BE Exclusive: Interview with Nate McMillan
by Ben. on Jun 25, 2009 11:59 PM PDT
in News
140 comments
Here's a Blazersedge exclusive Question and Answer with Nate McMillan. I talked with Nate after his post-draft general statements. We discuss plans for the team's draft picks, a few of the quirkier things that unfolded during the draft, his Summer League plans for Jerryd Bayless and, of course, what the heck happened with DeJuan Blair.
Blazersedge: Nate, Kevin said a minute ago that during the draft process you and Tom Penn are the guys telling him to sit on his hands and holding him back from making moves. Was there a moment tonight where you had to do that?
I think, you know, both he and Mr. Allen... what you can end up doing is adding .... we have A LOT of roster spots.
You can just add youth and youth and youth and youth and fill up your roster with 5 young guys. You don't HAVE to do that.
Right now with Sergio not being there we have 5 spots. Now we add 2 with Pendergraph and Cunningham so that's 12. We've got 3 open spots still. We could have drafted and bought some more picks and added [a total of] 5 guys.
[By not doing acquiring additional picks] you just leave yourself some room if there's something out there in free agency.
Blazersedge: Kevin said he has a "long list" of free agent targets. Do you also have a long list of free agent targets in your mind or how wouuld you quantify it?
His list is my list.
Pretty much what they do is have a formula and what he has to figure out first is the cap number. We will have some guys that we will target.
I'm on the same team with Kevin.
He'll get ready for that. He knows, we've talked about what we need to do to improve this team. So we're on the same page.
Blazersedge: Previously you've told me you envision turning the Summer League over to Jerryd Bayless exclusively. You just drafted a point guard in Patty Mills. Does that create a conflict or change of plans for Summer Leaglue?
No. The plan is to play Bayless at the one. There will be some times where Coach Prunty will play Mills and Bayless at the same time but I want Bayless playing one a majority of summer league.
Mills, for right now, will back him up. I'm sure they will be on the court some together. Possibly move Mills off the ball.
Blazersedge: Kevin said he expects all three second round picks to play in Las Vegas. Do you have that same sense?
Yeah, I think that's something we will work on. You get into contract issues and all of that but yeah we would hope they're ready to go.
Blazersedge: Is your mood tonight relieved, happy, excited...?
We're happy. We're happy. But it doesn't feel that way in this room [laughs]
Blazersedge: Yeah, I was going to say you don't look super happy. You look exhausted.
Well, I am exhausted. I am exhausted. It's been a long day.
I guess with what we've done over the last few years, having lottery picks, having number one picks, it's just been so much excitement that the expectations are way up here.
[Drafting like this] is a sign we've gotten better. We've improved. Hopefully we continue to draft like this and not be in that lottery again. That's the plan. It's a good sign but you wouldn't know it [given the mood in here]. [laughs]
Blazersedge: Were you surprised to see Minnesota go point guard, point guard at picks 5 and 6?
Yeah, I think a lot of people were. I still feel like there's another move there.
Blazersedge: Trade Rubio?
Well, I don't know which guard but you've got Rubio, you've got Flynn and then you've got Telfair so you've got 3 small guards. Flynn can't play off the ball.
I just think that there's probably another move somewhere because those are two guards that a lot of teams wanted. You can use those guys somewhere during the summer to get a piece or player.
Blazersedge: DeJuan Blair was a guy that many thought you guys had interest in. You had 3 cracks at him and passed on him 3 times. Were you surprised by how far he fell (to San Antonio at #37) and was there anything that kept you away from him?
We were a bit surprised but we just felt like the guys we had targeted were there. Those were the guys that we wanted to go with.
Blazersedge: So you had both Jeff Pendergraph and Dante Cunningham above Blair on your board going into Thursday night?
We didn't have Blair on our board.
We thought he would be gone.
Blazersedge: Even at 22?
We didn't know where Blair would go but the guys we targeted we got.
-- Ben (benjamin.golliver@gmail.com)
0 recs |
140 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
...Blair is still a mystery
We thought he would be gone.
If you have a guy going very early, and you have a chance to get him, don’t you do so? This really still doesn’t make sense.
She lives in my lap
WORD UP.STAY.FRESCO
by Dheepan on Jun 26, 2009 12:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Only if you think he'll be a good player.
Just because you think other teams think he’ll be a good player doesn’t mean you think he’ll be a good player yourself.
by wepto on Jun 26, 2009 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok I can see a decent arguement for Pendergraph over Blair
But Dante Cunningham? Don’t see it.
She lives in my lap
WORD UP.STAY.FRESCO
by Dheepan on Jun 26, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Remember how much people wished we had kept Darrel Arthur last year? Heck, people were upset that we drafted Roy over Adam Morrison as well. I don’t know much about Cunningham, but I know KP has an excellent draft record. The board is not full of draft experts.
In the end Blair is a 6-6 power forward with bad knees. It’s not surprising that the team went a different direction.
by wepto on Jun 26, 2009 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But Nate's remarks enable me to paraphrase him thusly:
“We had expectations of Blair which project him as a lottery pick.”
"Just kidding"
by CatMan2 on Jun 26, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We didn't have Blair on our board
Rings loud of NO on Blair
by lee3022 on Jun 26, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He sounds like he wasn't on the board because they didn't think he would be pickable
I hope they weren’t unprepared and just went with targeted players that would be terrible if he turns out well. Tell me it isn’t so, did they not do their preparation well enough. Did they get distracted with all their 2nd round picks
"Knowledge will get you from A to B. Creativity will get you anywhere." Einstein
by Garden of ODEN on Jun 26, 2009 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
He said they got the guys they wanted
Remember KP targets his players and goes and gets them. He did that using Sergio and the draft fell precisely they way they wanted it to go. So no, they were not unprepared.
by lee3022 on Jun 26, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep, it makes zero sense
Dante Cunningham?
by jksnake99 on Jun 26, 2009 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe it's the herd mentality
Some analysts were saying last night that when team after team start passing on a player, other teams start to think those teams ahead of them must know something and also pass on him. It seems to me that if the Blazer brain trust is as smart and well prepared as they are reputed to be, they’d trust their homework and their instincts and go against the flow. By this same logic, would the Blazers have also passed on the rest of the players taken at the top of the draft because they didn’t think they’d be available at 22? I think even the smart can out smart themselves at times. Time will tell, won’t it?
by kuhnsmith on Jun 26, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just gonna say it about Blair because it needs to be said.
Blair:Millsap as Harden:Roy.
Let’s not kid ourselves, he went in the late 30s…in this draft.
by senormateo on Jun 26, 2009 12:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Or maybe it'll be the other way around
Harden:Roy is as Millsap:Blair. It just baffles me that he wasn’t on their board anywhere. I’m dumbfounded.
by KitIsh on Jun 26, 2009 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can this team not know what DeJuan Blair is, this late in the process?
If he’s not on your board because you assumed he’d be gone, that just isn’t good enough. KP preached to us year and year out, “best player available”. You assume he’s going to be gone based on something right? He must be a pretty darn good prospect if you think it’s not possible he’s there at #22. You’re still not considering him at #33? Unreal.
At least feed us a proper excuse. “We didn’t have Blair on our board”? Thanks for doing your work guys. I mean you only had all year long to scout this guy. He was only the exact player you didn’t have on your team throughout the regular season as Channing continued to get minutes. He was only the exact player you needed when you were getting eaten alive by Landry and Scola. Maybe next year you’ll look at the lottery prospects… maybe….
by as11osu on Jun 26, 2009 12:12 AM PDT reply actions 7 recs
harsh
but hard to argue with.
- Sam
by RipCitySam on Jun 26, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah "unreal"
Like as in this isn’t the whole story. Oh I know, I know… Fire Nate.
by pxilpooshr on Jun 26, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too harsh
Perhaps our judgment is not as advanced as our scouts?
by lee3022 on Jun 26, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if so
then give us some tangible reason why Blair was passed on
That would be nice.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Jun 26, 2009 2:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll give you an intangible reason
His ACL’s. He doens’t have any. As in they’re “intangible”.
by BlazerTag on Jun 26, 2009 2:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
who cares in the second round
You can find players like Cunningham in the dleague, but a player like Blair is a much more rare commodity
It is not just passing on Blair, but where they passed on him that matters. First round pass, fine, but not at 33.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Jun 26, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he's such damaged goods
Then why did another team take him? I agree that either the Blazers aren’t being honest (e.g. we had access to his medical records and checked them out with our medical experts who said don’t touch this guy because he’s injury prone) , or maybe worse yet, they are being honest about why they didn’t take him (“we didn’t think he’d be available”) which makes them look stupid.
by kuhnsmith on Jun 26, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Why do they need to give us a tangible reason?
it’s not smart to trash other teams’ picks or players publicly. What if Blair ends up coming our way in a trade later? Or does Nate want to provide an opposing player with extra motivation? The bottom line is that KP and Nate both knew he was available and chose not to draft him. I mean, the fact that he “wasn’t on our board” means that they had to consider him and for some reason eliminated him.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 6:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why is giving a reasonable excuse
trashing someone? It seems like there is some overwhelming sentiment that you cant say a player is not right for you without do it in some demeaning fashion.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Jun 26, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But why say anything negative if you don't have to at all?
It’s a throwaway comment that we will all have forgotten in a month or two, but I bet a player would remember it a lot longer.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
because you passed on lottery talent at pick #33
that needs an explanation. Say something like “his size does not fit our player evaluation model” or something is not a negative statement.
If Blair breaks out then there are 5 or 6 GMs, especially ones with a need at PF, that are going to have to do some explaining to someone.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Jun 27, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's he supposed to say?
“There is no way Blair will ever be an NBA player due to his future as a double-amputee”
“We didn’t pick Blair because of his history of fat-assery”
“Everyone knows this draft stunk from top to bottom, so it doesn’t matter who we pick because it’s all a bunch of garbage”
by BlazerTag on Jun 26, 2009 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions 8 recs
can i steal that line for my sig?
"We didn’t pick Blair because of his history of fat-assery"
by 5212872 on Jun 26, 2009 1:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how about you say
we had concerns about his health
not an unprecedented statement from the Blazers and a reasonable excuse
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Jun 26, 2009 2:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nate's penchant for
prevarication will get him in to trouble someday. He’s not very good at it.
by Blazin' on Jun 26, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both things he said are not mutually exclusive
They might well have thought that Blair would be gone.
They might well have not wanted Blair no matter when he went.
Nate is not serving the team not serving Blair and not serving himself by trashing Blair. He may be throwing out a lame excuse to avoid trashing Blair. Any coach who wants to stay in the league learns how to be diplomatic (well any coach except Larry Brown!). Perhaps Nate will someday want to be considered to coach San Antonio.
I am appreciative that Nate gave Ben an exclusive. I hope the he does not become reluctant to do so in the future.
by lee3022 on Jun 26, 2009 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you about the exclusive interview
And it is to Ben’s credit that he delivered the tough questions in spite of that risk.
My point is that politicians learn how to gloss things over without actually getting caught in a lie. Or if you prefer, a fudge.
I think Nate could use some work on this. Like with these comments tonight, he left the door open.
In general, I don’t think Nate is fully comfortable yet in his difficult job of being head coach here in Portland. And I think that is reflected in some of the things that come out of his mouth with the press.
by Blazin' on Jun 26, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Perspective
The only coach in the NBA that is totally comfortable might be Jerry Sloan. The job simply consumes men because of the perceptions of the fan base and the media and the players all can go off on a tangent at a moments comment. So yes, Nate is working on it by granting this exclusive interview. If he cannot be a bit unguarded here which public forum can he ever do that? Still I don’t like to judge his words so much as to absorb and appreciate him for sharing.
by lee3022 on Jun 27, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously...
You really think they didn’t know who he was? They obviously did not want him and time will tell whether they and 28 other teams were correct to pass on him.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Jun 26, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess
Would you rather he insult the kid and say they didn’t want him?
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Jun 26, 2009 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually yes
I would rather them say the didn’t want him than say “he wasn’t on our board.” That’s just dumb.
by jksnake99 on Jun 26, 2009 1:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe both things are true
he wasn’t on their board because they didn’t like him.
I think he made a strong implication that they liked the guys they got better than Blair – it seems like they just don’t care about Blair at all. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jun 26, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Red-flag
This is what’s strange, to me. Givony and Ford (probably others) had the Blazer’s interest in Blair at “very high” Where were the experts hearing these rumors from? Why would the Blazers spread misinformation on a player who was not even on their board? Can anyone think of a tactical advantage of doing this?
I wouldn’t be surprised hearing that RC Buford spread the “concerns” re: DeJuan’s knees around the league for the past week, since it was reported that the Spurs were behind the rumors of Batum’s heart condition, last year. If the San Antonio front office got other GMs to shy away from drafting Blair, you’ve gotta grit your teeth and tip your hat to him.
by two4larue on Jun 26, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I trust what KP says directly
more than what Ford and Givony think they want. They guess. They hear rumors. The best GM’s can decipher the rumors from the truths. Obviously the media is wrong a high percentage of the time. Blair was an obvious target from the outside. Look at how many of us ASSUMED the Blazers had him as a target. It seems obvious that they didn’t see him the same way and they have way more info to go on than any of us. We read the rumors.
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Jun 26, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You spread the rumor that you want the guy so another team does not figure out who you want… duh
If the Blazers interest was very high, they would have picked him. If they had a momentary brain lock on one pick, they had a second chance. They obviously just did not want him all that much.
by jidooo on Jun 27, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the may both be true
but by saying both of them, Nate evokes the schoolkid who’s got the “dog peed on my homework” excuse ready in case the “my sister stole my homework and scribbled crayon all over it” excuse doesn’t work.
Not convincing.
by Blazin' on Jun 26, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Just look how well rested Nate looks. I’m sure he was planning on having every syllable be parsed by the peanut gallery after being nice enough to engage in this Q&A when all he probably could think about was falling into a deep coma for the next 12 hours.
by Daaaaave on Jun 26, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
there are polite ways
to tell someone you dont want them
havent you ever broken up with someone? It’s not you Dajuan…it is us
classy like that
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Jun 26, 2009 2:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We already have a rebounding machine with busted-ass knees
by BlazerTag on Jun 26, 2009 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That way we can diss on Blair and Oden at the same time
by BlazerTag on Jun 26, 2009 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take a pass busting on Oden
I just want some real answers about passing on Blair in the 2nd.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Jun 26, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing to do with scouting.
Do people really think the guys in the front office don’t know what Blair can bring. How he was basically a late 1st rounder almost the entire year, the exact position where the Blazers ended up drafting. Blair was never a lock for the lottery, he moved up on everyone’s draft board the last 2 months of the season.
I don’t exactly know how or what brought on this hype. But you can be sure the Blazers brass knows exactly who Blair is as a player and why he wouldn’t potentially be a good fit. There is statistical evidence to show his potential in the next level, yet I think there’s empirical evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Bottom line, there’s a reason the Blazers didn’t select Blair. It has everything to do with basketball and nothing to do with scouting or lack thereof.
"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith
by blzrfan on Jun 26, 2009 1:55 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
thats fine
and I hope the Blazers share their reasons
It is still muddled at this point
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Jun 26, 2009 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't seem that muddled
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Jun 26, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I watched Blair at Pitt
I saw a monster. He was the best player on the floor routinely in Big East games. The guy plays with very high energy and acts like every loose ball and rebound is his personal property that everyone else on the floor is trying to steal.
And have you seen his arms? Or even the measurements on his reach? He’s got those rare, crazy long arms. He is to arm length what D12 is to muscle definition.
Blair is going to make a lot of GM’s look really, really silly.
by sagcat on Jun 26, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Valid criticism
But I am sure that there was a very good reason for Blair not being on the board – and my guess is that it started with his knees.
by Storyteller on Jun 26, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but can you explain
Why the draft experts reported that the Blazers were high on Blair? Why would KP hype a player he didn’t intend to draft? Unless it was to “convince” other GMs to select him so the guy(s) they really wanted would slide down to them?
Seems like wishful thinking, to me. Why wouldn’t they overhype multiple players who they weren’t targeting, if this was their goal?
by two4larue on Jun 26, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The draft experts are always wrong
Why do you think they have to be right, they get floated more rumors, than truths.
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Jun 26, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They obviously didn't want Blair
All this talk of them not being prepared? Ridiculous, their reputation is that of being over prepared year in and year out. They look at everybody.
I think Nate’s mention of “we thought he’d be gone,” is an answer to whether they were surprised. If he wasn’t on their board, they simply didn’t like him.
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Jun 26, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate's quote about Blair
is going to make a little firestorm…strange one though. He must not have meant it the way it came out. Surely you would consider the guy even if you thought he was going earlier.
The consolation is that he went as late as did. It means all the other teams in the league thought he was overrated, or damaged.
Strange quote though.
by Blazin' on Jun 26, 2009 12:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This was a polite way of saying they did not want Blair
We didn’t have Blair on our board
Says it all
by lee3022 on Jun 26, 2009 12:16 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
curious part
is saying they thought he would go earlier. as if that was why they didn’t have him on their board. But they are not that stupid. You’re right. He’s telling a lie to be nice.
by Blazin' on Jun 26, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because they thought he would go earlier...
doesn’t mean the Blazers valued him. For all we know KP and Nate were behind closed doors laughing at the teams considering taking him in the mid-1st.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 6:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
laughing at the Spurs moves
in the draft. Hmmm…Let’s hope not!
by Blazin' on Jun 26, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We all thought he'd go before he did
Not having him on the draft board answers everything.
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Jun 26, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good read on this, you guys
"Just kidding"
by CatMan2 on Jun 26, 2009 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the interviewers
Should have probed Nate a little more for clarification of what he meant by his statement. Nate was tired-maybe he would have slipped and let the truth out.
by kuhnsmith on Jun 26, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Note also he is not expecting Mills on the roster
by lee3022 on Jun 26, 2009 12:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
overseas seems likely.
good luck dejuan blair
by Cablinasian on Jun 26, 2009 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But nobody thought Nic would be on the roster either
at least from here
by lee3022 on Jun 26, 2009 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It will depend
Generally, it’s smart to have a third pg on the roster so that you have a backup if one of the top two guys goes down – kind of like a 3rd qb. So if the PG situation stays the way it is, or even if a veteran comes over in a Blake trade they might keep him around as a backup.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 6:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They will likely acquire a veteran PG backup or starter
to carry three PG’s.
by lee3022 on Jun 26, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sad day
We are seeing the limit/ceiling of the Nate/KP administration… they get the guys they target – no more, no less.
Sometimes it means getting Roy/LMA, but sometimes it means getting Pendergraph/Cunningham.
It’s gonna be difficult to improve beyond first-round-playoff-exit when you limit yourself to character guys and euro pet projects.
But at least we aren’t the JailBlazers anymore, right?
by mpowerOR on Jun 26, 2009 12:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This was the worst draft in years
Abandoning ship was the right course in my opinion.
by BlazerTag on Jun 26, 2009 12:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't say they have limited themselves to just getting these character guys and euro projects
There’s still a lot of off-season to go… I’m more inclined to think that the draft is a prelude to a bigger move.
by Blindsteepler on Jun 26, 2009 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but I disagree
They won 54 games last year with a VERY limited Greg Oden and no Martell Webster. There is no reason to believe that the team won’t continue to improve this year and get past the first round. Potentially they could get a better PG, but either way no move is not a bad move at this point. I applaud KP’s willingness to stand pat when he doesn’t see a move that will necessarily improve the team.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
Previous drafts were exciting because we were basically turning over 95% of our roster and KP had to get it done right away.
Now, we have 90% of our future roster in-place and we only need one or two more pieces. This is the year to see whether KP can get it done in free agency or through a non-draft-related trade. We’re only looking to add maybe one more player that will see significant playing time and that player needs to be a veteran…which equals no draft day fireworks.
by misterblack on Jun 26, 2009 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The guy they were targeting was not in the draft
This is good, the summer is not over. I look forward to seeing who the real target is.
by We-B-Dunkin on Jun 26, 2009 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tunnel vision
versus thinking outside the box
KP got an “audible” thrown at him with Blair dropping but stuck doggedly to his draft board
Meanwhile, Buford reached out to a fallen angel
Time will tell which GM was right
by two4larue on Jun 26, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could it be both?
Blair might be right for SA and not for Portland. He was clearly not top valued by Portland at 31 or 33 and we do not know who SA would have drafted had they had 31 or 33.
by lee3022 on Jun 26, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you just baiting people?
It’s obvious they’re going to ply their craft in the free agent / trade market.
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Jun 26, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I really want an answer
And so far yours haven’t been satisfactory
The draft experts have sources inside the league. They hear the trade discussions 2nd or 3rd-hand and report the rumors. They’re not just looking at 30 team “needs” and writing things like “Portland is very high on Blair” because they have nothing better to do.
Do NBA front offices blow smoke about players to hide their true intentions? Sure, all the time. But it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to let it leak out that you’re very interested in a player who you don’t even have on your draft board. It’s being disingenuous without gaining a competitive advantage; reporters and rival GMs have long memories.
by two4larue on Jun 26, 2009 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps they were trying to bait another GM
into spending an earlier pick on Blair or putting a trade together in order to acquire Blair.
This isn’t an exact science and there are not always exact answers. The Blazers are now a team looking for the last remaining pieces to the puzzle in order to become true contenders. It takes a lot of discipline to choose correctly and to know what type of player you need.
This draft was very limiting and was not going to provide the pieces the Blazers need. So they positioned themselves by trading up to 22 and to 31 – it may not be that they had specific players in mind but they were putting themselves in the best position for the future. I’m sure they looked at a lot of guys and were interested in some who they didn’t actually get.
It’s not about hitting the home run every time but about consistently putting yourself in position to make a good deal and acquire the assets you need. This year, it would appear that those opportunities didn’t materialize and so they made the best moves available.
There was lots of misinformation and partial information spread about who teams were interested in…it should not be surprising to learn that the Blazers leaked some names of guys they hoped other teams would jump on in order to gain a positional advantage or to try and force other GM’s to expose their own hands. In fact, it could be viewed as a critical tactical move.
by mwalter on Jun 27, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dont be sad. do you expect to pick up a Roy/LMA every draft?
it’s not gonna happen. Pendergraph and cunningham are good pickups. both have 4 years of college under their belts and will back up LMA just fine. this year is all about free agency and trades.
by notoriousj on Jun 26, 2009 12:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
I miss Martell. Come back soon!
by mannyfresh1 on Jun 26, 2009 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, i don't expect Roy/LMA every draft...
…but i have serious doubts about a front office brain trust that TARGETS stiffs like pendergraph and cunningham while ignoring an All-American first-team Big East PF that averaged a double/double as a Soph. in the toughest college hoops conference by far.
by mpowerOR on Jun 26, 2009 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
i'm surprised how obsessed and obsessed and obsessed some here are with blair
when he does have some serious red flags. 1) he’s short; 2) bad knees; 3) tendency towards fat — and the record of players who have weight problems in college solving this forever once they become millionaires is not that good.
plus the weight would contribute to further possible knee injury. all of which together looks like a very high risk project. almost the entire nba seems to have agreed. so why not put it to bed? they made their decision. we’ll see.
ignacio
by ignacio on Jun 26, 2009 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
all valid concerns on a first round pick
but once he goes to the second round he is just a guy with a lot of upside and relatively marginal downside
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Jun 26, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe it was Henry Abbott...
who once said that it’s common for one team to be wrong about a player, but rare for every team to be wrong. The fact that 20 teams had a chance to pick Blair and passed means something.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 6:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unbelievable
Shades of the crying about Adam Morrison in here tonight. You’d think some people would have learned that they, in fact, don’t know best.
by Daaaaave on Jun 26, 2009 12:46 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Haha touche
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
by jamon51 on Jun 26, 2009 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are plenty of people here
myself included that both agreed with KP’s picks the last 3 years, but disagreed tonight. A lot of us, at least it seems like from Nate’s quotes, paid more attention to the prospects this year than management did. Given this teams resources that can’t be the case. Apparently we have an entire board dedicated to Euro prospects, but we didn’t have Blair on a single one of our boards. That’s incomprehensible.
In the toughest conference in the history of college basketball, Blair had a PER of 39 (top 3 in the last 10 years). He’s the best offensive boarder in college basketball’s modern history. You can’t send one scout to one game and put him on your board? You can’t watch a couple tapes of him dominating other elite prospects? I don’t how there could be a glitch this big in our system.
by as11osu on Jun 26, 2009 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I love the Euro picks
What was the first thing the ESPN analysts said after the Claver pick – “lottery level skills.” KP has made it a habit of picking guys with lottery level skill a year or two earlier at a discount. Even if only 1 of every 2 of those guys pans out it’s worth it. Put it this way, who wouldn’t trade two 24 picks for a #8 pick, which is what KP essentially does by taking a chance on a couple Europeans late in the first round, waiting a couple years and having one pan out. There will always be a DeJuan Blair/Chris Wilcox type available. There will never be as many Rudy/Batum/Claver type players available.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 6:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love the Euro's too
as I’ve been a proponent of nearly every one we’ve taken in the last three years. I even understand the logic of not using a first rounder on Blair, even though I believe he has lottery level talent. The thing I find troubling is the 2nd round picks. I wanted Claver today. I was pumped when I heard we’d acquired the #31 from Sac so that we could take Claver there. I think he’ll be an NBA level talent in the not so distant future. What I don’t think is on Pendergraph or Cunningham’s best day they’ll be as good as what DeJuan Blair could be next year. The things he does translate to wins IMO. His ability to rebound and to keep rebounds alive for teammates is something rare. He’s a tough as nails kid and I don’t see him losing that edge.
I look at the potential backup fours right now, and I’m considerably, CONSIDERABLY less excited about them this year than I was Channing Frye last year. How can that be? We have a buffet (yep) of assets to use to get better at our areas of weakness, but our three positions of need we didn’t even attempt to get a guy that can be a legit upgrade this year. Blair was there for us three times. We also didn’t get into the Rubio sweepstakes that was won far too cheaply for us not to have at least try to get involved.
by as11osu on Jun 26, 2009 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As of right now the backup 4 will be Outlaw, most likely
He played well there last year, so the only time this “banger” type everyone wants will see the floor is due to foul trouble or matchup problems. heck, we might even see more of Oden/Pryz together next year rendering the backup 4 player even more irrelevant. Yes, i realize this is all dependent on Outlaw not being traded.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so the only time this "banger" type everyone wants will see the floor is due to foul trouble or matchup problems.
That’s short-sighted. The time you need a banger is in the playoffs. I thought the Rockets series would have taught fans a lesson, but I guess not
by two4larue on Jun 26, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously you and KP disagree
on the potential of Blair. Since he’s a professional GM for a good team with a history of making smart moves, perhaps you should consider lending more weight to his opinion in your opinion?
by mwalter on Jun 27, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a Bengals fan
I’ve agreed plenty with KP, which is why I regard him very highly among the GM’s in this league. However, GM’s don’t get a free pass with me. Only time will tell on Blair, but I’m definitely coming down on the other side of KP on this issue.
by as11osu on Jun 27, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is exactly the Blair that I saw play at Pitt.
Well said. I’m a rather big fan of Luke Harangody, but I watched Blair treat the entire ND team like they were an old 60’s freshman team. And while ND might not be a good example, Harangody is a two-time AA 4.
But Blair treated everyone in the BE that way. And as you have accurately said, last year’s BE might have been the best basketball conference ever.
I’m wondering if the divide on this board about Blair is between those of us who actually saw him destroy people in college, and those who honestly think he’s just some short, fat guy with bad knees.
by sagcat on Jun 26, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mills
I think mills was the steal of the draft. Every team needs 3 pg’s to survive the season, and this takes the heat off of the FA chase.
by boomboom88 on Jun 26, 2009 12:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We should reserve judgment on this draft
until at least two years after. We can speculate on how these players are going to turn out, but none of the players in the draft would have been picked up if the teams didn’t feel they at least had a chance to become at least a serviceable NBA plyaer. Saying things like second round players are worthless or have no chance to make it in the NBA is just hyperbole.
Not saying this specifically to anyone on this board, but just responding to the general mood that the players we drafted aren’t going to contribute. There’s a chance they’ll contribute, and let’s wait and see if they do before dismissing them as garbage.
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
by jamon51 on Jun 26, 2009 12:50 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
fair enough…
grumblegrumblecursegrumblegrumble
by mpowerOR on Jun 26, 2009 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
it’s not particularly fair to evaluate in hindsight…KP doesn’t have that luxury. The 2009 draft decisions should be evaluated in light of the information available today. KP’s future as a GM can be evaluated in a couple of years, but not his draft night choices.
by mwalter on Jun 27, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow...
Calm down guys. It’s pretty obvious Nate was being PC about Blair. We DON"T know what he and KP did. There’s alot of question marks around Blair, so there’s a good chance one of them is valid.Also I’ve seen pendergraph play in person, dude plays BIG, and was kinda scary to watch, I have no doubt he can be a banger. So wait and see how it pans out before you cast your judgment. There’s a reason Paul Allen is signing a paycheck for him, and not us. KP doesn’t go exclusively after guys he “targets”, i’m pretty sure Bayless was a best player available pick. KP saw value and went after him
Remember, Nate said he wants veterans, and if you listened to the post draft interview by KP, you can definitely tell the free agents are the targets this year, not the rookies.
by pineapple7611 on Jun 26, 2009 12:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Size Matters
KP doesn’t target undersized players. Look at the roster right now and you can clearly see that we’re built to be a long, tall team. I really doubt they have any interest in a 4 that’s shorter than our 3’s. Add in health questions and it takes Blair right off the board. The experience and age of Pendergraph is another big bonus; this team doesn’t need to wait around for kids to grow up.
Wasn’t there another young Spanish player drafted in the 20’s who came here after a couple years overseas? I hear he turned out to be worth the wait…
I’m no expert but it looks to me like this is exactly the right plan: add size and toughness to the bench and make room for a veteran, probably at the 1. I know it would be fun to be gushing over an exciting new rookie but I’d rather start the season knowing we have a good team, not wondering about the future.
by JonathanPDX on Jun 26, 2009 1:01 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Blair is more automatic than Pendergraph
He’s plenty big in all the areas that count, and put up ungodly stats to boot. Not only is he big enough to play in the league, but he’s great on the court. Blair’s readiness factor was never in question.
by as11osu on Jun 26, 2009 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
College stats don't matter
There are many many guys who put up great college stats and have good bodies but never translated to the NBA. One of the reasons the college game is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the NBA.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 6:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rebounding is the one skill that seems to translate
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Jun 26, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In which case...
Jon Brockman will prove to be a steal!
by mwalter on Jun 27, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of exceptions
Taurean Green and Patty Mills are undersized PGs
Taller can be better for big men, but you also want a few players with lower body strength (“Bangers”) when push comes to shove in the playoffs. (I’d rather have Leon Powe than Channing Frye, for example.) Too many tall, skinny guys getting pushed under the backboard by shorter butes doesn’t translate to playoff success
BTW, Chris Monter was on with Wheels and Vance and said he heard Pendergraph’s name being mentioned in a Portland trade, maybe for Hinrich? If Pend leaves in a deal will everybody still be “OK” with Cunningham instead of Blair?
by two4larue on Jun 26, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that’s fine… i’m done whining (promise).
we’ll see how this all plays out soon enough.
blazers on track to be better/improved team regardless of what happened in this draft… this is true.
by mpowerOR on Jun 26, 2009 1:07 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Sounds like Nate isn't giving Mills much chance to make the squad
Which I think is a shame.
Dictated, not read. The management.
by Samsara on Jun 26, 2009 1:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Mills is most likely to sign a contract overseas while the Blazers keep his rights
That’s my impression.
"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith
by blzrfan on Jun 26, 2009 1:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chad Ford said the Blazers really liked Blair
So the only other insider information we have says that KP was very aware of him. And knowing how darn well our guys prepare for the draft I think it’s safe to say that they knew who they were passing on and had a reason for doing it.
by erastus25 on Jun 26, 2009 6:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
stop being logical
Here at blazersedge its about PANIC breaths and over analysis of a benign quote.
by Pheesh on Jun 26, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you please explain, then
Why the experts were saying that Portland was “high” on Blair before the draft, and Nate said he wasn’t on their board at all
What’s the point of snookering the rest of the league by feigning interest in a player you have no intention of selecting?
That’s either being petty, or just wasting your prep time leading up to the draft
by two4larue on Jun 26, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Final note on Dejuan Blair: asked last week if there were any 4s targeted that didn’t workout in pdx chad buchanan named only Taj Gibson
Conclusions: Blair’s knees dq’d him altogether (very likely) or Blazers REALLY didn’t like what they saw at pitt (VERY unlikely).
by Ben. on Jun 26, 2009 9:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
hence the "off the board" comment.
thanks for a fabulous job yesterday Ben. Much appreciated. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jun 26, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then where did Ford/Givony get their intel
That Portland was high on DeJuan, and why would Portland feign interest?
by two4larue on Jun 26, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but if it was just his knees...
I understand that these guys’ potential for injury is part of the equation. So I get that you might take a guy like Hansborough at 12-16 instead of Blair. But at 33?! You take a guy with Blair’s game with the chance of future injury at 31 or 33. we should have risked the knees.
When I looked at this draft, Blair was one of those “oh I wish, but he’ll never be available at 22” kind of guys. My team passing on him three times was painful. I know I’m the poster-boy-bedge whiner today, but I’m wondering if the “have unquestioning faith in KP” crowd actually watched Blair play.
Unfortunately, we’re going to see a whole lot of him when we play the Spurs.
by sagcat on Jun 26, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think people are reacting
As though:
“We didn’t have Blair on our board.”
“We thought he would be gone.”
Are incongruent statements and mean that they didn’t expect Blair to be there at #33 and then failed to be able to act quickly to change their thinking.
I think it’s much more likely that he meant “we didn’t target him” and “we thought someone else would have taken a chance on him before us, but we weren’t ever willing to take the risk”.
by TheMadKiwi on Jun 26, 2009 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I have a hard time believing that as Blair plummets out of the first round the Blazers are unaware of this fact and are too focused on obtaining Pendergraph and Cunningham to select Blair at 31 or 33. I mean, perhaps I’m experiencing blind faith, but I don’t think the management staff has that much tunnel vision. They probably expected Blair to be off the board sooner. He wasn’t. They observed that but still didn’t want to use their picks on him because of whatever reason they had decided upon (I’m guessing the ACLs).
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.
by MrGrinch on Jun 26, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but it sounds like he's saying
“We had limited time to evaluate a ton of prospects. We thought evaluating Blair would be a waste of that time, cause no way he drops to #22. (Also, we never considered moving up.)
“And when it got to be our turn, we simply had not vetted him enough to pull that trigger. We never carefully weighed the prospect of him, so to pick him would have been reckless.”
by sagcat on Jun 26, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
which sounds like you're saying...
“KP and Nate have a history of acting foolishly and of being unprepared or unable to recognize basketball talent”
by mwalter on Jun 27, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben -
Thanks for working hard to get these quotes from Nate on a very busy day for him. This goes down as a checkmark in your column for going above and beyond the call of duty!
by Storyteller on Jun 26, 2009 10:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
As an outsider (Sonics/Thunder fan) looking in,
passing on Blair in the first was questionable; doing it twice in the second round was insane. Did you see how fast the Spurs turned in their pick? I just feel like every other team wasn’t properly weighting the risk/reward. Even if Blair’s knees go to hell in two years, I’d rather have two years of Blair to help my championship-contender over the entire careers of Cunningham/Pendergraph.
by sammy on Jun 26, 2009 4:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and on Nate's comments...
I wouldn’t read too much into them. He was obviously exhausted so he can be excused for not making the most cogent arguments. My guess is that passing on Blair was a KP decision all the way.
by sammy on Jun 26, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*BTW, great interview with Nate.
I only peek my head in here every once in a while, but it seems every time I do you have an interview with KP or some other organizational honcho. The fans here are really lucky to have such a capable and accessible FO.
by sammy on Jun 26, 2009 4:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Go back to where you belong, WTLCer.
Just kidding, good analysis. We are lucky to have such access to players, coaches, and front office people from both the financial and basketball aspects.
by Cablinasian on Jun 26, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's chess not checkers....
Pendergraph has both acl’s. No mystery to me.
by FrenchieFan on Jun 27, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Blazersedge
Related FanShots on Blazersedge
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
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
