. If he learns to shoot he will be a very solid role player. If he learns to be aggressive on top of that he has star potential (not that that’s very likely).

And in any case, both the Spurs and KP were very interested in him—that’s some really high praise.

by wepto on Jun 27, 2008 1:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Last year Batum was a lottery pick

2007 Mock Draft History had Batum rated 12th in the draft before he pulled out.

What pulled him down this year was CONSISTENT SCORING. He had flashes of games with 20 or more points but his averages didn’t show the high numbers that other prospects did and stat followers thought he should.

His coach worked with Batum on improving his shot mechanics and he now has a smooth and consistent shot. The issue this year was playing time (only 26.5 minutes per game) and shots (7.3 FGA). Most college players are shooting closer to 20 shots per game. His French team’s success was predicated on distributing both the minutes and the shots.

Why was Batum KP’s choice?
Unselfishness A distributor will be required at SF with Oden and Aldridge needing the ball distributed to them for that high percentage shot. Batum went back to France for another year knowing that he needed great stats for THIS years draft.
Still, he stayed within the “team concept” and did what was asked.

by spencerbutte on Jun 27, 2008 7:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good to know

A lot of comments on the trade have been negative, and all I’ve heard is that Batum has serious bust potential, so this is a good perspective to hear. And we got him for $3mil and the #33 pick, so we didn’t invest much in him either.

Also, I didn’t mean to make it seem like Batum is a bad player. I was just responding to the negativity about dealing Darrel “the steal of the draft” Arthur, as it seems to me that we never had a shot at him anyway.

by Devenex on Jun 27, 2008 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"We never had a shot..."

We never had a spot.
We never had a rot.
We never had a mot.

The Midnight Rambler

by amlmart1 on Jun 27, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's a "mot"?

BLZRS FRVR

by nightbluefruit on Jun 27, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My dictionary says mot means: "ingenious comment".

The Midnight Rambler

by amlmart1 on Jun 27, 2008 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good word

BLZRS FRVR

by nightbluefruit on Jun 27, 2008 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get off this site for 3 months

and when I come back, you’re teaching Americans about the English language. Nice.

by einman77 on Jun 27, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Americans have a lot to learn about English

Besides, he’s an English professor at Oxford.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 28, 2008 2:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Every player in draft has SERIOUS bust potential as well as success potential...

That is what is so unique about the NBA draft. Every year there are 60 players selected in a crap shoot where teams are jockeying to acquire a player based on a perceived value (the “Big Board”) and all the while having basically the same amount of Bust Vs. Success chances. Of course, aside from some picks which are considered locks, but then again, Keith Van Horn was a lock. Also, some players are good for 5 years, others get better every year for 8 or 10 years on their way to rings and hall of fame. It is a crap shoot. How many players are good from a draft? First round, maybe 3 to 10 (or 1/10th to 1/3rd), second round is a little less. But contributors are in every draft and available practically at every pick. It just depends if you pick the right player for the right situation (and ultimately if the player can get himself and his career into a fitting situation before it is too late.).

As far as Nicolas Batum is concerned. I have been following draft boards pretty consistently for years and Nicolas Batum has always been considered a top international prospect and most likely a lottery pick. His size & length are prototype SF material, he is a defender, a facilitator, a shooter, has point-forward skills, is barely 20 years old and who knows what he is going to be. The bottom line is, KP thought he had more upside than Darrell Arthur, who I have long thought did not belong in the 1st round discussion. I mean, DJ White for some reason was a fringe player and this Arthur guy was a lottery lock. Nope, that is why he fell. He was all hype. I’ll take the prospects of a 20 year old french player with solid fundamentals, defensive skills and team oriented attitude. We are looking for GREAT ROLE-PLAYERS, not 20 point a night all-stars with those picks. Besides, Portland has tons of potential all-stars, it really isn’t realistic to expect all-stars at every pick and at every rung of our depth chart.

Nicolas Batum has as much chance as Darrell Arthur to be the “Steal of the Draft”. Nobody can really argue that.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 28, 2008 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs