Risky Business
by Dave on Jun 10, 2009 1:13 AM PDT
Email
PrintAs we first anticipate and then evaluate the Blazers' performance in this year's draft there's one factor we should take into account that I haven't seen spelled out yet:
The Blazers don't need this year's draft pick to perform right away.
We are easing past the days when the franchise's whole future--immediate and distant--hung on a single pick. Most positions are staffed adequately. The Blazers have depth. Of course they'd love a guy who could contribute right away but they're not dependent on that kind of performance.
This frees up the team to do something creative with their pick(s). They can afford to take a risk...even a big one.
Every season we see a half-dozen Fanposts started on the topic of whether Kevin Pritchard has made his first mistake in the draft yet. "Mistake" in this sense means a player who doesn't pan out. Each time the poster points out a player like Sergio or Jerryd, saying, "This is the one!" Each time a host of other people come to KP's defense, saying it's too early to tell or the players are playing about as expected.
I find the whole idea rather silly, myself. Sometimes the mistake comes in not having the guts to pick a player who may not pan out. As the number of draft picks approaches infinity the chances of making a mistake that way approach 100%. I'm reminded of the old admonition to third-base coaches: "If you never get a guy thrown out at home by waving him through you're not doing your job."
Let's abstract and simplify for a second. You have two players in question. One has a potential of 5 out of 10 and is nearly 100% likely to reach that potential, maybe with a small chance of exceeding it. One has a potential of 8 but only has a 15% chance of reaching that level. Furthermore he has a reasonable chance of flunking out entirely. Which is the better pick?
The answer depends on your needs, options, and draft position. A couple years ago with the team in flux and many positions open the Blazers might have been well-served by taking the "5" player, especially with the 24th pick, especially if he could give them something right away, and especially if he played a position of need for the team. Right now only the 24th-pick "especially" applies. A guy who can play at a middling level, even if he's a good value at 24, may not hold as much interest for a team full of guys that good or better already. This might be precisely the time for the Blazers to swing for the fences, or at least as much of the fences as are apparent late in the first round.
Kevin Pritchard might look better selecting the sure thing. His draft genius would remain intact. But the true genius move might be the one with a greater chance of failure here. The Blazers have not been into drafting hotshots the last few years. If you see one drop to a level they can attain, look for them to take that kind of chance. And if they do, applaud it even if the guy doesn't make it in the end. We have the luxury of making just that kind of move this year. We need the great success more than we'd be hurt by the great failure.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
135 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great strategic look at the draft for this team...
This plays out differently for teams at different points in their development.
There are a couple of guys in particular in this draft that meet different ends of this spectrum.
The one guy (yes there is only one this year IMO) that immediately would be an upgrade for this team would be DeJuan Blair at power forward behind LaMarcus Aldridge. Maybe his potential is a 7 out of 10, but you’re pretty sure (90%) that he’s going to be that immediately, and help contribute to this team, perhaps in this years playoff run.
On the other hand, you have a guy like Brandon Jennings. His potential is a 9 or 10 out of 10. He may not be likely to reach that potential (20%), but you’re pretty sure that if you want your starting point guard of the future, someone that can really change games, he’s one of only two guys in this whole draft that could do that.
I find both of these moves to be right for this team at this time. You have the pieces to go get these guys if you see fit, and both would or could be useful players to fill out the roster of this team.
Any player with a potential of 6 or less probably has no future on this team, as we’re pretty stacked with NBA players that can contribute and are young already. We also have the assets to go out and fill these spots with veterans that are already 7’s or above through free agency or through trades. Getting players with low potential, even in the second round probably wouldn’t be the best use of assets.
The exception might be if they have a skill or two that makes them a great situational player. This year we all are looking for “lockdown defender” in the prospects description. Players that fill this, and have any sort of place at all offensively (Darren Collison) may be desirable long term commodities as we’re currently without defensive minded players on this team.
Honestly though, speaking of the #24 pick this year, we’re probably not going to be able to just sit at this spot and get a guy with enough potential to have high hopes for him on this team. Players with higher potentials, even the ones with low percentages of reaching those potentials, go earlier on in the draft, especially since the early part of the draft is filled with lottery teams looking to possibly score that star player that could bring their team to the next level.
All and all, I think there are maybe 10-12 players from this draft that may be long term answers for this team. Everyone else is probably a fill in a for a year or two, while we really find out what we need. Euro stash players like we’ve acquired in recent years are fewer and farther between because a lot of NBA GM’s have figured out how valuable of commodities those actually can turn out to be. You can bet money that if Omri Casspi or Victor Claver have any hopes of being legitimate NBA starters at some point in their careers they’re not going to be hanging around a long time in this draft. That said, I don’t think either would have a long term place on this team, as its currently constructed. I don’t see either being a better long term fit than even Martell Webster might already be (and he’s still young too).
If there are only a handful or two of guys that can make contributions to this team from the draft, how important will it be to this team to trade up? In my estimation it’ll be pretty important. From my view, if we don’t move from #24 either up or down, it’ll be a disappointment. We don’t have a need for a ton of guys, just a couple quality guys. Veterans and higher draft picks should be on our agenda come draft day, and gol darn it if KP doesn’t get us one of each come draft day.
by as11osu on Jun 10, 2009 1:32 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Nice.
I think you nailed it perfectly.
Roy is the best player in the world with the exception of Incarcerated Mike from Queensbridge .
by Nick Van Excellent on Jun 10, 2009 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions
YA
"Some people want it to happen, some wish it would happen, others make it happen"
~ Michael Jordan
Both you (as11osu) and Dave are "right-on"
I also agree on Brandon Jennings as that long term solution to go for in this draft.
Jennings won’t make a big difference this season until the playoffs.
But when the blazers need to get past the Rockets, Jennings can negate Brooks advantage.
Jennings has that same long term potential we see in Batum to become that true PG we need.
by spencerbutte on Jun 10, 2009 2:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Good points
I confess that I don’t really follow the draft stuff closely enough to have fully formed opinions about many of the players. I appreciate your insight, and your comments seem well organized and well reasoned.
I would make the general observation that I am somewhat reluctant to see the team draft another PG. PGs need time on the court, and I think we should concentrate on trying to see if Bayless is going to pan out before bringing in another youngster. OTOH, I understand that PGs are one of the few positions that have some depth in this years draft pool, so this may be a good year to try to snag a good one. If KP ends up able to get a good young PG, I hope Nate can quickly make a decision on who gets minutes. I don’t think the situation last year was helpful to either Sergio or Bayless. Sergio felt pressured all season and Bayless never got enough consistent minutes to relax and show us what he can do.
I guess a lot of this comes down to how you evaluate Blake and Bayless and whether or not the team brings in an “upgrade” veteran. I know you are less optimistic about Bayless.
by upper left corner on Jun 10, 2009 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Bayless is a solid point guard prospect
the only guys in this class that would be upgrades from him IMO would be Rubio and Jennings. It’d be basically like drafting Batum last year. When we drafted him that is, no one thought he’d get any minutes his first year, but he ended up getting them and earning them. If you move up to get Jennings, he’s basically the Nicolas Batum of last year. If he earns those minutes, he’ll be on the court.
For all the talk about Sergio and Bayless, it was pretty clear on the court that Sergio earned that job (Nate did make a decision, you just didn’t like it). Having Jennings and Bayless fighting for the job would be a good thing for the team in my opinion. I wouldn’t put it past either one of those guys, to not only outplay the other one, but to take Blake’s job as early as next year, as they’re both that talented.
If you end up with a new starter, then great, if you end up with the most loaded talented point guard prospects in the NBA backing up your starter, that’s also a good thing. It’s not like Bayless or Jennings loses much value sitting on the bench, teams know how good of prospects and players both those guys are, and we could still almost certainly turn one into a solid veteran at any time.
Good posts.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Thanks for clarifying
I thought you were more in the AK1984, “Bayless is a bust” camp. Glad to know I was mistaken. Your argument seems reasonable. I understand the idea of competition, but I think the reality is sometimes more difficult. Bayless’ spring is wound especially tight. I think more than anything else, Bayless needs to relax and needs consistent minutes. He is going to make a lot of mistakes, but he has the tools and the work ethic.
I still would prefer trying to get Hinrich, who would give us an immediate defensive upgrade and at least a bit more penetration than Blake. Hinrich would take the pressure off of needing Bayless to develop quickly. If Bayless does blossom, Heinrich could become the back-up and would be a very tradable asset if we needed to reduce payroll.
by upper left corner on Jun 10, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does AK argue that Bayless is a bust or that Bayless' rookie year was a bust?
I’m in the second camp. He couldn’t beat Sergio out for minutes, and regardless of what Bayless homers say, he didn’t do anything to merit taking Sergio’s minutes.
However, he is extremely athletic, young, and could get his act together despite having a horrendous rookie year. I still feel that he isn’t a true PG and that his shortcomings will outweigh his strengths, but if I am wrong it wouldn’t be a huge surprise to me.
I would still prefer to see someone other than Bayless as the future of this team at PG, but if he is our only option for the future it won’t be the worst thing in the world. (We’re not the Wolves at least.)
My feelings exactly
Bayless is not a true point guard. Jennings is.
Bayless will not be that defensive stopper for small, quick PGs that Jennings will be.
That doesn’t mean that Bayless needs to be replaced by Jennings.
That just means the Jennings fits our need for a true defensive PG to replace Sergio, who wants to leave now.
by spencerbutte on Jun 10, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't understand your point. Please clarify.
In my view, both Blake and Sergio suffer from a lack of strength, to fight through picks, and quickness, to stay in front of their man and to recover around picks. I perceive Bayless as both stronger and quicker.
You seem to be suggesting that Sergio was some kind of a defensive stopper against small fast PGs. I thought he struggled mightily against most of those guys.
I also find the whole concept of a “true” PG somewhat baffling. Is a true PG someone who doesn’t score? CP3 scores plenty. To me, the trick is for Bayless to use the threat of his scoring ability, assuming he finds his outside shot, to create openings for his teammates. I have not seen any indication that Bayless is selfish. He simply hasn’t learned when to try to score and when to pass. I think it will take some time, but I think he will get there because he wants to play and he burns to win.
by upper left corner on Jun 10, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Sergio's slot
I’m not saying that Sergio’s skills need replacing.
I’m saying that Sergio’s PG slot needs to be replaced as he leaves.
The player that should take that SLOT should be the best TRUE PG for our team in this draft.
This is a strong draft for PGs (11+). This is the best year in many to “cherry pick” and fill that slot with the best FUTURE player that could become “That” true PG which we will need.
A true Point Guard must have these additional skills:
Mix between scoring/passing
Ability to create for others
Very good court vision
Very good passing skills
Basketball instincts (sometimes referred to as awareness or BBIQ)
Very good ball-handling skills
by spencerbutte on Jun 10, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
What are you going to give up
To get to 4th overall?
Offseason:
PG Options: Mike Conley(T)
SG Options: Terrence Williams(D)
Forward Options: Ronnie Turiaf(T) - Damion James(D), Taj Gibson(D), Kevin Seraphin(D)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jun 10, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
For Jennings its looking like you can get him in the mid to late lottery (#9 - #14)
As far as #4 overall goes, considering I’d rather have Jennings than Bayless, I think that’d be my exact limit. Word is the Kings liked Bayless, maybe they still do.
As far as getting Jennings later (late lottery) it’s possible all we’d have to give up is Sergio and #24. Maybe something like Trout and Sergio and #24 for Turiaf and #7 as has been discussed. Plenty of plausible scenarios to come up with Jennings, especially if he starts to fall.
Not sure how Jennings gets to be called a true defensive PG?
I have not seen him play (probably would not be a good judge if I did) but looking at his profile on Draft Express under weaknesses:
WEAKNESSES:
- Decision making
- Dominant ball-handler
- Efficiency
- Out of control at times
- Shot-selection
- Ability to fight through screens
- Activity level
- Commitment to playing defense
- Man to man defense
- Academic issues?
- Leadership skills
- Not ready to contribute immediately
- Not productive enough
- Average size
- Upper body strength
- Poor rebounder
- 3-point shooting percentages
- Ability to catch and shoot
- Low shooting percentage
It appears that he is very skilled offensively however:
STRENGTHS:
- Excellent skill-level
- Mix between scoring/passing
- Offensive creativity
- True point guard
- Ability to create own shot
- Ability to create w/either hand
- Ball-handling skills
- Change of gears/Hesitation moves
- Ability to get in passing lanes
- Lateral quickness
- Confidence
- Potential
- Strong Intangibles
- Work ethic
- Basketball instincts
- Left-handed
- Ability to create for others
- Court vision
- Passing skills
- Athleticism
- Excellent first step
- Explosiveness
- Shooting mechanics
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
This list is SO old...
Jennings was much better in Italy this year than that weakness list shows. Just as a basic stat, Brandon Jennings ranked 2nd in the Italian league averaging 5.0 steals per 40 minutes. That’s pretty incredible for anyone, let alone an 19 year old in his first year playing abroad against grown men. Believe it or not, he was a defensive specialist for them. He just happens to be more of the Chris Paul type of defender than a Deron Williams type (for obvious reasons).
He also
barely played for most of the season, and didn’t play at all in the playoffs. It is kind of like saying Sergio avg 48581 assists per 40 minutes.
By all accounts Jennings did grow up over the year, but then he blew off the Eurobasket because he was frustrated with his situation of not playing, which pissed off some NBA teams who were there to scout him specifically.
To me Jennings is a long shot.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
I think you know my opinion....
…..I agree that Bayless’ season stats are pretty lousy, but I also maintain that his season stats are very misleading because they combine lots of garbage minutes and SG minutes with his one stretch of decent time as the back-up PG. Bayless’ PER was around 15 during the time Blake was hurt, that is quite good for a rookie. Clearly, he needs to find his outside shot, and he needs experience and repetition making decisions as a PG, but I tend to see the glass as half full….
Regarding AK’s position, I hesitate to put words in any one’s mouth, but he has posted a least a couple of comments where he characterized Bayless as “a bust,” and criticized KP for not giving up on him. If I am mischaracterizing his
position in any way, I hope he or someone else will clarify.
On the “pure PG” versus “scoring PG” debate, I tend to come down on the scoring side because I think that is what fits best with Roy, and because I think we need Nic in the starting 5 for defense and he is not much of a scoring threat yet.
by upper left corner on Jun 10, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah...
The only problem with his 15 games stretch is that it was just that, a 15 game stretch. If you’ll recall, Sergio also did good in this stretch. There are a couple of factors probably.
1. Other teams scouting reports on us meant nothing, our lineups were different.
2. We played 11 losing teams and 4 winning teams.
Regardless in those 15 minutes
Minutes
Sergio 356
Bayless 337
Similar enough
FG
Sergio 40/93 (43%)
Bayless 42/96 (44%)
Since he had less minutes, Bayless did shoot slightly more, they shot a similar %.
3PT FG
Sergio 12/29 (41%)
Bayless 5/15 (33%)
Sergio dominates here on attempts and percent, although the 33% Bayless did was an improvement.
FT
Sergio 10/14 (71%)
Bayless 50/59 (85%)
This is where Bayless dominates. Sergio’s 3 helped space the floor better, but Bayless got to the line more than 4x as often.
Rebounds
Sergio 40 (2.67 game)
Bayless 28 (1.87 game)
Sergio wins here, even minutes adjusted, but it’s not a giant difference.
Assist/Turnovers
Sergio 70/32 (2.19a/t)
Bayless 39/23 (1.7a/t)
Sergio dominates here as well on both quantity and quality.
Fouls
Sergio 41
Bayless 43
Not a real factor
Steals
Sergio 12
Bayless 7
Sergio wins, but neither are particularly great.
Basically, you’re citing J-Bay’s minutes for a 15 game stretch that Sergio outplayed him in. Bayless did get to the line at a pretty awesome rate, but that’s it. And frankly, you can’t call Sergio’s minutes “consistent” at all this year except for this period. The rest of the year he was just as likely to get 2 minutes in a quarter as 6.
Outside of starting Sergio averaged 13.4 mpg. So let’s look at every game Bayless played with between 10-17 minutes (excluding the 15.)
Games 13
Minutes 176 (13.54 per game aka identical to Sergio.)
FG- 11/56 (19.6%)
3pt- 1/7 (14%)
FT- 19/25 (76%)
R- 14 (1.1g)
A- 22 (1.69g)
T- 18 (1.22a/t ratio)
So yeah, not to beat the Sergio/Bayless thing dead once more, but you can’t really cite J-Bay’s 15 game stretch of good play when Sergio was just as good or better during that 15 game stretch. Meanwhile, when the two played equal minutes off the bench, Sergio completely dominated Bayless. In other words, the garbage time minutes that Bayless got didn’t hurt him, the bench minutes he got did.
I don't see how Sergio playing well with more minutes
Negates the validity of the argument that Bayless played better with more minutes.
It doesn't
People say nonstop how Bayless only did bad because of garbage time minutes and that he did good during a 15 game stretch.
They ignore that Sergio did good during the 15 game stretch and that Sergio did good when he got real minutes.
Using that same reasoning
You can’t write Bayless off using a 15 game stretch. Can’t we give the kid a chance?
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
You can do that if he is better than Sergio
he wasn’t last year. It’s pretty questionable if he’d be this year. That’s why a bunch of people want Sergio gone. Give someone a job they haven’t earned. That’s logical right?
It's all about the "IT"....
Bayless has lots and lots of IT. But he was green in his rookie year, made lots of garbage fouls, and played tense most of the year. Couldn’t shoot a lick.
Sergio can pass and improved greatly. But he doesn’t have very much “IT”. (Which is why he’s hard to trade despite playing a premium position, has experience, has a reasonable contract…)
It’s all about the IT.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
One big problem there Bub
Sergio wants more minutes and probably a different coach so that pretty much says he doesn’t want to be our backup, so with that said it doesn’t matter if Sergio was better he is as good as gone.
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
I'm pretty sure he said he wanted to contribute and know his role
not that he wanted more minutes. Either way, if he was our #2 point guard, like he would be, because he’s better than Bayless currently, he’d deserve more minutes. Steve Blake can only be effective for 25-30 minutes per game. It really showed in the playoffs when we tried to run with him for ridiculous amounts of time and he just wasn’t able to compete. Meanwhile, Sergio played his best ball last year when given more minutes.
Don't call me Bub, and don't make up things
And where in my post did I say ANYTHING about not trading Sergio? Where did I say ANYTHING about coaching?
I said a long time ago we’d trade Sergio because he’s not a good fit with this team. That doesn’t mean that he’s not still a better player than Bayless. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with what Upper and I were discussing.
I love both of these evaluations..
and as noted, THIS draft might be the perfect one to exercise this philosophy. With an arguably mediocre draft and a lower pick, the stakes of a pick not panning out are lower. Nice post by both of you
RoadBlazer
Great Post
This is why I would love to see the Blazers use those second round pick on the load of foreign players with huge upside. It may be a swing and a miss but it is becoming more common that these players work out well after a couple years (even immediately such as the perfect backup Scola.) I have read about a few big true PGs that could be very successful. 2nd rounders are vastly underrated in my opinion.
I also would love to see Dave’s “value tree” for the assets the Blazers have. A list of most valuable assets for our team’s upcoming success. Not value in trades for other teams because every team wants something different. I am trying to do the same with a numerical rating.
Yes and no...
The Blazers don’t need this year’s draft pick to perform right away.
If the Blazers chase a backup banger 4, say trading up to get Mr. Blair by sacrificing Travis at the alter, lets’s say — HE would need to come in and perform at a high level immediately. But rebounding is a skill that transfers from college to the pros fairly well.
If they Blazers chase a PG, they have time to develop him.
The Blazers, picking at 24, could take a gamble on a guy with a super-sweet stroke like Ellington and go for the home run at risk of the pop-out.
They could take “best available” and end up with a Small Forward (hello Mr. Casspi) that never sees action this season due to the current logjam at the position.
Several different options.
My pretty strong belief is that KP is going to trade up for a particular PG — but that’s just a hunch. As a former PG, he’s overly obsessed with the position. Whereas, it’s big, tough glass-eating ruckers on the front line that win you games in the playoffs, not effete fancy-passers…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Hmm....
I thought that the most successful backup banger/rebounder was the effete, big, tough glass-eating rucker: Dennis Rodman. He could only make a fancy pass at the club though.
Don’t count out the rainbow men!
What position needs the most improvement by KP on the Blazers? I think at least part of that myopia is explained by our overall subpar play at the one.
What position needs the most improvement by KP on the Blazers?
Well, we know KP has expressed the need to add toughness and physicality to the roster.
To me, that points at backup PF
Chad Buchanan mentioned that they’d like to add a veteran with playoff experience. That could be any position, but since the SG, SF and C position are pretty well-covered, I think we can narrow it down to PG and PF
KP’s comments have come down pretty solidly in favor of Bayless. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t bring in a rookie PG to compete with Jerryd, but I wouldn’t expect it. I thought this quote was especially telling:
"Nate has taken on so many young guys the last couple of years," Pritchard said. "At a point in time, you can’t focus on development anymore; you have to focus on being successful. I would rather not add four rookies again."
http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=124418073755700200
So, my reading of the tea leaves is this: KP adds a veteran at the PG and the PF positions, and a rookie “project” big man. The other draft choices are dealt away or used to stash Euros
+1
Agree completely for all the above reasons.
Reading KP is impossible for other GM’s so probably we will get it wrong as well but these is spot on from what he has said.
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
You never can tell with KP
Last year, most of thought that Jack would be gone (or, at least we wished Jarrett would be dealt away from Nate)
But I don’t think anyone had Jack being traded up to select Bayless. Jerryd hadn’t even visited PDX because it was assumed he would be long gone before Portland picked ar 12
Rice was on with Wheels this afternoon. Mike’s son (the college coach) told him that D-Blair was the best offensive rebounder in the last 20 years of the NCAA. But he also said the kid gains weight real easy and that it puts pressure on his knees. I could see KP trading up to catch a “falling” Blair on draft day, then putting him right to work with Bayless and the training staff this summer. With Blair coming off the bench to backup LMA, KP could focus on HInrich (etc) to upgrade the PG position
A little off base
But I just got back from reading the OLive article on toughness. As always I got sucked in to reading the crappy comments. I can’t understand why there is this riff between Blazer fans about Bayless. Why the hate? Seriously, some of them make it sound like he killed their dog. The guy is a Blazer. He hasn’t really had his opportunity yet. He was a rook on a good team, which happens to be loaded with young talent.
He needs to be given the chance to play extended minutes in the regular rotation so that he can make his mistakes and, hopefully, learn from them. If not, then pass judgement, but the hate gets really old to hear and read.
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
OK...repeat after me...
“I will not read the “fan” posts at OLive."
As near as I can tell, most fan posts there are written by 13 year olds, or frat boys at the back end of a 4 day drinking binge.
by antediluvian on Jun 10, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
I know I know
It was a mistake, but somehow, my browser kept scrolling down.
I promise, it won’t happen again (at least today).
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
Players in the draft still have the "new car smell" and would look nice in our driveway
Bayless has lost that a bit. Now people have seen him not get much time and assume a crappy year as his ceiling, when in reality it is his base level. Some of the players in the draft are interesting, also on the point guard position. But here is a secret: Many are even less NBA ready than Jerryd, because they have played inferior athletes and will have to learn the same things while he has already a year in the league even if it was with little playing time. Some also have also a broken shot. Are smaller. Slower. Whatever. But they have potential, and that makes them look attractive. As always, it depends on where they land, how much time they get, if the coach and teammates use them well, and how fast they can bring traction from that potential on the road.
This comment expresses far too much common sense to be allowed at OLive....
…..I think you better plan on sticking around here Norkstroll.
Impatience and impudence seem to be the underlying themes of most posts on OLive.
by upper left corner on Jun 10, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Because of the Bayless/Sergio issue all year
Most fans and enemies of both have slowly slid over to the extremes for both.
Fact: Bayless has an awful rookie year
Fact: Bayless couldn’t beat out the much hated Sergio for the backup spot
Fact: Bayless is still extremely athletic (ask Webster)
Fact: Bayless is still only a junior in college next year
Fact: Rookie’s usually get better
Fact: Some guys that had a rookie year like Bayless turn out to be good, others turn out to suck
Basically, you can pick and choose from these facts to either love or hate Bayless. In reality, none of us know how he will turn out.
I just can't get over the absoluteness with which people speak
Especially about a second year guy who was squeezed out of the rotation. Nobody has a clue how he’ll end up because nobody saw him play consistent minutes. Few rookies are going play spot minutes, inconsistently, their rookie year and look good. Rooks need time to adjust. All rookies.
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
well, taking into account
that OLive message boards/comments are barely a step above youtube comments in terms of the quality of the discourse there, you have to take things written there with a grain of salt.
I know most posters here think I hate Bayless, but I just get irritated with seeing the absolutist “He’s a future all star, look at X, Y, and Z, they barely played their rookie years”. Lots of good players had bad rookie years in limited minutes, but lots of bad players had bad rookie years, also. It’s not as bad as picking out an NBA player and using him as an example that some poor kid will be an NBA star, but it’s a much milder version of the same idea. For every Aaron Brooks, there’s a Javaris Crittenton.
Posters would probably get ruthlessly mocked if they posted half of the “Why I love Bayless” or “Bayless is a member of our big 4” posts about Sergio/Webster/Trout. He could definitely be a solid PG, and possibly a future star, I’d just like a little realism.
He needs more time, yes. Will that time be available here? maybe. I don’t believe his performance can be completely wiped away with “he only played in garbage time”, but it’s definitely a mitigating circumstance. I saw enough this year to form some opinions about his future prospects, but it’s definitely possible (probable, maybe) that he’ll prove those wrong.
I think a more nuanced take on Bayless' year would help
I don’t really agree with you and Zaig that his rookie year sucked. Yes, his season stats sucked, however as I wrote above,
“I maintain that his season stats are very misleading because they combine lots of garbage minutes and SG minutes with his one stretch of decent time as the back-up PG. Bayless’ PER was around 15 during the time Blake was hurt, that is quite good for a rookie. Clearly, he needs to find his outside shot, and he needs experience and repetition making decisions as a PG, but I tend to see the glass as half full….”
I do agree with both you and Zaig that the jury is still out on Bayless. I have repeatedly stated that I think it is folly for anyone to make a definitive evaluation based on the limited and inconsistent PT he got last year. I tend to be more optimistic than either of you but I do not consider him to be a sure deal. Just as you find it annoying when folks say he is going to be a star, I find it annoying when folks make blanket statements like “Bayless is an undersized SG,” or “Bayless will never be a true PG.” I don’t get what a true PG is. Is that someone who doesn’t score? Someone who passes well? I think these are sort of artificial labels.
by upper left corner on Jun 10, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
If Bayless would have played lock down D
I don’t think anyone would be complaining about his scoring. Look at Batum
Offseason:
PG Options: Mike Conley(T)
SG Options: Terrence Williams(D)
Forward Options: Ronnie Turiaf(T) - Damion James(D), Taj Gibson(D), Kevin Seraphin(D)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jun 10, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Once again, the lack of effective defensive stats causes us not see the whole story
How do we know Batum played great defense? Because he played the passing lanes and got a number of spectacular steals, and because he managed to get a few blocks in which our other 3s never do.
I’m not trying to downplay Batum’s defensive skills, because I do believe they are real, but it’s not like any of our homegrown stat geeks have done rookie year comparisons between him and Artest, Battier, or whoever. We’re just going by feel. It’s a good feeling, probably a reliable one. The coaching staff is feeling it too, but it’s just feel.
Bayless? Sergio? Aside from counting fouls, the 15-game stat breakdown doesn’t really make any defensive assessment at all. Sure, we can say by “feel” that Bayless was not a superior defender in that stretch, but we don’t really know if he was any better than Sergio or not on the D side of the court.
I’d be interested to see if anyone can make a rational comparison about their relative defensive skills over that period of time.
by conspirator5 on Jun 10, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions
It's really hard to say
we didn’t face that many good PGs in that stretch, and the mediocre ones didn’t especially tear us up. Mo Williams had a monstrous game against us when Jerryd fouled out in 17 minutes, and for all the talk of “how well he did on Devin Harris”, he still scored 23 points and had 8 assists on over 50% shooting. Deron Williams had a huge game against us, when Jerryd played slightly more, but looks like it was due to foul trouble for Sergio, since Sergio was significantly outplaying Jerryd offensively. The NO game was just all out of whack, because even though CP3 was shooting 3 for 11 when he left, I wouldn’t say he was doing anything but completely dominating both Sergio and Jerryd, hence the 13 assists in less than three quarters.
Ironically, speaking of Batum, basically every loss in that span came when a wing player ate us alive (LeBron, Iggy, Howard, Durant, Crash, Maggette). Batum was a good defender, especially for a rookie, but he was far from a Bowen-esque lock down guy this year. Needs some more time to get there.
"basically every loss in that span came when a wing player"
I seem to recall what Aaron Brooks did to the Blazers in the playoffs.
We will be seeing more of Aaron and all these 11 or so PGs from this draft who be aided by the new rules changes.
Each team that wants to go far in the playoffs
will need a defensive stopper to bring in at the PG position.
by spencerbutte on Jun 10, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Look at my above response
When Bayless played consistent bench minutes like Sergio, he sucked, outside of that 15 game stretch.
Basically, when Sergio/Bayless knew they could both play 24mpg, they both did well. When they were getting 13.5mpg, they both didn’t do as well. The difference is, Bayless did beyond awful and Sergio just did bad. I guess combining the numbers for Bayless is the smart move. He played that 15 game stretch + 13 games of 10mpg or more.
G- 28
M- 513 (18.32 game, which is more than Sergio averaged on the season.)
FG- 53/152 (32%)
3pt- 6/22 (27%)
FT- 69/84 (82%)
R- 42 (1.5g)
A- 61 (2.18g)
T- 41 (1.46g)
A/T- 1.49
Basically, in the 28 games that he played real minutes, Bayless averaged 6.5p, 1.5r, 2.2a, 1.5t per game in 18.3 minutes on 32% shooting. Outside of getting to the line, he is awful everywhere.
Out of curiosity
Did the same thing for Sergio, counting only games in which he played 10+ minutes.
G- 65
M- 1124 (17.29 game)
FG- 120/294 (41%)
3PT- 36/103 (35%)- Not bad considering the end of Q chucking
FT- 58/73 (80%)
R- 118 (1.81g)
A- 266 (4.1g)
TO- 109 (1.68g)
A/T- 2.44
To compare we have (minute adjusted even though they are nearly identical.)
5.5p, 4.3a, 1.9r, 1.8t per game on 41% shooting against
6.5p, 2.2a, 1.5r, 1.5t per game on 32% shooting.
That comparison
actually makes the comparison quite close… since ft are much higher percentage shots. Eye-balling things, their true shooting percentage is pretty close. Sergio’s assist to turnover ratio is definitely a lot better, but otherwise its a wash. Also, consider the standard errors on Bayless shooting percentage. As an illustration, remove one game, the game at Philly, and Bayless’ shooting percentage rises to 37%. That’s not to say that, we should do it, but shooting percentages are one of the most variable stats in basketball.
I actually think both Sergio and Bayless are a bit underrated by the average Blazer fan. Sure, there are Bayless and Sergio loyalists, but most people think they are major projects. I think they are both minor projects that would/will catch-up to Blake in a season or so. How much better might they be than Blake eventually? Don’t know.
Both will be better players than Blake
by the 2011 playoffs if not earlier. The sad thing is, keeping Bayless as a starter and Sergio off the bench as an eventuality wouldn’t be a horrible thing. The problem with that though, is that we have the pieces to REALLY upgrade at the position. Standing pat would be counterproductive.
the comparison is quite close
that was the point I made after Blake returned. You had a 3rd year PG who was getting regular backup minutes prior to Steve going down, in an “audition” with a rookie PG who was previously only getting sporadic garbage time minutes
You’d think the 3rd year PG would dominate that 15 game audition…but he didn’t. Jerryd stepped his game up
(and if Sergio ever shot 40% from 3 during any other stretch of games in his career, I’d be shocked)
I don't know....
Sergio was pretty good over that stretch. I don’t remember missing Blake all that much. And as the argument always went against Sergio in regards to Blake, he was doing it versus starters.
As for Sergio shooting 3’s… 46% in February (12 games), 40% in April (8 games), 46% as a stater (13 games).
And 36% is not great
But if you’re looking at spot minutes again, Sergio was a really bad 3 point shooter in his 1-10 minute games. He’s not Blake, but he’s not bad like people seem to think either.
True, 28 games leaves room for error
And my percentage is wrong there, typo somewhere alone the way. 53/152 is 35%.
Now if you take out his worst game it improves him a lot, but if you take out his worst and best (1/11 and 7/9) he actually drops to 34%. So yeah, there is a standard out, but the outlier games fall on both sides.
All lot of that could be explained
by the Fact that Rex is a rookie and Serg a 3rd year pro. Maybe. Possibly
"You're welcome friend
I love you."
- Tom "Dragline" inHawaii
by 92wastheyear on Jun 10, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Don't come in here with that logic crap
Bayless is a bust. No other way of looking at it.
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
The logic of sucking more than a guy that everyone wants to get rid of
Sergio’s rookie year was also better than Jerryd’s.
Well, if Jerryd hasn't improved more than Sergio did
after 3 seasons, we’ll all be ready for Bayless to leave, as well. Especially if he’s asking out due to “playing style” differences with the coach
the problem with the change now though
is it’s a downgrade. Sergio is a better point guard for this second unit than Bayless is.
If Sergio really agreed with you, I don't think he would be asking to leave
I think Sergio knows that he is not going to be able to hold off Bayless for much longer, that is why he is asking out. He can’t afford to be buried on the bench in his contract year.
by upper left corner on Jun 10, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Right, because it's not like he wasn't saying these exact same things
before Bayless came. That whole recent firestorm was just set off by a bad google translation from Norsk. It was no different than anything he’d said previously, and if anything it was milder. I think Bayless’s stink bomb in the mid-March period when he was handed the back up role reassured Sergio of his role, it was the 4 mpg that he got in the playoffs that unsettled it again.
We will see.
That is the nice part about these arguments. For the most part they get resolved on the court.
I think it would be helpful if we both try to take a more nuanced look at the situation. Words like “lousy” and “stink bomb” are a bit hyperbolic.
I think every indication is that team management thinks Bayless has a better future than Sergio and that Bayless isn’t going anywhere. I may be wrong.
Apparently the “stink bomb” you are referring to was a four game stretch in mid-March where Bayless got 11, 10, 11 and 17 minutes of PT. This followed a 12 game stretch, after Blake’s return, when Bayless played a total of 81 minutes or 6.8 minutes per game. His minutes during the stretch bounced from 0 to 14 minutes, but again only averaged 6.8 minutes. You can characterize it how ever you want. I see it as limited and inconsistent minutes. Young players trying to learn a new role are not likely to thrive in such a situation. It seemed pretty obvious to me that Bayless was trying too hard and pressing a bit too much.
Concluding from last season, as you seem to, that Sergio is the better player seems highly dubious to me. Sergio had a great April but a lousy March. Bayless actually shot 46% in January after Blake’s injury and 48% for the month of February, the only two months of the season where he averaged more than 10 minutes of playing time. During Blake’s absence, he averaged 4 assists/game on less than 20 minutes a game.
Who was the more productive player is a matter than can be debated. It depends on how you crunch the numbers and how you view the game. Obviously, Nate ultimately agreed with you that Sergio was better in the short run. Sergio responded well to Nate’s vote of confidence and played very well in April. I think it is certainly arguable that Bayless would have done the same.
I still think the bottom line is that management has more faith in Bayless’ future and that Sergio likely recognizes that fact.
by upper left corner on Jun 11, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't care how much your playing
if you’re the primary backup PG, and in 49 minutes of action over 4 games, you score 4 points, have 2 assists, 2 rebounds, 6 turnovers, draw 4 FTs (when that’s your strength), and shoot 14% from the floor, that deserves to be referred to as a Stink bomb, no matter if Bayless, Sergio, Roy, Aldridge, Oden, or whoever is the one doing it.
Spin that away all you want. If Bayless hadn’t have been so awful, he would’ve played more than 11 minutes in three of those games. Nate came out and publicly announced he had the job. What more did he need?
It also should be noted that in the first game after he was reinstated as the primary backup, Sergio had 4 times as many assists in 14 minutes as Jerryd had gotten in the previous 4 games.
I'm not trying to spin...
… and think your “tone” is borderline at best.
Bayless was in and out of the lineup for a month after Blake returned. Then, he shared the back-up minutes for three games and then was given the back-up minutes for one game. One game.
Did he play well? No, he did not. Given the situation, i.e. Bayless trying too hard and pressing too much, that was not at all surprising. I am not making excuses for the kid. I am not saying he played well when he didn’t. I am just observing that his failure to perform under the circumstances is entirely understandable, even predictable. Given this observation. I think it is advisable to avoid making sweeping statement or drawing definitive conclusions about Bayless. If Nate had given him the back-up position for ten games and he sucked you would, IMO, have a valid point. He got shared minutes for three games and got the job for one game. It would be like your boss evaluating you after your first day on the job.
Your tone in this post and other posts suggests you think I’m some sort of ignorant fan-boy. I don’t think that is the case. I think Bayless has a lot of potential. I don’t think he is a sure thing. I am trying to honestly and accurately assess his season. I think you and Zaig are taking a pretty one-sided view and not seeing the improvement Bayless demonstrated during the one stretch of semi-decent, semi-consistent minutes he received. I will try to respect your opinion, and would appreciate the same in return.
by upper left corner on Jun 12, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Curious about your numbers, I am coming up with very different figures
I went to ESPN, and looked at the game log. Excluding the horrible first game Bayless had after Blake’s injury, Bayless shot 42% for the remainder of February and shot 48% for the entire month of March. During Blake’s absence he averaged just under 4 assists per game on about 20 minutes per game.
I think you are mixing in other games that pull down his averages. I don’t want to get into a big argument, but I think we should be trying to look at the numbers in a fairly objective manner.
by upper left corner on Jun 11, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I got banned for far more innocuous comments than this last weekend.
I don’t mind your sarcasm, but if standards were applied equally, this comment would get you in trouble. I am not going to flag your comment because I think the moderators have been going too far.
In the words of Rodney King, “can’t we just all get along?”
I know I have a different opinion than you and Zaig, and that I have been outspoken in stating that opinion. I do not think that I have been dishonest or entirely one-sided in the arguments I have put forward, and don’t really appreciate the implication that I have been. I will continue to “call-em as I see-em” and marshall the strongest arguments I can in support of my views. But I am more interested in figuring out what is best for the team than I am in trying to dogmatically push an individual player. I will try to respect your right to disagree, and hope that you will give me the same respect.
by upper left corner on Jun 12, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions
I was fairly clear about this
The 28 games are the games that he played 10+ minutes. 15 of those are from the stretch that Blake was out. The others are from games that Sergio got pulled instantly, Sergio didn’t play, etc.
A bunch of posts higher I have his stats from just the 15 games, in which he shot 44% from the field. The post in this portion of the topic is his entire season (you know not just picking when he did best.)
Since every cries “garbage minutes” (Even though offensive stats should look better) I used only games that he had 10+ minutes. In games likes this he played almost identical mpg to Sergio. In other words, there are no arguments about when the minutes came, not getting into the rhythm, etc.
Thanks for clarifying
I see your point, I hope you see mine.
I think the numbers I cited above indicate that Bayless showed significant improvement in February and March when he was given reasonably consistent minutes.
It gets down to a matter of interpretation. Bayless only played 600 minutes for the season, and only got consistent minutes for about a month. Then he was pulled in and out of the lineup for about a month, and then got four games with more than 10 minutes and then was back to garbage minutes. Sergio struggled too in the period after Blake returned until Nate made a definitive decision to go with him. I think it is fair to suggest that both guys struggled with limited and inconsistent minutes. Sergio did get twice as many minutes for the season, and played his best during the stretches he got the most minutes.
We don’t know how Bayless would have played if he had gotten the minutes that Sergio did. I do think his dramatic improvement during late February through March suggests that he too would have played better with more minutes.
Bottom line is that no one should make too many definitive statements about Bayless based on the limited and inconsistent minutes he received. The data is too limited and too subject to cherry picking by both sides. I think my interpretation of the data is at least as valid as what you have put forward. I am looking at the glass as half full, and you are basically presenting the argument that the glass is half empty.
by upper left corner on Jun 12, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Typically when I bash Bayless, it's his rookie year
I’ve even agreed that he could work out for us in the future, I just don’t think it’s a sure thing like many people here do. Batum, Oden, and Rudy seem like sure things because the qualities we need for them are there and can only grow. Bayless… not so much. He “could” get the qualities and skills we need, but it’s not a forgone conclusion yet.
I don't disagree
I don’t think Bayless is a sure deal. You seem to see his rookie year as lousy; I see it as poor, but think he was highly unlikely to be successful given the way Nate used him. I also see more improvement within the season when he was given decent minutes.
Bayless has the physical ability needed to be very good PG in this league. Whether he can develop the understanding of how to use those abilities to be successful is an open question. I also agree that Oden, Batum, and Rudy are more certain to develop into solid to great NBA players.
You seem to see Bayless as a coin flip. I see him as about an 80% chance to be a good role player in the league, and about a 65% chance of being a strong starting PG.
I appreciate the dialogue and am glad that we seem to have figured out how to discuss our points of view in a constructive manner.
by upper left corner on Jun 12, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions
I really like this line of thinking.
However, I think the pick will most likely end up being a guy who scores off their scales as a personality / body type / obscure stat kinda guy. Someone who may be undervalued and relatively less exciting when his name’s called.
Jrue Holiday
Love his described strengths from draft express. Likely hood of reaching potential. All around defense. Basketball IQ. Off ball defense.
It gives Nate the tall PG he wants yada yada yada.
I like Holiday better then Jennings.
Offseason:
PG Options: Mike Conley(T)
SG Options: Terrence Williams(D)
Forward Options: Ronnie Turiaf(T) - Damion James(D), Taj Gibson(D), Kevin Seraphin(D)
Dude, you are right on the dot!
I think Holiday is the perfect PG for the Blazers. He is a guy that can easily guard the SGs and PGs. He contests shots on the perimeter and I think he would be great next to Roy at the end of games.
He really is a distributor first offensively with a SGs body and ability to score. I think he is more athletic than people give him credit for and he could make Bayless much better in competition for the starters role. He won’t take shots from Roy or LMA.
I see him as being the perfect complement to Bayless, Roy, Rudy and Webster. I would also take Collison with a second round pick if he were available but he does not contest shots.
Best available player for the system the Blazers run would be Holiday.
Huh?
Regarding Jrue Holiday…
He really is a distributor first offensively
Where did you get that? That actually sounds like the opposite of what Jrue is right now. At this point he doesn’t seem like a very good offensive player at all.
He won't be any less of a distributor in the NBA
then Kirk Hinrich is.
Offseason:
PG Options: Mike Conley(T)
SG Options: Terrence Williams(D)
Forward Options: Ronnie Turiaf(T) - Damion James(D), Taj Gibson(D), Kevin Seraphin(D)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jun 10, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Not sure where ur getting ur stats
but Hinrich shot 40.8% this season, and is a career 38% shooter.
by blacknoiseNW on Jun 10, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Sergio-esque?
Better defense, worse passing, lower future potential.
Rudy and Oden may be making our most exciting passes for the next five years.
I posted Hinrich's 3-point %
which is more condemnation on Sergio. Frankly, I think Sergio can play, he just can’t shoot, and if you can’t shoot, you can’t compete.
by blacknoiseNW on Jun 10, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I recalled from memory that he was a 41.8% shooter. I was one percent off. I don’t think that’s a huge mistake.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 11, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Being a 40.8% shooter for one injury-shortened season
does not make him a 42% 3-point shooter. Rather, that would be a misrepresentation of his actual skill (Sample size, sample size, sample size – say it with a Marsha-inflection).
It comes down to the same thing other posters have done with Sergio. You can also isolate positive statistics if you look at small enough sample sizes, but when you consider all the relevant factors, regression towards the mean is the reality that should drive personnel decisions. We have enough data on Hinrich to demonstrate that, in a full season as a point guard, we could expect his 3-point % to be under 40%.
by blacknoiseNW on Jun 11, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
..............
But he was 41.5% from the 3pt line 2 years ago in 2800+ minutes with over 300 attempts. I’m not exactly sure how you don’t think he can shoot 40% from behind the arc.
Last year he was 35% from behind the arc, but if anything that was the outlier. He took 100 less 3s that year than any other year in his career, leading me to believe that something wasn’t right.
Either way, he obviously got his shot back this year. Also he took 170 3s this year, not exactly a small sample size.
And last but not least, you can’t use raw statistics without looking at the why. If a team is looking for a guy to shoot 3s to get you back in the game, do you choose Blake or Rudy? Well, according to you we should just choose Blake thanks to the higher pecentage. However, ANYONE who watches the games can tell you that Rudy is the better option because he can hit 3s that he has to force. Blake’s 3s are typically wide open and he is still only a few % higher than Rudy.
You are trying to make your case for Jennings
But both Holiday & Jennings held the role of “defensive specialist” last year. Holiday’s strength listed as commitment to defense. Jennings weakness listed as commitment to defense.
Offseason:
PG Options: Mike Conley(T)
SG Options: Terrence Williams(D)
Forward Options: Ronnie Turiaf(T) - Damion James(D), Taj Gibson(D), Kevin Seraphin(D)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jun 10, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
A weakness of Holiday is that he's not a true point guard.
A strength of Jennings is that he is a true point guard.
Also, last year Holiday wasn’t the one guarding the better point guards, that was Darren Collison’s responsibility.
Jennings is a true PG?
He didn’t put up many assists. Both players are younger then 20 years old.
Offseason:
PG Options: Mike Conley(T)
SG Options: Terrence Williams(D)
Forward Options: Ronnie Turiaf(T) - Damion James(D), Taj Gibson(D), Kevin Seraphin(D)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jun 10, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Jennings was the 9th ranked assist guy in the entire Italian league.
He scored an assist on 34% of his possessions.
But not so many opportunities to tell
Until he is a starter and assessed against starters, even in the Italian league can we really judge? Even on a 36 minute basis this year’s production is about 3.2 assists per game.
(not arguing against Jennings – just don’t see the evidence)
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
Assists in Europe are MUCH rarer
it’s not like here where you can pass the ball to a guy, he takes two dribbles and pulls up for a contested jumper, and they give you the assist. Basically, unless you get the guy a wide open jumper in rhythm or a layup/dunk, you’re not going to be given the assist in Europe. 3.2 assists in Europe is probably significantly harder than 5-6 assists in the US.
The main weakness of Holliday
Is that his jumpshot=0,A terrific player in every other way
by southern oregon on Jun 10, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
This has already happened
Does anyone remember Nicolas Batum? That was a great pick for a downgraded talent.
One of the best examples
Nic went from being a top 5 pick, to being a late lottery pick after a lackluster year in France with some key no shows against top guys (Gallinari) in Euroleague, to a late first rounder after some medical issue shenanigans with his heart that his camp and SA kept under wraps to cause him to drop further down to the Spurs. Nic’s outcome was really all over the map.
Jennings has dropped in the same fashion
making him a great “steal”.
He won’t drop as far as Batum did.
by spencerbutte on Jun 10, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Late report of a fake heart problem helped him drop further
Should we count on it happening this time before KP makes a move?
NOT!
by spencerbutte on Jun 10, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
This year, it's D-Blair
He’s trimmed down now, but the rumor is that he can put weight back on fast and that’ll be bad for his knees
slip-slidin’ away…
Rumor is circulating
Net’s Daily reporting:
Blair’s Arthritic Knees Giving Teams Pause
Pitt’s DeJuan Blair is the player most linked to the Nets in mock drafts, but recent medical results are making teams nervous. Last week, Chad Ford reported a knee exam was being characterized by GM’s as "troubling" even "devastating". Now, says Draft Express, word is that Blair has arthritis which is "a major concern to certain teams." The 6′7″ Blair had ACL surgery on both knees in high school.
by spencerbutte on Jun 11, 2009 7:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Good
let him slide right down to KP. Short minutes behind LMA is just the ticket for Blair to keep the tread on his knees
So Dave you are saying we can pic up this teams uncle cliffy or j-oneal.
"I like whatever metric makes a Blazer look better." jonestr
Reporter: Four assists tonight too, Travis. You're starting to shed that idea that you're just a shooter. You're starting to pass the ball more too...
Travis: (Deadpans) Aw, I just got tired..
Just trade our pick to OKC & Trade exception for Serge Ibaka
Offseason:
PG Options: Mike Conley(T)
SG Options: Terrence Williams(D)
Forward Options: Ronnie Turiaf(T) - Damion James(D), Taj Gibson(D), Kevin Seraphin(D)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jun 10, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Collison would be the safest pick
Not All Star material but really fast,level headed and does everything well.Caspri would be more of a swing for the fence but I am fine with that this year
by southern oregon on Jun 10, 2009 11:57 AM PDT reply actions
Rodrigue Beaubois. He could turn out to suck at basketball or he could be Rajon Rondo. No one knows.
proud hinrichsheeple
I'd be both surprised and delighted
if Beaubois was still on the board at #32. Of course I thought the same thing about Chalmers last year, and we didn’t pick him up either.
Beaubois is one of those few guys with 8 or 9 potential that might drop. The only reason is the ridiculous crop of point guards entering the draft this year. Maybe he could take Petteri’s spot once we renounce his rights/trade him.
If KP wants him, I’d expect a move similar to getting Batum last year, packaging second rounders to move just in front of a team ready to draft him.
proud hinrichsheeple
He'll probably be available at #24.
I’d be perfectly happy seeing us draft him there.
If we trade away the #24 pick there’s still a roster charge of about 450k that’s applied to the cap—I’m not sure why people are so set on the up or out mantra in this draft. I just want KP to get his guy; regardless of where we pick.
San Antonio
San Antonio wants Omri Casspi we have the pick that could get him so why don’t we just do a pick swap with the Spurs, We get their 2011 1st rounder they get our current 1st rounder.
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
The limiting factor for PG is 3-point shooting
Those who can distribute, defend and shoot stay in the league. The young blazing fast PG usually have not needed to shoot 3’s before the NBA and have to develop that shot. So that makes it a crap shoot to determine who will develop and who will not.
The most discussed names above are Jennings and Holliday and neither have demonstrated the ability to shoot 3’s. Compare with Bayless at Arizona where he shot 40.7% from college 3 and then look at Holiday at 30.7% and Jennings at 20.7%/26.8% (admittedly playing in better leagues than the Pac 10) and say who is more likely to get there?
The third PG on the Blazers in 2009 needs to be a steady play-off experienced veteran who is happy to be available if needed and a wise voice in the locker room.
I would rather draft a future star in Europe or elsewhere and gamble on his development or a big man who can play defense and develop on the bench.
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
Webster on the floor, and your point no longer needs to be the guy to shoot the 3
but rather the guy to drive and dish to the 3 if the defense collapses. All the PG needs to do is handle the rock under pressure, break down the defense, get the ball to a rolling big or spotting up wing and defend the opposing PG. Roy, especially once he gets better at feeding the big man rolling to the hoop, remains the “point guard” on offense, most of the time.
by blacknoiseNW on Jun 10, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions
It takes more than one shooter to spread the floor
I think you are right about needing a PG to penetrate and dish, but I think putting all our eggs in Martell’s basket is ill advised. Nic is likely to remain a low minutes starter because he is our best wing defender. Martell is likely to play big minutes off the bench.
I hope Roy works on his three point shooting this summer. If Bayless can break down the D, he will be more effective if he has two spot up shooters to find. For the immediate future I expect Bayless to be playing in the second unit with Rudy and Martell that should be a good combination.
by upper left corner on Jun 11, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Roy shot 37.7% from three, with a large portion of late in the shot clock attempts. He’s one of the best shooters on the team already.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 11, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Not disagreeing
I am just saying it would be nice to see him shooting open 3s. Last year he generated most of his own 3s, because Blake doesn’t penetrate much and no one collapses on the rare occasions he does. It would be much different if Bayless started playing a few minutes with the first unit. Over the next couple of seasons, I would like to see Roy getting more of his points off of open perimeter looks and fewer by throwing his body to the floor.
I’m not saying I want him to sacrifice his amazing penetration skills, just that I would like to see him have to do that a little less frequently to cut down on wear and tear.
by upper left corner on Jun 12, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Adding a 3-point shooter such as Webster
simply shifts the role to the 3 that Blake filled last season when Batum was on the floor. With Webster on the floor, outside shooting is less important for the point guard (FWIW, that would not constitute “putting all your eggs in one basket”. Rather, it would be “shifting outside scoring from PG to SF”.
by blacknoiseNW on Jun 11, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I do agree with you
I had Martell picked as the most likely to have a break-out year before last season, and my frequent advocacy for Bayless is largely based on seeing Martell helping to spread the floor. I’m just saying that we need more than just one shooter. Hopefully both Roy and especially Nic continue to improve in this area.
by upper left corner on Jun 12, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Roy, Rudy, Webster
are all excellent three point shooters. Nic was pretty good last year and should improve. Trout is a great open shot three point shooter (if he’s still around). When you have 4-5 wing players on your team who can shoot the three, it’s not vital that your PG is a great three point shooter. Just ask the Celtics with Rondo (House, Allen, Pierce all excellent shooters).
That stuff is irrelevant anyway...
As if you could possibly build a championship-caliber team by surrounding a dominant center with a lineup of 3pt shooters? Who the heck ever heard of something like that?
Crazy talk!
:-D
by conspirator5 on Jun 10, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Love this post
Really gratified to see it mentioned that, well, failure IS an option at this point. Not just failure at #24, but even a failed trade up in the draft. Likening this to stock market investing, you can’t necessarily judge drafting talent by outcomes, but by the prudent use of the risk/reward curve at a given juncture.
Case in point, if Freeland and PetKo don’t log NBA minutes, it doesn’t imply failure by KP. The stockpiling of “assets” in our bench isn’t necessarily for the slam dunk trade, but the ability to roll the dice a bit…
by Engineering Problem on Jun 10, 2009 10:05 PM PDT reply actions
I posed a somewhat similar thought...
a week or so ago – http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/5/31/893599/would-you-rather, but like the way you framed your question better. I’d like to think that I’d be ok with us never winning a championship as long as I always felt like “we were in it”, but admittedly it would be tough if the core of this current team didn’t win at least one. But, since this is hypothetical I’ll go ahead and stick with my original answer, which was the journey is more important than the destination.
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
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
