# If we got the third pick, do you take a PG?



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

If Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Raymond Felton are all available, and Bogut and Williams are gone, many have the next best players as Paul and Deron Williams. So, do we take another good point and see if we can deal? 

Another likely scenario is that we have the fourth or fifth pick and Bogut, Marvin Williams and Green are gone. Who would you take? I like Sebastian, but good young point guards have high value. I say we take the best one and trade off the other.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Those seem like good situations to trade the pick. Considering how deep this draft is getting, I'm not sure trading down isn't already a good idea.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Reep said:


> If Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Raymond Felton are all available, and Bogut and Williams are gone, many have the next best players as Paul and Deron Williams. So, do we take another good point and see if we can deal?
> 
> Another likely scenario is that we have the fourth or fifth pick and Bogut, Marvin Williams and Green are gone. Who would you take? I like Sebastian, but good young point guards have high value. I say we take the best one and trade off the other.


If we had the third pick and Utah had yet to pick...I'd trade down to them. They might kick us a little bit of value and they'd get to pick a PG, which is their need anyway.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If the Blazers truly believe Paul is the best player left on the board, then that is who they should take. 

I don't believe either Deron Williams or Spencer will go in the top 5 - UNLESS Portland picks ahead of Utah and winds up with Paul.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd take Gerald Green with the third pick, assuming the expected occurs and Bogut and Williams are taken with the first two picks. I like Green's talent the best and he also happens to fit a need.

If Bogut, Williams and Green are gone when the Blazers pick, I'd take Paul if he's there, or *whoever* the best player available is. Point guard or not. You can always trade good young talent for other talent to fill needs. Reaching for need, when drafting, is simply lost talent, wasted talent.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

It will be interesting to see how all of these foreign big men work out as we get towards draft day.

One of them might emerge as a clear choice #3/4.

If not, then someone has to be interested in giving up value for Paul, so you take him and get whatever you can.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Well, I certainly wouldn't want us to turn down Jason Kidd so that he won't steal minutes from Speedy Claxton. Ya know?

Right now, I don't think we have a strength at ANY position. There is no All Star on this team. There is no untouchable player, in my opinion. Pick the best players available in the draft.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Its highly unlikely, but it could be possible that we could pick one of those point guards and hang onto them instead of Telfair.....They are top picks for a reason and could end up being better than Telfair....However I think the franchise is set on Telfair and wouldnt go that route.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Its highly unlikely, but it could be possible that we could pick one of those point guards and hang onto them instead of Telfair.....They are top picks for a reason and could end up being better than Telfair....However I think the franchise is set on Telfair and wouldnt go that route.


being a higher pick one year does not mean they are better than a lower pick the year before. Thats faulty thinking, and a huge "ooh look! a carrot!" type thinking.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> being a higher pick one year does not mean they are better than a lower pick the year before. Thats faulty thinking, and a huge "ooh look! a carrot!" type thinking.


I understand you don't like it when people critique any of the Blazers players, but there are other point guards prospects out there that could be just as good or better than Telfair...While they are two different drafts and last years seems as of right now to be better than this years, that won't be proven for another 5 years....Coming out of high school Telfair was almost completely potential, those other two players have at least established themselves as solid players at a high level of competition and are much more polished than Telfair. 

Again this is just a thought. 

But personally I'm very happy with Telfair and dont see it necessary for change in players to put the franchise on. I'm just saying that there is other options that management can explore...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I understand you don't like it when people critique any of the Blazers players, but there are other point guards prospects out there that could be just as good or better than Telfair...While they are two different drafts and last years seems as of right now to be better than this years, that won't be proven for another 5 years....Coming out of high school Telfair was almost completely potential, those other two players have at least established themselves as solid players at a high level of competition and are much more polished than Telfair.
> 
> Again this is just a thought.
> 
> But personally I'm very happy with Telfair and dont see it necessary for change in players to put the franchise on. I'm just saying that there is other options that management can explore...


Don't be a h8r!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> Don't be a h8r!


its all gravy baby!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Clearly a higher pick in a later draft is not always a better prospect than another player drafted at a later position in an earlier draft.

And it seems obvious to me that Telfair is a pretty good prospect in the NBA.

With that being said, if Paul is a legit top-3 pick as a PG, he's going to be an excellent prospect and, IMO, probably a better player than Telfair. It's almost pure speculation as to where Telfair would have gone had he spent a year at Louisville... it's certainly possible that he would have had a Kenny Anderson-type ascent to the top few picks in the draft.

Regardless of whether we think Telfair or Paul is going to be the better prospect long term, I just don't see a guy at the third spot that would make sense to draft ahead of Paul (assuming Bogut and Williams are gone; I think it's conceivable that Atlanta, Charlotte, NO, or Utah could pick Paul with a top 2 pick, letting one of those guys slide to us).

Whether Portland traded Telfair, or Paul, or let them play together for a year before making a move, I think the Blazers should take the best player irrespective of position unless there's a tie between players, where it might make sense to look to a bigger player and/or a guy who can fill a more pressing need.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Not another short shrimpy PG ....... please :gopray:


Get the best available player..... above 6 ft 3 in tall... 

hopefully a stud SG who is over 20, no drug or criminal record, mature and can shoot the lights out


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

you take paul only if you have someone who wants to trade something for him.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Trader Bob said:


> hopefully a stud SG who is over 20, no drug or criminal record, mature and can shoot the lights out


I remember when that would describe an athlete. Now anyone with physical talent gets the title.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> you take paul only if you have someone who wants to trade something for him.


What if the Blazers think that Paul is a better prospect than Telfair, and that Paul is the best prospect left on the board? I'm not asking that in a loaded way... should the Blazers pass up an upgrade for an inferior prospect?

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What if the Blazers think that Paul is a better prospect than Telfair, and that Paul is the best prospect left on the board? I'm not asking that in a loaded way... should the Blazers pass up an upgrade for an inferior prospect?
> 
> Ed O.



what if they don't thin he's a better prospect? 

what if they think he's a better prospect, but they need a SG prospect who they think is much better than the SG's they have (and maybe not worse than Paul is)??

what if what if what if!?!?

I'm tired of all this "what if X is better than Y" ****. It's not always about who's better than what you have at position X.

If you have a PG who's supposed to be really good, and don't have SG who's any good...and you have the choice between a PG who might be better than the PG you have (or *gasp* might not), and a SG who might be better than the non existant SG you have...I'd take the SG.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> what if they don't thin he's a better prospect?


Who cares? I'm asking you a specific hypothetical.



> what if they think he's a better prospect, but they need a SG prospect who they think is much better than the SG's they have (and maybe not worse than Paul is)??


That's not consistent with the question I asked.



> I'm tired of all this "what if X is better than Y" ****. It's not always about who's better than what you have at position X.


Why not? Our team sucks. We need better players.



> If you have a PG who's supposed to be really good, and don't have SG who's any good...and you have the choice between a PG who might be better than the PG you have (or *gasp* might not), and a SG who might be better than the non existant SG you have...I'd take the SG.


I can't tell if you're answering my question, so I'll ask it again:

If Portland thinks that Paul is going to be better than Telfair, and if the Blazers think that Paul is going to be better than anyone else that's available at our pick, should they take Paul? Or should they look at need, even if it means they take an inferior player?

If you don't want to answer what I'm asking, that's fine. Please hold the hostility, though.

Ed O.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Hap, I think the logic is the most talented player is most likely going to give the team the brightest future. We took Randolph when we had a handful of PF's, and we eventually found a use for him. 

If it's between a shooting guard and a point, and the point is barely better, then take the SG, but if the PG look like to have the brighter future, then you have to take the PG....or trade the pick.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I can't tell if you're answering my question, so I'll ask it again:
> 
> If Portland thinks that Paul is going to be better than Telfair, and if the Blazers think that Paul is going to be better than anyone else that's available at our pick, should they take Paul? Or should they look at need, even if it means they take an inferior player?
> 
> ...


loaded questions are stupid pointless questions.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> loaded questions are stupid pointless questions.


I don't think the question is pointless, though I do feel your hostility is... 

I'm always for taking the best player available myself... doubly so when the team absolutely sucks.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Tince said:


> Hap, I think the logic is the most talented player is most likely going to give the team the brightest future. We took Randolph when we had a handful of PF's, and we eventually found a use for him.


slightly different scenario. Zach wasn't selected in the lotto. Zach wasn't thought to be better than Rasheed. 



> If it's between a shooting guard and a point, and the point is barely better, then take the SG, but if the PG look like to have the brighter future, then you have to take the PG....or trade the pick.


If you can take a PG as a backup with a mid to late 1st rounder, thats one thing. But taking a PG when you already have one thats probably not going to be much worse than what you drafted, seems stupid..especially when you need a SG far worse...and if this is the case, where the player picked by Portland has to be a PG because the rest of the talent sucks, trade the pick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> loaded questions are stupid pointless questions.


It's not loaded by any means.

Some people would argue that need is more important than talent. In that situation, it would be perfectly reasonable to take the position that the Blazers should pass on Paul, even if he's better than Telfair and he's better than everyone else on the board.

I don't know why you think it's loaded or stupid of pointless, and I think that it reflects poorly on you that you would rather demean the question than simply ignore it if you truly felt it was below you. But whatever.

Ed O.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Hap said:


> slightly different scenario. Zach wasn't selected in the lotto. Zach wasn't thought to be better than Rasheed.


At what pick does that change then?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It's not loaded by any means.
> 
> Some people would argue that need is more important than talent. In that situation, it would be perfectly reasonable to take the position that the Blazers should pass on Paul, even if he's better than Telfair and he's better than everyone else on the board.
> 
> ...


so..mental note: don't respond to Ed's posts because that's better than responding.

can do.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

nope, i 'm a big telfair guy and drafting paul would just create conflict to a team that's already looking to change their reputation. 

Paul is a scoring PG and how many elite teams out there have a scoring pg?? you're better off with telfair who can create for himself but is always a pass first guy.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

There seem to be other players in this draft, especially 4s and 5s, with as much or more potential than Paul or Williams or any other PG. We already have a young point guard who could easily be at least a good starter for the next ten years, no reason to draft a PG with other good prospects available.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Who cares? I'm asking you a specific hypothetical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Before I can answer the question, I have some of my own. Are you asking this with the idea that Paul will have a better career, or just be better for the next few years? How much better is Paul than Green, barely better or much better?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

gambitnut said:


> Before I can answer the question, I have some of my own. Are you asking this with the idea that Paul will have a better career, or just be better for the next few years? How much better is Paul than Green, barely better or much better?


I'm not really defining it that specifically... I certainly could, but if you would want to delineate where it would matter I think that'd be interesting.

If the Blazers thought that Paul was going to be better next year and in the long run, and if they weren't convinced that Green was ever going to be a starting-level 2 in the NBA... that would be the clearest case for taking Paul to me. If they had Green as a good prospect but not as good as Paul, it would eat into it. If they had Paul as inferior to Telfair in the short run but better in the long run (or vice-versa, or equal in one and superior in the other) it would also be another reason not to take Paul.

I just am curious to know how much better Paul would have to be considered by the Blazers (both relative to Telfair and to the other prospects in the draft) before people would think Paul was a good pick at #3.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> you take paul only if you have someone who wants to trade something for him.


says Hap.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> What if the Blazers think that Paul is a better prospect than Telfair, and that Paul is the best prospect left on the board? I'm not asking that in a loaded way... should the Blazers pass up an upgrade for an inferior prospect?
> 
> Ed O.


This is basically just a reiteration of my earlier post:



> Its highly unlikely, but it could be possible that we could pick one of those point guards and hang onto them instead of Telfair.....They are top picks for a reason and could end up being better than Telfair....However I think the franchise is set on Telfair and wouldnt go that route.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> If you have a PG who's supposed to be really good, and don't have SG who's any good...and you have the choice between a PG who might be better than the PG you have (or *gasp* might not), and a SG who might be better than the non existant SG you have...I'd take the SG.


Unless a team is more enamored with Telfair than they are with our #4 or #5 pick and willing to trade a star SG the caliber of Michael Redd, Larry Hughes or Ray Allen and management is certain that we could either get Deron Williams or Chris Paul.....

Again this is unlikely but you never know with management(Allen), they might feel that Telfair isn't going to pan out how they hoped like they(Allen) did with Jermaine......

It's just a little food for thought.

Now fire off.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Unless a team is more enamored with Telfair than they are with our #4 or #5 pick and willing to trade a star SG the caliber of Michael Redd, Larry Hughes or Ray Allen and management is certain that we could either get Deron Williams or Chris Paul.....
> 
> Again this is unlikely but you never know with management(Allen), they might feel that Telfair isn't going to pan out how they hoped like they(Allen) did with Jermaine......


they gave jermaine more than 1 season. And Telfair in 1 season has already shown more than Jermaine did in 4 years. 

Somehow I dont think that the Telfair situation is the same as Jermaines.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

If I was nash and I could trade or #4/#5 pick and a protected #1 '06 or '07 (or Miles/Sergei)to ATL for #1 and take Williams. They have Smith and Harrington at that position. Also could trade for a lower pick or mid first round with NVE contract or miles. Stack up youth and see who rises to the top. We are still 2 months from draft day and the list is growing. There will be good players in this draft. As for havig the 4th/5th pick we could still end up with williams. It is up to CHA. ATL takes Bogut, CHA have some SF type players in Gerald Wallace, PG Brevint Knight... They could be on the market for Paul. NO who knows. I can see us getting Green or Williams with the 4th pick.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> they gave jermaine more than 1 season. And Telfair in 1 season has already shown more than Jermaine did in 4 years.
> 
> Somehow I dont think that the Telfair situation is the same as Jermaines.


Alright, 

but what about this part of my post?



> Unless a team is more enamored with Telfair than they are with our #4 or #5 pick and willing to trade a star SG the caliber of Michael Redd, Larry Hughes or Ray Allen and management is certain that we could either get Deron Williams or Chris Paul.....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Look at what Canzano wrote in his blog.....



> Some unnamed Blazers chap who will be heavily involved with the upcoming draft absolutely loves point guard Chris Paul, of Wake Forest. I mean --- LOVES HIS GAME. LOVES THAT HE'S A REALLY GOOD PERSON.


I dont know what Canzano think Telfair has done that make him not a good person.



> Don't be surprised if the Blazers pick Paul if he somehow slips back to No. 4 or 5, where the Blazers will pick.


I somehow won't be surprised either.



> Because if you do, before you just hand the keys to a franchise to Sebastian Telfair, maybe you make him beat out Chris Paul, too.


He brings up a valid point.



> That said, if the Blazers do get lucky and get Paul, there are teams picking in the last half of the draft who would be falling over themselves to make a deal for him.


Also true, a viable option to get another teams draft pick and a solid proven SG if we package Ruben with our #5 or #4 pick.

Canzano Blog.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I wondered about this myself.... If let's say Bogut, Williams & Green are gone. What does POR do at #4 or #5? With Chris Paul & Deron Williams sitting there? I think POR would be a PRIME canidate for a trade if that were to occur. I think some teams below would be clamoring to trade up. SO POR could move down a few spots, pick up another asset (draft pick, player, salary dump (ie DA or Ruben)) or two and then pick a player they wanted.

I just can't see POR taking a PG like Paul or Williams with the intention of keeping them.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

We need to have our heads examined if we take Paul or Deron with our pick :whofarted: Telfair is playing good as a 19yr old rook, and I think he is already better then the 2 aformentioned and still has more potential. I dont care if those two are BPA(best plyr avail) we dont use our highest lotto pick in YEARS on a pernenial backup.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

As it stands now, Gerald Green is a better prospect than Paul. If both are available it should be a no brainer and Green serves the purpose of a position needed. I think if you asked most NBA teams right now, they would tell you Telfair is still a better prospect than Paul is, even if he's played 1 NBA season. Telfair has something Paul doesn't, and that is the ability to create and make teammates better, Paul has yet to do either. Take Bogut if available, take Williams if available, and you better be taking Green if available.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> We need to have our heads examined if we take Paul or Deron with our pick :whofarted: Telfair is playing good as a 19yr old rook, and I think he is already better then the 2 aformentioned and still has more potential. I dont care if those two are BPA(best plyr avail) we dont use our highest lotto pick in YEARS on a pernenial backup.


Same Lagic was used by Portland in 1984.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Same Lagic was used by Portland in 1984.


Man I hate this logic. Drafting a sg when you already have one is ok because you can have shooting guards play on the court at the same TIME! Same goes with post players. The one unique position in the league is the point guard slot. You do not want two pgs on the court at the same time. If we got mj he and drex woulda killed on the court together, i really think we'd be owned if paul and bassy played at the same time. Zach and sheed were both pf's,they played excellent together.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> As it stands now, Gerald Green is a better prospect than Paul. If both are available it should be a no brainer and Green serves the purpose of a position needed. I think if you asked most NBA teams right now, they would tell you Telfair is still a better prospect than Paul is, even if he's played 1 NBA season. Telfair has something Paul doesn't, and that is the ability to create and make teammates better, Paul has yet to do either. Take Bogut if available, take Williams if available, and you better be taking Green if available.


Green is not worth a #4 or 5 pick, if for some reason we end up with the #10 pick I can maybe see us drafting Green.

But as it stands we need to take the best available player or trade the pick.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Green is not worth a #4 or 5 pick, if for some reason we end up with the #10 pick I can maybe see us drafting Green.



Because you've been scouting him for many years now huh? They said the same thing about Telfair and Fred Jones, both are proving the people wrong.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> Because you've been scouting him for many years now huh? They said the same thing about Telfair and Fred Jones, both are proving the people wrong.


No, you have.

There's always exceptions.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I find it interesting that people are shying away from the basic question: do you draft for TALENT, or do you draft for NEED?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I find it interesting that people are shying away from the basic question: do you draft for TALENT, or do you draft for NEED?


Talent anyday.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Talent but with our likely draft position all talent available will be very solid. Just because Paul is a guy who's supposed to go higher than someone like Green, doesn't mean we should take Paul. Both are very skilled in what they do and have major potential, but with both being so talented in completely different things, you take the guy that is going to fit, not the guy who is projected to be higher on mock drafts.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> Talent but with our likely draft position all talent available will be very solid. Just because Paul is a guy who's supposed to go higher than someone like Green, doesn't mean we should take Paul. Both are very skilled in what they do and have major potential, but with both being so talented in completely different things, you take the guy that is going to fit, not the guy who is projected to be higher on mock drafts.


Check the mock boards, NBAdraft.net has him as a SF and Draftcity.com has him at a SG/SF.....Maybe he doesnt have what it takes to play SF....What happens if we draft him early at #4 or 5 and find out that he doesnt have the ability to play SG in the NBA? That would just add another SF to our long list...

There is a reason why he is listed lower on all boards except for Draftcity.com.....

I'm not sure what sparked your love affair with this guy, but another high school project is not what the Blazers need right now and he's NOT and WON'T be the best available talent when our draft pick comes.....

I know that sometimes it's tough to face the truth, but sometimes to look at reality is the best way to cope with things.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Check the mock boards, NBAdraft.net has him as a SF and Draftcity.com has him at a SG/SF.....Maybe he doesnt have what it takes to play SF....What happens if we draft him early at #4 or 5 and find out that he doesnt have the ability to play SG in the NBA? That would just add another SF to our long list...


We have scouts that find out what he can play and what he can't before we draft him [STRIKE]smart ***[/STRIKE]. I guess we shouldn't draft Marvin Williams because he's a SF too. 



> There is a reason why he is listed lower on all boards except for Draftcity.com.....


Do you work for these boards you speak of? And what is the "reason" he's listed lower? You don't really know do you? You just like to talk and talk with absolutely no content to fill it. 



> I'm not sure what sparked your love affair with this guy, but another high school project is not what the Blazers need right now and he's NOT and WON'T be the best available talent when our draft pick comes.....


Love affair? [STRIKE]Unlike you and the Morrison kid there is no **** eroticism involved here[/STRIKE]. What is not to like about the guy? He's just as athletic as the best SGs in the league like T-Mac and Kobe and he can shoot better than both of them at the same age, shooting is what we need, why should I not be intrigued by his talents? 



> I know that sometimes it's tough to face the truth, but sometimes to look at reality is the best way to cope with things.


Yes because only you know the "truth" and know what is best for the Blazers' organization. I guess Morrison really WILL be the next Larry Bird. 

Again, no personal inults. In particular, you've already been asked not to imply that someone is homosexual - gambitnut


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> We have scouts that find out what he can play and what he can't before we draft him [STRIKE]smart ***[/STRIKE]. I guess we shouldn't draft Marvin Williams because he's a SF too.


I'm not the one who said we should draft the guy who would "fit" (which I'm assuming you mean't fit position wise).....And whose saying those scouts won't think he would be better suited for SF? 

Marvin Williams is way more talented than Green so I'm not sure where that comparison comes from...

No need to call names. :biggrin: 



> Do you work for these boards you speak of? And what is the "reason" he's listed lower? You don't really know do you? You just like to talk and talk with absolutely no content to fill it.


Yes actually I do know, its because he's a high school project that a lot of people dont want to take a risk on....He has been called lazy by several different scouts, is a showboat and is skin and bones.....

What is the reason you want to draft him? 

Is it because he seems like the "sexy" pick right now? or do you just get caught up in all the whole T-Mac wannabe thing?



> Love affair? [STRIKE]Unlike you and the Morrison kid there is no **** eroticism involved here[/STRIKE]. What is not to like about the guy? He's just as athletic as the best SGs in the league like T-Mac and Kobe and he can shoot better than both of them at the same age, shooting is what we need, why should I not be intrigued by his talents?


yea ****-eroticism...thats it. I have actually met Morrison on several occasions and have a rapport with him, meanwhile you just admire some high school kid from Houston that's being compared to T-Mac, who you have never met and most likely never will meet...

The Kobe and T-Mac comparisons are laughable....Put the pipe down and comeback down to earth buddy...Those guys were way better at 19, Green is supposedly the best player in the weakest high school class in years....

How many 19 year old skinny as a rail kids have ever came into the league and made a solid impact shooting the ball?.....Sure shooting is what we need but he will sit on the bench anyway and I'm not sure we will still need his shooting 3 or 4 years down the road when he's finally hitting his prime....



> Yes because only you know the "truth" and know what is best for the Blazers' organization. I guess Morrison really WILL be the next Larry Bird.


Do you always feel the need to bring up Morrison when you feel exposed?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Portland is not strong enough at any position, to not consider the best player available at the draft pick time. Now, if a few players considered equal talent are available, and Portland can fill a "need" then they should do so. Portland basically at this point needs half of a team, so that should be easy to do.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Marvin Williams is way more talented than Green so I'm not sure where that comparison comes from...


Says who? Just because he's a "sexy" pick right now?



> yea ****-eroticism...thats it. I have actually met Morrison on several occasions and have a rapport with him, meanwhile you just admire some high school kid from Houston that's being compared to T-Mac, who you have never met and most likely never will meet...


So you've met Morrison and he hasn't met a HS kid, what difference does that prove? Nothing. 



> The Kobe and T-Mac comparisons are laughable....Put the pipe down and comeback down to earth buddy...Those guys were way better at 19, Green is supposedly the best player in the weakest high school class in years....


So the experts comparing him to them should be laughed at? A lot of players have been compared to top level players. It doesn't mean they are a lock to be just like them. Also, if Lebron came out of HS in the weakest HS class in years, would that change his talent?



> How many 19 year old skinny as a rail kids have ever came into the league and made a solid impact shooting the ball?.....


KG was skinny as a rail and still is.. 



> Do you always feel the need to bring up Morrison when you feel exposed?


All fans can have some homerism for their teams/players. When someone is set that his/her favorite player is going to be the next Bird, it's going to be brought up a lot.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Telfair has something Paul doesn't, and that is the ability to create and make teammates better, Paul has yet to do either.


Oh, please. Telfair's been pretty good for his age and experience, but there's no way that he made his teammates better in a significant way this year. As soon as he took over the starting position, the team went in the tank.

Is he singlehandedly responsible for this? Of course not. But the team's failures are, IMO, conclusive proof that he didn't make his teammates better.

As for Paul not creating and not making his teammates better: how did his team do this year? 13-3 in the ACC is a pretty impressive feat, I think, and it's not like Wake Forest is packed with great players (like UNC, which finished one game ahead of them in the standings).

I'm not sure that Paul's going to be better than Telfair, but your argument here of why Telfair's going to be better doesn't hold water.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Oh, please. Telfair's been pretty good for his age and experience, but there's no way that he made his teammates better in a significant way this year. As soon as he took over the starting position, the team went in the tank.
> 
> Is he singlehandedly responsible for this? Of course not. But the team's failures are, IMO, conclusive proof that he didn't make his teammates better.


i don't think you can associate the teams bad record with him not making his teammates better. I don't know if he does or not. I think losing Van Exel, Zach and Ruben for 11 games, and Theo for the last 15 games...

Considering the better passes he makes, and how the team seems to be run better (running better does not always = winning more, nor does winning more = running better)..and if you consider that he's playing with 2 other (basically) rookies, a short SG, and 1 real offensive weapon..I think you can't really say it proves he does or doesn't make his teammates better.



> As for Paul not creating and not making his teammates better: how did his team do this year? 13-3 in the ACC is a pretty impressive feat, I think, and it's not like Wake Forest is packed with great players (like UNC, which finished one game ahead of them in the standings).


this might shock you ed...but how a team does in the ACC is not indicitive of how a player will be in the NBA..nor does it suggest that he'd be better than another player who's team did worse. 



> I'm not sure that Paul's going to be better than Telfair, but your argument here of why Telfair's going to be better doesn't hold water.
> 
> Ed O.


just as any argument for why Paul is going to be better holds no water. It's too soon to tell, and in all honestly, every one of us is just trying to act like we're keen.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well this is a contentious thread.

I am curious ZagsFan why you dislike Gerald Green so much? I watched him at the McD's game and came away very impressed. I "think" you have mentioned that he (allegedly) has a bad attitude? or that he is not that smart?....if not you, then those are the "negatives" that I have seen thrown out about him on other boards, and I don't think they are true quite frankly. In the articles\interviews I have read the kid is praised as a hard worker, who really comitted himself to the game, he is a kid who WANTS to go to college but who in all likelyhood will not as he is prrojected as a mid\high lottery pick. I haven't heard of any academic barriers preventing him from attending OSU either.

As for him being a SF or SG, I think he could play either. Are T-MAc or Paul Pierce really a SG? I mean they could play either position IMO, I think Green will most likely develop the same way (being able to play both positions...impact NBA-wise is another story), but certainly at first with his slender frame, he will be much more suited for SG. I'd put it this way, he is much more of a SG prospect than Travis Outlaw is or Sergei Monia for that matter. I think Monia\Green at SG would be inriguing and potentially very good. 

As for SHOULD POR pick a PG if one is sitting there when they pick? Well, it all depends on what the scouts think. Do they think Chris Paul or Deron Williams projects as an "elite" level NBA player? Better than Telfair? If that is the case, then I think passing on such a player would be a big mistake (ala Bowie/Jordan). Personally, I am not conviced that either player will be a much better player (or even just better) than Telfair, so IMO if Chris Paul was there (or Deron Williams) and I didn't value (and we don't know if POR scouts do either, my gut tells me they are very interested in some of them) any of the european (Andriuskevicius, Splittter, Aleksandrov, Bargnani, Vasquez) or american (Taft, May) bigs higher than Paul or Williams, then I would look to see who wanted Paul and what they were willing to offer to move up. Preferably, I'd only want to move down a few spots, preferably I'd want to pick up one (or more?) of another 05' draft choice, a good future pick or a nice young player....and that is only if I didn't project a kid like Paul with a much higher ceiling than Telfair, which I don't.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Simple answer you take the best dang player available, if you already have one at that position you trade one of them., for what you really need.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee's two cents. And with inflation that certainly ain't what it used to be.


Bottom line: Draft Best Talent. When there is a tie between two prospects size is the tiebreaker. If there is still a tie pick 1's and 5's over 2's, 3's or 4's.

However, the devil is in the details of trying to apply that philosophy in the real world and under what circumstances you "fudge" the rule when there aren't ties, but it is close between prospects predicted futures'.

Let's assume the team's scouts rank all the draft choices in order. They likely will include several ties between all draft prospects. Though, maybe not at the top of the board.

In Portland's case, they will also give added weight in their rankings to "character", so as to minimize the risks of PR issues.

The draft could be very easy for Portland. Say they have the 3rd pick. It come their turn to choose. They see a player still on the board that they had ranked as the 1st, 2nd or 3rd best prospect (with no ties, nor it being close in their rankings); they simply take their highest ranked prospect left.

If it is a PG - so be it.

For that matter, if it is a PF - so be it - even though we are locked in with a young guy on a difficult to move BYC monster contract.

For that matter, if it is a SF - so be it - even though we have 12 SFs already.

In this thread, I feel part of the discussion has bogged down a bit based on a fallacy - that of consensus. Just because Chris Paul is ranked #3 on the mocks, doesn't mean that most NBA teams will have him at #3. Some will have #2. Some at #3. Some at #5. Some at #7.

Example. In 2002, Bob Whittset and the Phoenix Suns had ranked Amare Stoudimire in the top 3, if not #1. Yet Amare was picked #9. Other teams didn't agree with Whittset and the Suns. The Suns got a player they had ranked top 3 with their #9 pick. Their choice was made easy by the teams above them having different rankings.

In the real world there is team need to color your judgement. And that does apply to the Blazers situation if the hypothetical proposed here: that the Blazer's have the 3rd pick, that Chris Paul is on the board, and that (presumably) the Blazer's have Paul as the best prospect left.

They should take Paul, IMO, if he is clearcut, the next-best prospect on their board. If it is "close" between their rankings on Paul and 4th best prospect, I think they should pass on Paul. Why "fudge" here?

Telfair looks to be a very solid NBA player, with the potential, penetration and passing skills to be one of the better set-up players in the NBA - Nash without the money jumper (though that could come after years of work).

The Blazers have already made a public committment to Telfair. Dumping him (or dumping ON him) for a "better" prospect that is not the prospect caliber of Francis, Baron Davis or Marbury is a mistake. Can't miss PG prospects are rare. Is Chris Paul a can't miss prospect or an "intriguing" pick? Is Paul Marbury or Jay Williams (who was terrible his rookie season)? 

Having two decent players at the same position has caused the Blazers problems for so many years now, I have got burned out on that issue. And PG is the worst position to have two players that expect to start on a team. I prefer to avoid it.

Portland does have a big need for another PG, but that player should ideally be a veteran that can bring stability and leadership and lockerroom savy. A veteran solid enough to start if Telfair slips or is injured, yet doesn't expect the starting job. No player is perfect, but Brevin Knight, Antonio Daniels, Speedy Claxton, Eric Snow, and Marco Jaric are the kinds of players I would look at.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Masbee's two cents. And with inflation that certainly ain't what it used to be.
> 
> 
> Bottom line: Draft Best Talent. When there is a tie between two prospects size is the tiebreaker. If there is still a tie pick 1's and 5's over 2's, 3's or 4's.
> ...


Your two cents is still worth at least two cents, very good post!

As for the question, I agree that you take the best talent if the difference is clear, but take based on need if it isn't. That said, I'm not overly thrilled with ANY of the top prospects, and would rather trade down or even out. I want a NBA proven SG most of all. If we could pull it off, I'd like to get a lower pick as well, either in the same trade or another one. If we get a lower pick, I'd use it on a PF who need some time to grow so we have options there in a few years.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm not the one who said we should draft the guy who would "fit" (which I'm assuming you mean't fit position wise).....And whose saying those scouts won't think he would be better suited for SF?


So the scouts know things now? You just discounted them for comparing him to T-Mac, now you are going with them when saying he's best suited at SF, which is it? 



> Marvin Williams is way more talented than Green so I'm not sure where that comparison comes from...


Case closed. 



> No need to call names. :biggrin:


It wasn't calling a name, it was just characterizing your last post. 

There's a difference between saying a post is dumb and saying a person is dumb - gambitnut




> Yes actually I do know, its because he's a high school project that a lot of people dont want to take a risk on....He has been called lazy by several different scouts, is a showboat and is skin and bones.....


Which H.S. player isn't skin and bones outside of LeBron and Amare? Again, the scouts call him lazy but also call him the next T-Mac, you want to discount their comparisons to T-Mac but believe he is lazy because they said so? Again, which is it? You flip flop more than Kerry. 



> What is the reason you want to draft him?
> 
> Is it because he seems like the "sexy" pick right now? or do you just get caught up in all the whole T-Mac wannabe thing?


He may be the best shooter in this draft class and probably the most athletic as well. 




> yea ****-eroticism...thats it. I have actually met Morrison on several occasions and have a rapport with him, meanwhile you just admire some high school kid from Houston that's being compared to T-Mac, who you have never met and most likely never will meet...


What am I 12 years old? I don't want to meet Green, I have no desire to, I'm not 12 years old anymore. You meeting Morrison makes him better than Green because I didn't meet him? [STRIKE]You are insane[/STRIKE]. When I was 12 years old I enjoyed meeting Rasheed, JR Rider, Rod Strickland, Jermaine O'neal, etc. These days I don't care. You are odd. 



> The Kobe and T-Mac comparisons are laughable....Put the pipe down and comeback down to earth buddy...Those guys were way better at 19, Green is supposedly the best player in the weakest high school class in years....


Because it is a weak draft class it takes away from Green's talents? [STRIKE]You need to seek higher education[/STRIKE]. 



> Do you always feel the need to bring up Morrison when you feel exposed?


It's just a reminder to you how big of a goof you are with your retarded statements on here. Your points aren't good, like you meeting Morrison? How the hell does that have to do with anything? [STRIKE]I question your sexual orientation[/STRIKE], seriously.

How many times to we have to tell you no personal insults? - gambitnut


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Masbee's two cents. And with inflation that certainly ain't what it used to be.
> 
> 
> Bottom line: Draft Best Talent. When there is a tie between two prospects size is the tiebreaker. If there is still a tie pick 1's and 5's over 2's, 3's or 4's.


I agree with this, though I'd make "need" a tie-breaker. One can always reallocate talent via trades, but it's not always possible to pull off a trade that perfectly preserves talent and youth while transferring it to a new position.

Therefore, it's worth it to apply need as a tie-breaker, or even if it's very very close between two guys.

If there's _any_ significant difference in talent, I believe you take the more talented player, regardless of position or need.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Oh, please. Telfair's been pretty good for his age and experience, but there's no way that he made his teammates better in a significant way this year. As soon as he took over the starting position, the team went in the tank.


Yes because Jason Kidd, Baron Davis, and Rod Strickland have never started for bad teams? And we all know they don't make there teammates better. Get outta here with that kind of logic dude. 



> Is he singlehandedly responsible for this? Of course not. But the team's failures are, IMO, conclusive proof that he didn't make his teammates better.


I don't know how much better you want him to make a bunch of bench players. 



> As for Paul not creating and not making his teammates better: how did his team do this year? 13-3 in the ACC is a pretty impressive feat, I think, and it's not like Wake Forest is packed with great players (like UNC, which finished one game ahead of them in the standings).


I guess Damon Jones makes his teammates better because his team wins? Or how about Leahandrino Barbosa? Bruce Bowen? His team can do however it wants, but that doesn't mean he makes his teammates significantly better. 



> I'm not sure that Paul's going to be better than Telfair, but your argument here of why Telfair's going to be better doesn't hold water.


So you say so. You ignore too many facts, if you took the time to look at the facts it wouldn't be so black and white with you. Your argumenti s pretty much silly and baseless.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Yes because Jason Kidd, Baron Davis, and Rod Strickland have never started for bad teams? And we all know they don't make there teammates better. Get outta here with that kind of logic dude.


(a) When did teams get worse after Kidd or Baron Davis were inserted into the lineup? I can't think of a time this is the case. On the other hand, Kidd's NJ team was vastly improved when he came on board, and the Warriors are much better since they got Baron Davis.

(b) You are the one claiming Telfair makes his teammates better. I don't see any evidence of that. I can't think of ANY players that are better since Telfair has been getting more minutes. Couple that with the fact that the team is significantly worse off since Bassy has been getting big minutes, and it seems clear that the facts to date don't support your opinion that he makes his teammates better.



> I don't know how much better you want him to make a bunch of bench players.


Like SAR and Joel? And Miles and Patterson?

Where are all these bench players getting big minutes? I haven't seen it, outside of Telfair. Outlaw and Viktor are playing more, but the majority of the minutes are being played by veterans who have starteda lot of NBA games.



> I guess Damon Jones makes his teammates better because his team wins? Or how about Leahandrino Barbosa? Bruce Bowen? His team can do however it wants, but that doesn't mean he makes his teammates significantly better.


Who is claiming it does? Disproving something I didn't claim isn't significant. Your logic is terrible here.



> So you say so. You ignore too many facts, if you took the time to look at the facts it wouldn't be so black and white with you. Your argumenti s pretty much silly and baseless.


*yawn*

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> i don't think you can associate the teams bad record with him not making his teammates better. I don't know if he does or not. I think losing Van Exel, Zach and Ruben for 11 games, and Theo for the last 15 games...
> 
> Considering the better passes he makes, and how the team seems to be run better (running better does not always = winning more, nor does winning more = running better)..and if you consider that he's playing with 2 other (basically) rookies, a short SG, and 1 real offensive weapon..I think you can't really say it proves he does or doesn't make his teammates better.


His role as PG is instrumental in how the team does. As I said initially,he isn't solely responsible for the immediate and precipitous falling of the team after he took over the PG role. To claim that he had NO part in it, and beyond that that he made his teammates better even as the team was going up in smoke, is a big stretch.



> this might shock you ed...but how a team does in the ACC is not indicitive of how a player will be in the NBA..nor does it suggest that he'd be better than another player who's team did worse.


I don't even know if you bother to read my posts anymore, or if you do whether you think before you respond to them.

Nowhere did I say that a team's ACC performance was indicative of how a player will do in the NBA.

I brought up Paul's teams success to counter the argument that he doesn't make his teammates better. If you're going to entirely discount his accomplishments based on the fact that it wasn't in the NBA, then that leads to the logical conclusion that NO rookie is going to be an improvement over a veteran.

Secondly, I am not arguing that Paul will be better than Telfair. It's a strange argument for you to mix in with what I'm actually talking about. I've given my opinion that I think Paul might be better than Telfair in the long run, and I've made an argument that there is no evidence that Telfair is more capable of making his teammates better than Paul is.



> just as any argument for why Paul is going to be better holds no water. It's too soon to tell, and in all honestly, every one of us is just trying to act like we're keen.


Who's making the argument that Paul is going to be better?

And who's trying to act as if he's keen?

You seem to be reading what you expect to be written, rather than what actually is.

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Chris Paul and Deron Willaims = yawn to me. I don't see either being that great in the League. Ray Felton will be the best out of this class,but he ain't worth a top 5 pick.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> Chris Paul and Deron Willaims = yawn to me. I don't see either being that great in the League. Ray Felton will be the best out of this class,but he ain't worth a top 5 pick.


Hypothetical question here....

Say at #4 (or we move into #3) Chris Paul is Available. Portland should IMO probably take him. A team like Toronto for example might be interested in trading their #9 pick and their #15 for a stud PG. 

Portland could swing a Chris Paul and Ruben Patterson for #9 (Wright), #15 (Diogo) and Alvin Williams. whci would address several needs for Portland.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Hypothetical question here....
> 
> Say at #4 (or we move into #3) Chris Paul is Available. Portland should IMO probably take him. A team like Toronto for example might be interested in trading their #9 pick and their #15 for a stud PG.
> 
> Portland could swing a Chris Paul and Ruben Patterson for #9 (Wright), #15 (Diogo) and Alvin Williams. whci would address several needs for Portland.


only if thats the agreement before the draft. Not if we might be able to do that because team X needs player Y.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Says who? Just because he's a "sexy" pick right now?


Says NBA scouts.....



> So you've met Morrison and he hasn't met a HS kid, what difference does that prove? Nothing.


That was regarding him calling me "homoerotic" (or whatever) towards Morrison....



> So the experts comparing him to them should be laughed at? A lot of players have been compared to top level players. It doesn't mean they are a lock to be just like them.


Exactly why people shouldn't be drooling over him.



> KG was skinny as a rail and still is..


KG is 7 foot.



> All fans can have some homerism for their teams/players. When someone is set that his/her favorite player is going to be the next Bird, it's going to be brought up a lot.


Morrison's my favorite player?

If he's going to be brought up by him, how can he call me "**** erotic" (or whatever)?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> this might shock you ed...but how a team does in the ACC is not indicitive of how a player will be in the NBA..nor does it suggest that he'd be better than another player who's team did worse.


Your right, as seen with William Avery, Jason Williams (who unfortunatly got injured), Bobby Hurley, Steve Blake and many others....

But how a players team does in the ACC is much more heavily indicative of how they will play in the NBA than of a kid from high school....

Again I love Telfair and I think he is the future of our team, but sometimes management can see things in a different light...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Hypothetical question here....
> 
> Say at #4 (or we move into #3) Chris Paul is Available. Portland should IMO probably take him. A team like Toronto for example might be interested in trading their #9 pick and their #15 for a stud PG.
> 
> Portland could swing a Chris Paul and Ruben Patterson for #9 (Wright), #15 (Diogo) and Alvin Williams. whci would address several needs for Portland.


Yes I would take him only if we would trade him for value and if we could also dump off a crappy contract along with Chris. I also wouldn't pick Diagu. Guy is a black hole his SOph year. His teammates got really bad. He did a little bit better this past year but he doesn't seem to be anyhting more then a glorified Malik Rose. I would rather *gulp* pickup Sean May or Rudy.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> I'd put it this way, he is much more of a SG prospect than Travis Outlaw is or Sergei Monia for that matter.


Pure speculation, 

Neither of us have seen how Green or Monia match up against NBA players....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> So the scouts know things now? You just discounted them for comparing him to T-Mac, now you are going with them when saying he's best suited at SF, which is it?


Analyze which position he will be able to play in the NBA is a whole different bag of chips than comparing him to player that he will never live up to....



> Case closed.


What case is closed? Marvin is the better talent.



> Which H.S. player isn't skin and bones outside of LeBron and Amare? Again, the scouts call him lazy but also call him the next T-Mac, you want to discount their comparisons to T-Mac but believe he is lazy because they said so? Again, which is it? You flip flop more than Kerry.


Once again a scouts viewpoint of him being lazy has nothing to do with them comparing players to another player just because they have a similar body type. Name me one comparison that has ever been made on those draft sites that has ever came to fruition....



> He may be the best shooter in this draft class and probably the most athletic as well.


Says you.



> What am I 12 years old? I don't want to meet Green, I have no desire to, I'm not 12 years old anymore. You meeting Morrison makes him better than Green because I didn't meet him? You are insane. When I was 12 years old I enjoyed meeting Rasheed, JR Rider, Rod Strickland, Jermaine O'neal, etc. These days I don't care. You are odd.


That was regarding you saying I was "****-erotic" (or whatever) towards him...When did we ever compare the two?

I personally know Morrison so it's not like I'm just fantasizing about him, like you with Green.....

To Gerald Green's ego your just pimple on his butt....




With all your implications that I'm ****-sexual, I think you need to check your own identity.....Take a look in the mirror buddy.

There's no need to get this upset over differing opinions.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Pure speculation,
> 
> Neither of us have seen how Green or Monia match up against NBA players....



we haven't see how any players in the draft have matched up againt NBA players. Does that mean we shouldn't take them?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> we haven't see how any players in the draft have matched up againt NBA players. Does that mean we shouldn't take them?


If were drafting for position, than yes we shouldnt take them.

Thats why I think you should draft for talent.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Analyze which position he will be able to play in the NBA is a whole different bag of chips than comparing him to player that he will never live up to....


Picking and choosing again, you're good at that. 




> What case is closed? Marvin is the better talent.


I wouldn't say so. 




> Once again a scouts viewpoint of him being lazy has nothing to do with them comparing players to another player just because they have a similar body type. Name me one comparison that has ever been made on those draft sites that has ever came to fruition....


It certainly has everything to do with it, you're wrong there. 




> I personally know Morrison so it's not like I'm just fantasizing about him, like you with Green.....


Again, what the hell does that prove? Because you know him you aren't fantasizing about him? You construct sentences and phrases very oddly. I'm not up on Green's jock like you are with Morrison, I just think he is a player we should definitly look at. I don't necessarily think he's gonna be the next whoever, I just think he can bring a lot of good qualities like athleticism and shooting to this organization that needs both. 



> To Gerald Green's ego your just pimple on his butt....


Again, what are you saying? I take it English isn't your first language. 




> With all your implications that I'm ****-sexual, I think you need to check your own identity.....Take a look in the mirror buddy.


Mirrors show homosexuality? I think you're thinking about mirrors and vampires. LMAO



> There's no need to get this upset over differing opinions.


It's not upset, it's just a blatant disregard on your part for many facts and you pick and choose on what scouts say or don't say. It isn't a good way to go about a response and takes away any credibility you had prior to it.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> (a) When did teams get worse after Kidd or Baron Davis were inserted into the lineup? I can't think of a time this is the case. On the other hand, Kidd's NJ team was vastly improved when he came on board, and the Warriors are much better since they got Baron Davis.
> 
> (b) You are the one claiming Telfair makes his teammates better. I don't see any evidence of that. I can't think of ANY players that are better since Telfair has been getting more minutes. Couple that with the fact that the team is significantly worse off since Bassy has been getting big minutes, and it seems clear that the facts to date don't support your opinion that he makes his teammates better.


(a) We are talking about Kidd and Davis' rookie campaign's not now. They were both losers at some point in their careers. Yes, they have both made their last teams better, that is the point. Just because their teams weren't winning in their first or second seasons, doesn't mean anything really. They have teams that improved since acquiring them now. Meaning Telfair's team may not win now, but Kidd and Davis' teams didn't win when they just came in the league either, get it? 

(b) Maybe this team losing more often has something to do with our best player injured for the season has something to do with us losing? Just maybe? The Suns lost numerous games this season with Nash gone, should they pin that on any of the players? No, because Nash is there best player. Same with Duncan getting injured on the Spurs, should Parker or Ginobilli be blamed? You take the best player off of any team and they will lose much more often. Telfair has made life easier on Miles and Outlaw most notably. 




> Like SAR and Joel? And Miles and Patterson?


I don't know if this is a joke or not. You bring up SAR, but dude has been a loser his whole career. Pryzbilla hasn't even started a full season, Ruben Patterson is a career bench guy, and Miles is a guy that hasn't started much in his career either. Your whole argument just went down the drain if you're saying we should be winning with those guys on our team. LMAO @ you. 



> Where are all these bench players getting big minutes? I haven't seen it, outside of Telfair. Outlaw and Viktor are playing more, but the majority of the minutes are being played by veterans who have starteda lot of NBA games.



HELLLLOOOO DOWN THERE!!! SAR hasn't EVER been on a playoff team in his life. Ruben Patterson is and will always be a bench player, Darius Miles hasn't started much in his career, Joel is a big surprise and I don't think has even started a full season in his career. Jason Kidd couldn't make this team a playoff team, oh wait, he can't even make his own team a playoff team, and he's got a superstar shooting guard next to him. Hhhmm. 




> Who is claiming it does? Disproving something I didn't claim isn't significant. Your logic is terrible here.


Your implication is that just because Telfair's team isn't winning he isn't making his teammates better. So a player who is on a winning team makes his team better automatically? Or does Jason Kidd even make his teammates better since he's not going to the playoffs this season? Or how about Baron Davis for the last 2 or 3 years? We can go on with this forever with your twisted thoughts. 




> *yawn*


Got into that bottle of Nyquil again Ed?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> It's not upset, it's just a blatant disregard on your part for many facts and you pick and choose on what scouts say or don't say. It isn't a good way to go about a response and takes away any credibility you had prior to it.


Could of fooled me. Usually when someone resorts to name calling they're pretty upset.

Your comment about me picking and choosing scouts opinions is way off base. It sounds like you take to heart those comparisons that those guys make. When a scout watches a player and makes the assessment that the players is lazy, I take a lot more stock than when a scout compares players to one another. Give me a break, if you feel Green is the next T-Mac or Kobe thats your prerogative.


----------

