# Chris Paul working out for the Blazers....



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

This according to the Winston-Salem Journal .....



> • Chris Paul will work out for representatives of the Milwaukee Bucks and the Portland Trail Blazers this weekend in suburban Washington, his agent said yesterday.





> The workouts will be Paul's first for NBA teams before the NBA Draft on June 28. The Bucks have the No. 1 pick, and the Blazers have the No. 3 pick.



Could this put to rest the popular notion, that the Blazers won't pick Paul just because we already have Telfair and that we are indeed actually targeting the best available talent instead of the best player for that certain position...Could management be learing a thing or two from the mistakes of the fellow Blazer ancestors via 1984.... Only time will tell...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I find it interesting that Nash was criticized heavily for getting Rahim when we already had Zach at power forward, yet now he is being encouraged to get Paul when we already have Telfair at point guard.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I think working him out is a way of signaling to potential trade partners that it's risky for them to hope for Paul slipping down to them.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

Or we could learn the lesson from 2005, just because you have two good players at one position, doesn't mean you'll be able to trade one of them for a need.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

CelticPagan said:


> Or we could learn the lesson from 2005, just because you have two good players at one position, doesn't mean you'll be able to trade one of them for a need.


or trade them for a player thats as good as what you could've gotten by drafting differently.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

If Portland stays at the #3 spot, they should take Paul if Bogut and Williams are gone. Great point guards are very rare and Telfair or Paul would be great trade bait.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Peaceman said:


> If Portland stays at the #3 spot, they should take Paul if Bogut and Williams are gone. Great point guards are very rare and Telfair or Paul would be great trade bait.



They should just trade the pick if they think the player they rerally want can be had a few spots lower. I'm actually excited for draft day. I have an inkling that the Blazers will call Paul's name only to hear a tremendous ovation of boos. Then after either Utah, Charlotte or Toronto pick the commish will come on and say...."we have a trade" followed by excessive clapping.


I'm sure the Blazers will look at all the top prospects. If for no other reason than not to tip their hand.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

As much as I hate to say it, Portland would truely be ignorant not to work out Chris Paul. If he is as good as he supposedly is, there is no reason Portland should disregard him simply because they have Telfair. They may in fact determine that Paul is a better PG for the team, or they may not, the point is they will have a chance to evaluate that point.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> As much as I hate to say it, Portland would truely be ignorant not to work out Chris Paul. If he is as good as he supposedly is, there is no reason Portland should disregard him simply because they have Telfair. They may in fact determine that Paul is a better PG for the team, or they may not, the point is they will have a chance to evaluate that point.


I agree, but where does it stop? If you constantly change a player because the best player available is the same position as the year before, when does it stop?

Say next year, the team gets a lotto pick, and the best available player is a PG? 

Do you then just get rid of the current PG, if the new one is better?

what about the year after that? or that? When does it stop, and how do you decide that?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I agree, but where does it stop? If you constantly change a player because the best player available is the same position as the year before, when does it stop?
> 
> Say next year, the team gets a lotto pick, and the best available player is a PG?
> 
> ...


Why should it stop? If you keep getting better players, then that's a GOOD thing.

If you've got Paxson, get Drexler if you can. If you've got Drexler, get Jordan if you can.

If management is misreading which players are better, and that's certainly a possibility, then there's no guarantee that they'd be able to make quality decisions in other areas, either, and their incompetence should result in their replacement.

The Blazers have to work out all the top prospects. To determine if there's something there that makes sense for the team to add and also to demonstrate to other teams that they won't be ignoring any players at the spot and those teams can count on superior players slipping just because of the current composition of our roster.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Why should it stop? If you keep getting better players, then that's a GOOD thing.
> 
> If you've got Paxson, get Drexler if you can. If you've got Drexler, get Jordan if you can.


again with the jordan thing. It's stupid to use that analogy, because newsflash...we aren't going to get a jordan.

It doesn't lead to any cohesiveness. If you constantly change players every year (important players, and not role players) you don't allow for any growth. 

Now, if we had an Omar Cook as the "PG" thats one thing. But if you're constantly changing *young* pg's with young pg's, of which they *might* be better than what you already have and aren't much taller...and you do that with every position, you're not going to get any better.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Not only that, you run the risk (either way actually) of getting rid of a very good player, because you think someone is better.

Giving up on a player after *1* season, screams stupidity.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Hap said:


> I agree, but where does it stop? If you constantly change a player because the best player available is the same position as the year before, when does it stop?
> 
> Say next year, the team gets a lotto pick, and the best available player is a PG?
> 
> ...


I think it would become redundant, UNLESS, the new PG is so much better than we currently have(Telfair, etc). Take Tony Parker, I honestly don't consider him one of the best PG's in the game, but he gets the job done and works well with his team. They had the chance to get Kidd, who is a better PG, but passed.

I look at it this way. Let's say Paul will do everything 10% better than Telfair over his career. So, we draft him and trade Telfair. What is he going to fetch us in a trade? We all saw last year nothing is certain when it comes to trades. Players can get injured, like SAR, or the right trade isn't out there. So, we might get in a bind and get little talent in return for Telfair, or just get a future pick.

If we go the other way, and let's say for arguements sake, Green is the real deal. Drafting him would increase our SG spot right now over DA by at least 10-20%, and in a few years, I'd say Green will definitely put up better numbers than DA.. Oh, and get this.. Green will probably play at least 75 games a year. What a concept.. (Sorry, I just think DA is pathetic)

Paul or Green or both could be a bust and wash everything out. But when I look at a combo of Telfair/Paul or Telfair/Green(or insert any decent SG for this arguement), the Telfair/Green combo looks better all around. If Telfair and Paul live up half of their potential they can't coexist together and their's a good chance value will be lost in a trade.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> again with the jordan thing. It's stupid to use that analogy, because newsflash...we aren't going to get a jordan.


OK. I'll make it more abstract so you don't scold me for bringing up examples you're tired of reading about. I'm not sure that it's the most constructive way of working (I'd like to think that you could think to yourself that we all know that Paxson, Drexler and Jordan are all retired, so you ought not take my example literally) but...

If you've got a player at a position that's pretty good, get a player a that position that's even better if you can. If you've got a better player at that position, get an even better player at that same position if you can.



> It doesn't lead to any cohesiveness. If you constantly change players every year (important players, and not role players) you don't allow for any growth.


The Pistons won the championship last year because they had the best players healthy at the right time. Rasheed Wallace had been added mid-season, and the rest of the Pistons hadn't been together that long, so it wasn't that they'd had some chance to grow together.

Similarly, the Lakers and the Spurs and the Bulls and the Rockets all won because they'd located very, very good players and plugged in role players around them.

The Lakers had Eddie Jones, but they added Kobe Bryant. They had Divac, but they added Shaq. (Is that an OK example? Or are you sick of hearing about the Lakers and all their championships, too?)



> Now, if we had an Omar Cook as the "PG" thats one thing. But if you're constantly changing *young* pg's with young pg's, of which they *might* be better than what you already have and aren't much taller...and you do that with every position, you're not going to get any better.


I totally disagree. When you get better players you tend to win more.

There's the chance that superior prospects aren't going to turn out to be better, but the reason that they're superior prospects is because the odds are that they will.

If we had a player in his prime at the PG spot and/or the team was about to challenge for a playoff spot (or beyond) switching in a superior prospect at that position could have a short term cost that would make the upgrade in talent not worth it.

The facts are, though, that Telfair is still young and unproven, and the team is almost certainly going to stink this year no matter what we do.

If the Blazers find a superior player, therefore, it is entirely reasonable for them to upgrade whatever position that player is, even if it's PG.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> Giving up on a player after *1* season, screams stupidity.


What about giving up on a player BEFORE one season?

You are disregarding Chris Paul before he's even played a game in the NBA irrespective of how good he will be.

In any event, "giving up" on a player is what the Blazers did with Qyntel Woods. They got rid of him because he couldn't get his act together.

Replacing Telfair with a superior player wouldn't be "giving up" on him. It would be upgrading. 

Additionally, if Telfair's impressed everyone in the NBA as much as he's impressed his avid defenders on this board, he would have trade value around the NBA, which makes the upgrade a double-edged benefit, perhaps.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The Lakers had Eddie Jones, but they added Kobe Bryant. They had Divac, but they added Shaq. (Is that an OK example? Or are you sick of hearing about the Lakers and all their championships, too?)


actually, thats a horrible comparison, for a couple of reasons. 

1: Vlade was *TRADED* so they could SIGN Shaq. 

2: Eddie Jones wasn't traded because they traded for Kobe and also, Kobe and Eddie don't have play the same position. They also didn't just *GET* Eddie Jones either.



> I totally disagree. When you get better players you tend to win more.


which explains why the Spurs didn't mind Jason Kidd not signing with them and stayed with Tony Parker...



> There's the chance that superior prospects aren't going to turn out to be better, but the reason that they're superior prospects is because the odds are that they will.


doesn't always work out that way though. I bet you the Spurs wouldn't trade Tony Parker for Chris Paul. Not in a million years.



> The facts are, though, that Telfair is still young and unproven, and the team is almost certainly going to stink this year no matter what we do.


but Paul is old and proven?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What about giving up on a player BEFORE one season?
> 
> You are disregarding Chris Paul before he's even played a game in the NBA irrespective of how good he will be.


I am not disregarding him. 


> In any event, "giving up" on a player is what the Blazers did with Qyntel Woods. They got rid of him because he couldn't get his act together.


not the same. Woods wasn't given up on after a year. This was his *3rd* year in the league, and he didn't do anything to show improvement. 

He didn't get to start late in the year and show he was actually a good player.

you just love bringing up qyntel woods, don't you?



> Replacing Telfair with a superior player wouldn't be "giving up" on him. It would be upgrading.


what if that player actually isn't that much superior? I doubt it's like the difference between Mark Price and Kevin Johnson here.



> Additionally, if Telfair's impressed everyone in the NBA as much as he's impressed his avid defenders on this board, he would have trade value around the NBA, which makes the upgrade a double-edged benefit, perhaps.


same applies to Paul. If he's such the stud people make him out to be, "the best PG talent since Jason Kidd" or some other clap trap, I'm sure he could net us even more. I mean, if he's so much superior to telfair, you could get more for him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> actually, thats a horrible comparison, for a couple of reasons.


You're picking apart examples offered as conceptual examples and offering minute differences as reasons that the entire idea is invalid. It just doesn't make any sense, Hap, what you're doing.



> which explains why the Spurs didn't mind Jason Kidd not signing with them and stayed with Tony Parker...


I don't recall reading that the Spurs "didn't mind Jason Kidd not signing with them". In fact, I know that the Spurs were so interested in Kidd for a period that it isolated Parker from Popovich. Why the Spurs didn't get Kidd isn't clear to me.

The Spurs are a relatively small market with an owner that lacks deep pockets. It's entirely conceivable--and I'd argue likely--that the team knew it could challenge for a title without throwing a mint at Kidd and so went with what they had (a young, cheap, successful PG).



> doesn't always work out that way though. I bet you the Spurs wouldn't trade Tony Parker for Chris Paul. Not in a million years.


*sigh*

Are the Spurs a championship-level team, Hap? Yes.

Are the Blazers a championship-level team, Hap? No.

Is Tony Parker a proven PG, Hap? Yes.

Is Sebastian Telfair a proven PG, Hap? No.

Who cares whether the Spurs wouldn't trade Tony Parker for Chris Paul? What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?

The Rockets wouldn't trade Yao for Bogut. Should the Blazers pass on Bogut since we've only had Przybilla for a year?



> but Paul is old and proven?


Where did I say that? Please read the sentence that I wrote before the line you quoted and understand the context for my statement about Telfair there.

Damn, dude, I can understand disagreeing with one another but I simply can't understand the misrepresentations of my position.

Ed O.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Replacing Telfair with a superior player wouldn't be "giving up" on him. It would be upgrading.
> 
> Additionally, if Telfair's impressed everyone in the NBA as much as he's impressed his avid defenders on this board, he would have trade value around the NBA, which makes the upgrade a double-edged benefit, perhaps.
> 
> Ed O.


What about Telfairs' NBA experience? Paul doesn't have that yet, and could turn out to be another Darko. From what I've seen of Telfair, he's going to stick in this league and be pretty good. 95% of draft picks is a hit or miss. 

The "Potential" word is thrown around a lot, but I think we need to look at Telfair having potential and he's proven he can play in the NBA(IMO). That has to account for something.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I am not disregarding him.


You're not?

I don't remember reading a single instance where you think drafting Paul would be a good idea. That's disregarding him to me.



> you just love bringing up qyntel woods, don't you?


Um. No. When was the last time I brought up Woods? Like two months ago?

What is your fascination with complaining about the players I use in discussion? I seemingly can't talk about Bowie or Jordan and now I can't talk about Woods?

What CAN I talk about?

You've expressed fatigue with discussing the draft altogether, and yet you continue to do so and complain about the examples I'm using. It's confusing.



> what if that player actually isn't that much superior? I doubt it's like the difference between Mark Price and Kevin Johnson here.


What difference is that? Both of those guys were borderline all-stars.

And as far as how much superior a player has to be: that can't be quantified, but a team should always be looking to get better players.



> same applies to Paul. If he's such the stud people make him out to be, "the best PG talent since Jason Kidd" or some other clap trap, I'm sure he could net us even more. I mean, if he's so much superior to telfair, you could get more for him.


Why trade a guy that's so superior? Trade the inferior player.

We should be getting the best players possible and building around them. We shouldn't be keeping what we have and trying to prop them up.

Ed O.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

I think when we're talking about replacing certain players at a certain position, it's a lot easier and makes more sense when you're upgrading a position with two proven players involved. Upgrading Divac with Shaq is a no brainer. If we could get Redd, we would happily upgrade DA with him. Upgrading a 1 year rookie with an unproven rookie isn't as easy IMO. Especially when we have a huuuuge gaping hole at SG, and the top rated SG is available.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> What about Telfairs' NBA experience? Paul doesn't have that yet, and could turn out to be another Darko. From what I've seen of Telfair, he's going to stick in this league and be pretty good. 95% of draft picks is a hit or miss.


You're entirely correct, Scout. Absolutely.

I'm not saying the draft Paul because of what *I* think, though. I am arguing that we should draft Paul if the Blazers evaluators consider Paul a superior prospect to Telfair.

Some people on this board that are unwilling to draft Paul under any reasonable circumstances, though, seem to take that position because (a) they personally think that Telfair is better than Paul, and/or (b) they think Gerald Green is a better prospect than Paul. I have my own ideas about who's better than whom (that's part of the fun!) but discussing hypotheticals based on the Blazers' evaluations allows us to hopefully do more than argue about who we think is better.



> The "Potential" word is thrown around a lot, but I think we need to look at Telfair having potential and he's proven he can play in the NBA(IMO). That has to account for something.


You're right again. I don't think that Telfair played so well, though, nor showed so much potential, that it's inconceivable--or even that unlikely--that a player like Chris Paul could be available as a superior prospect for the Blazers this year.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I don't recall reading that the Spurs "didn't mind Jason Kidd not signing with them". In fact, I know that the Spurs were so interested in Kidd for a period that it isolated Parker from Popovich. Why the Spurs didn't get Kidd isn't clear to me.


well, the spurs sure have suffered (thus, they "didn't mind") since they didn't get Kidd..



> Are the Spurs a championship-level team, Hap? Yes.
> 
> Are the Blazers a championship-level team, Hap? No.
> 
> ...


well, isn't Paul the best PG since Jason Kidd? wouldn't that mean he's a better prospect than Tony Parker? And wouldn't this kind of _prove_ that replacing a guy just because he's potentially better isn't always the smartest thing to do? As in, the Spurs might think a player is better than Parker, but they aren't going to necessarily draft or trade for him. 

Them winning or being a championship title contender team is not necessary for the comparison. It shows that upgrading isn't always what you want to do.



> The Rockets wouldn't trade Yao for Bogut. Should the Blazers pass on Bogut since we've only had Przybilla for a year?


You're getting good at these really bad comparisons Ed. Bogut vs Joel is not the same again. For starters, Joel isn't the same kind of player that Bogut is. Joel didn't averaged 20 ppg in college like Bogut did. Joel isn't a great (or really, even good) offensive threat like Bogut is. 



> Where did I say that? Please read the sentence that I wrote before the line you quoted and understand the context for my statement about Telfair there.
> 
> Damn, dude, I can understand disagreeing with one another but I simply can't understand the misrepresentations of my position.
> 
> Ed O.


screw it. you think if paul is a better "player" they should take him. I don't. I think it's the start of a slippery slope, where you constantly try to change players because someone might be better, instead of letting teams grow.

If we were talking an OBVIOUS difference between the players, thats one thing. But we're not. It's not like we're going from Omar Cook to Mike Bibby here.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

If we take a pg with our 1st round pick it's gonna be :curse: x infinity...Bassy is better then any of these pg's in this years draft and he has a year of experience under his belt. We'd be morons to take someone at his spot. This is HIS team now.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You're not?
> 
> I don't remember reading a single instance where you think drafting Paul would be a good idea. That's disregarding him to me.


wow, that seems kind of...silly to say. Because I dont think drafting him would be a good idea, thats disparaging?

I don't think they should draft Sean May either. Doesn't mean I don't think he's talented. I don't think they should draft a lot of players. It isn't disparaging.



> Um. No. When was the last time I brought up Woods? Like two months ago?
> 
> What is your fascination with complaining about the players I use in discussion? I seemingly can't talk about Bowie or Jordan and now I can't talk about Woods?


because they don't work in analogys. 



> You've expressed fatigue with discussing the draft altogether, and yet you continue to do so and complain about the examples I'm using. It's confusing.


if someone uses bad analogies, people complain. It's that simple.



> What difference is that? Both of those guys were borderline all-stars.


you honestly don't see the difference between a guy who's peak average (which was longer) was 20-10 and one who's peak averaged was about 18 and 8 (which was shorter)? 



> Why trade a guy that's so superior? Trade the inferior player.


so we should've kept Kiki Vandeweghe, eh? When we traded him for a draft pick, we should've actually traded Jerome, since he was inferior.



> We should be getting the best players possible and building around them. We shouldn't be keeping what we have and trying to prop them up.
> 
> Ed O.


so we're just proping Telfair up? 

I disagree. I don't think Telfair will be the stud some on the board do, but I don't think Paul walks on water like you seem to think he will.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I think my biggest complaint is that we're arguging over a big unknown.

So, if the team thinks player X is better than a current player on the team, Y. Should they take X.

I dont think thats always the case. Mainly because i dont think the team can know how player Y will end up being vs player X. A lot of times, there are more things to worry about, than a players "talent". 

What if another player that they can draft, is better at his position, than the difference between player X and Y.

So, let's say Martell Webster or Gerald Green, in the blazers humble opinions, is 10 times better than the SG/SF's we currently have. Let's also say they think Paul will be 1x better than Telfair. 

And let's also say that they think Paul and Green are within each others window of "potential" but that Paul is better.

Who do you take then?


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm not saying the draft Paul because of what *I* think, though. I am arguing that we should draft Paul if the Blazers evaluators consider Paul a superior prospect to Telfair.


hmm, shouldn't Paul be evaluated and compared to Green(or another player)? I know they don't play the same position, but take the best available, and maybe leaning towards need as well with our pick.



> Some people on this board that are unwilling to draft Paul under any reasonable circumstances, though, seem to take that position because (a) they personally think that Telfair is better than Paul, and/or (b) they think Gerald Green is a better prospect than Paul. I have my own ideas about who's better than whom (that's part of the fun!) but discussing hypotheticals based on the Blazers' evaluations allows us to hopefully do more than argue about who we think is better.


Well, I honestly haven't seen Paul play, so I'm going off what the so called experts say, his position at PG, and a gut feeling. I just think it would be confusing to draft another top PG prospect. I'm stuck on Green with our pick because from what I saw of him, and the write ups on him, I like him. Yes, he gets bonus points from me because there is a good chance he'll play SG. He stroked it pretty well in that McDonalds All-American game. My thinking may be do to having DA and Bonzi on our team. 

Ok, I'm one sided right now. I WANT A SG NOW! PLEASE! :gopray:


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Hap said:


> Who do you take then?


Just like a job opening, you hire for a position that's open.. 

That just happens to be at *SG*.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> wow, that seems kind of...silly to say. Because I dont think drafting him would be a good idea, thats disparaging?
> 
> I don't think they should draft Sean May either. Doesn't mean I don't think he's talented. I don't think they should draft a lot of players. It isn't disparaging.


When did we start talking about disparaging a player? I thought you said "disregarding". In fact I know it. And the two words mean entirely different things.



> you honestly don't see the difference between a guy who's peak average (which was longer) was 20-10 and one who's peak averaged was about 18 and 8 (which was shorter)?


They were very similar players. Price played fewer minutes per game so his numbers weren't quite as good, and I'd bet that the Cavs played a slower pace than the Suns, too. I don't want to get bogged down in the details of your example but I don't think there was much of a difference between the two players.



> so we're just proping Telfair up?
> 
> I disagree. I don't think Telfair will be the stud some on the board do, but I don't think Paul walks on water like you seem to think he will.


I think you're reading opinions into my position that I simply don't have. I'm not sure that Paul will be better than Telfair, or Deron Williams for that matter.

I'm simply discussing the possibility that the Blazers' evaluators will think this.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> So, let's say Martell Webster or Gerald Green, in the blazers humble opinions, is 10 times better than the SG/SF's we currently have. Let's also say they think Paul will be 1x better than Telfair.
> 
> And let's also say that they think Paul and Green are within each others window of "potential" but that Paul is better.
> 
> Who do you take then?


Trade down. Since we've got three players that are each at about the same level (Green and Webster being the same, and Paul being slightly better), we can safely trade down and take whichever one slides to us.

If we can't trade down, I take Paul because he's the best player available and he's twice the player that Telfair would be, allowing us to trade Telfair for an upgrade at the swing spots.

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Chris Paul being twice the player Bassy will be....that's funny.....I don't even know how else to repsond but wow. If people were upset at Damon, I don't see how they will like Paul. He doesn't pass worth a damn, shoots too much, and plays ZERO defense....Yes, let's take him and bench Telfair! lol


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

The Blazers working out Chris Paul really doesn't mean a thing, I expected Nash to do this, it's what every good GM should do. Portland called Bogut in for a workout even though he wouldn't come in and Portland really has no chance at getting him. It's all about exploring all the options, this doesn't mean we'll draft Paul or not, just means we are exploring every option given. Me personally, I've seen Paul play and wasn't very impressed, seemed like another version of Kenny Anderson in his prime, just not as quick. Basically Paul can shoot the ball pretty well but his court vision is lacking. I wouldn't want him as my starting PG, especially with so many scorers at every other position.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Chris Paul being twice the player Bassy will be....that's funny.....I don't even know how else to repsond but wow. If people were upset at Damon, I don't see how they will like Paul. He doesn't pass worth a damn, shoots too much, and plays ZERO defense....Yes, let's take him and bench Telfair! lol


Ditto.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> If we go the other way, and let's say for arguements sake, Green is the real deal. Drafting him would increase our SG spot right now over DA by at least 10-20%, and in a few years, I'd say Green will definitely put up better numbers than DA.. Oh, and get this.. Green will probably play at least 75 games a year. What a concept.. (Sorry, I just think DA is pathetic)
> 
> Paul or Green or both could be a bust and wash everything out. But when I look at a combo of Telfair/Paul or Telfair/Green(or insert any decent SG for this arguement), the Telfair/Green combo looks better all around. If Telfair and Paul live up half of their potential they can't coexist together and their's a good chance value will be lost in a trade.



I share this belief... Scout... it just seems better for the team right now, unless Nash has a trade plan in place that will recoup something else. Does not have to be Green, but at least a good SG...


Its all a very delicate balance of being a GM...

you forcast, evaluate and draft talent... hopefully it works out :gopray: its a gamble, there are not many sure things... especially after you get past the top so many picks.

I enjoy the put the team toegther, sprikle them with water and watch them grow philosphy... hopefully the pieces of the puzzle are put together well, so chemistry can develop and that special development/bond made by time between the players pays off in that last second no look pass that succeds in a fast break and brings us the championship again some day

although a very bad record the last 27 games, I was enjoying watching the youngsters play to see if there was hope... I found some!

but if not keep them and grow.. I think you need to take the Eli Whitney interchangeable pieces theory into account as well... or in loose form Darwins theory of evolution.... if you get a chance to improve and evolve you do it.. if player A is 10% or 20% better... you have to take a look at it... just liek you shoudl look at all the players available for you at the #3 spot for drafting.

of course... all of this goes right out the window if player A is drafted or traded and he gets an injury though....


somewhere someplace... there is a delicate balance which will do all of the above... lets roll the dice and see



competition at one position is a good thing... make player A earn the right to be the starter... each and every year... never guarentee $ or a starting spot


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> Chris Paul being twice the player Bassy will be....that's funny.....I don't even know how else to repsond but wow.


I know what to say: read Hap's hypothetical. I was answering in a universe where "Let's also say they [the Blazers] think Paul will be 1x better than Telfair. "

1x better means 100% better, or twice the player.

I don't find it likely that there's anything approaching that level of difference between the players, but I was answering the question as Hap posed it.

Ed O.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

The Jordan analogy doesn't apply here either because we're not talking about taking a marginal player(Bowie) purely because of the position they play, vs an extremly talented player(Jordan). And two PG's can't share the court as effectivly as two SG/SF's....but that's beside the point.

Both Green and Paul are good prospects. So which one do you take if you desperatly need a SG and have just drafted a young PG. Hmmmm


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

OK HAP, you don't seem to like ED's analogies, so ponder this one.

The Bulls had Crawford, but they went ahead and drafted Williams.
[Not the same, you say! Crawford was a tweener and Williams a true PG]

Then they drafted Hinrich.
[Not the same! They magically knew Williams would have that accident!]

Then they drafted Gordon AND Duhon.
[Not the same, not the same, not the same!]


You can nitpick the analogy to death - but the real world bottom line is this: The Bulls drafted *5* players considered either PGs or swing guards. Despite a couple of setbacks, they now have a deep, young backcourt.  happens. Guys get hurt or don't work out the way you had hoped. 

You said it yourself HAP, there are a lot of unknowns here.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

another Short as a pile of dung pg? didnt we try that with damon? No thanks lets get someone over 6 foot please? 6'8 sounds much better than 5'10 yuck~!


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

I think the people saying drafting Green over Paul because it is a position of need is funny. What if Green can only play SF? Hmm, Miles, Patterson. Outlaw,and Khyrapa. How many PG do we have? Telfair. That argument doesn't work. Nash has said he thinks Green is a SF ( maybe a smokescreen ), but other scouts have said the same thing. Anyone who watched Outlaw last year knows he can't guard SG's and if he is the future, as well Telfair, we shouldn't draft Paul or Green. Sounds like trading down if the only reasonable option.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> Well, I honestly haven't seen Paul play....


As a big Wake fan, I've seen 20-30 of Chris Paul's games over the past couple years. Thats about the same amount of times I've seen Telfair... honestly I think CP is better, though of course it's not my opinion that counts. I think he's got all of Telfair's quickness, passing, and ability to finish around the hoop plus a solid J to keep the D honest and the passing lanes open.

CP is widely regarded as a stud for a reason, he is. Dominating the ACC as a frosh and and a soph isn't something average players do. It's a good thing that Portland will likely be in position to select him. Promising young (and rookie deal cheap) PGs like Paul and Telfair, are sought after and extremely tradeable. While both are unlikely to be on the Blazers roster next season, either could be a catalyst in a larger deal to reshape the roster.



> I WANT A SG NOW! PLEASE! :gopray:


I think this is one issue that all Blazer fans and management agree on... how to make it happen and who the new SG should be is where the discussion starts. If Green or prospect SG X is regarded by management as an equal prospect to Paul, then the way to solve this issue might be pretty simple. 

STOMP


----------



## Maybeso (Jan 29, 2003)

What's wrong with having two really good point guards? Houston won a couple of titles with that setup. Whichever one was playing the best that night got the majority of the minutes. Or, if one goes down with an injury, the other plays without any loss of offensive execution. If PG is such a critical position, why would it be wrong to have two really good ones? I think I would prefer to have Williams IF he can play better defense than Paul, but competition and depth at the PG sounds like a great thing. The alternative is some mediocre veteran PG who may or may not help us much.

And I say all of this having never seen Paul play and only seeing D Williams play once. I assume we are all still in hypothetical space here.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Maybeso said:


> What's wrong with having two really good point guards? Houston won a couple of titles with that setup. Whichever one was playing the best that night got the majority of the minutes. Or, if one goes down with an injury, the other plays without any loss of offensive execution. If PG is such a critical position, why would it be wrong to have two really good ones? I think I would prefer to have Williams IF he can play better defense than Paul, but competition and depth at the PG sounds like a great thing. The alternative is some mediocre veteran PG who may or may not help us much.


sure, Houston won 2 titles with 2 PG's, but there's a slight difference in their scenario (and it's not because of Hakeem).

Neither player was only 6' tall. Kenny Smith was on the downside of his career. Sam Cassell wasn't taken with the #3 pick right after they traded for Kenny Smith. Infact, Cassell was taken with late in the first round, where in retrospect, only 2 players taken after him had even respectable careers in the NBA (NVE and Byron Russell).


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I know what to say: read Hap's hypothetical. I was answering in a universe where "Let's also say they [the Blazers] think Paul will be 1x better than Telfair. "
> 
> 1x better means 100% better, or twice the player.
> 
> ...


I've no idea what Hap may have intended by "1x", but to me that means zero percent better. Maybe I'm outside the norm here, but I thought the 'x' was 'times', and thus 1x Telfair = Telfair. 

So 2x better means 100% better, or twice the player.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> I've no idea what Hap may have intended by "1x", but to me that means zero percent better. Maybe I'm outside the norm here, but I thought the 'x' was 'times', and thus 1x Telfair = Telfair.
> 
> So 2x better means 100% better, or twice the player.
> 
> barfo



technically, barfo is closer to what I meant, than Ed O is closer to what I meant.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> I've no idea what Hap may have intended by "1x", but to me that means zero percent better. Maybe I'm outside the norm here, but I thought the 'x' was 'times', and thus 1x Telfair = Telfair.
> 
> So 2x better means 100% better, or twice the player.


1x "as good" is the same.

1x "better" is twice as good. Two times better is three times as good.

I wasn't sure exactly what Hap meant, but I went by what he wrote 

Ed O.


----------



## Maybeso (Jan 29, 2003)

Hap,

Criticizing the illustration of Houston is OK I guess, but I never intended for it to be a perfect parallel with our situation -- just an illustration of a successful two-PG team.

If you can get a superstar at the point: Magic Johnson, John Stockton, Isaiah Thomas,..., then you play him as much as possible. You don't want to share the point, and a dual PG situation is ill-advised.

If you don't have a superstar PG then a player should have no reasonable expectation of getting all the minutes. Telfair isn't and won't be a superstar. Neither are Paul and Williams likely to make it that far. I agree, I wish one or more were taller and that is why I expressed a preference for D Williams.

Back to the hypothetical. Is it OK to pick for depth at the PG position if that is the best quality available at the #3 pick? I say it is less risky to get the really good PG than to hope the SG/SF picked later might make it.

All of that depends on whether Paul (D Williams) really is the best talent available at #3 over Green or somebody else we haven't even heard of yet. I really don't have a clue on that and very few if any of us do. 

So, Hap. What kind of depth at the PG position do you prefer? How do you propose we get there?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Maybeso said:


> Hap,
> 
> If you don't have a superstar PG then a player should have no reasonable expectation of getting all the minutes.


that is true. But thats setting the bar awful damn high.



> Telfair isn't and won't be a superstar. Neither are Paul and Williams likely to make it that far. I agree, I wish one or more were taller and that is why I expressed a preference for D Williams.


we actually don't know if Telfair, Williams or Paul will be (or can be) superstars. To discount any of them already, is a hard thing to justify. Telfair (and paul and williams) could easily be a 'superstar'. And if not, each could be a Chauncy Billups type PG (he's not a superstar). Or a Steve Nash pre-MVP season. 



> Back to the hypothetical. Is it OK to pick for depth at the PG position if that is the best quality available at the #3 pick? I say it is less risky to get the really good PG than to hope the SG/SF picked later might make it.


It depends on who the SG/SF talent is.



> So, Hap. What kind of depth at the PG position do you prefer? How do you propose we get there?


I'd prefer not to draft a player @ #3 to either A: replace Telfair or B: supplement him.

Why not? Easy. If we replace Telfair with Paul (or Williams) we're really no better (at the PG spot) than we were before. A starter and no backup. If we have Paul be a backup, it just gives us 2 guys who want to start, and we've gone that route before. I don't want to draft a guy only to have him fight with someone just as young as him, for minutes.

I'd rather supplement Telfair (if thats who the team keeps for next year) with a free agent signing, or a trade for another player, or, god forbid, they get one in the 2nd round. I'd rather sign a backup who's a vet, and not going to whine about not getting his minutes (and won't be a youngin who'll make mistakes).

such as: 
Earl Watson. Darrell Armstrong. Howard Eisley. Travis Best. Erick Strickland. Rick Brunson. 

There are probably others they can trade for, and not give up a lot. 

I dont think you draft a backup @ #3, unless he's a huge project.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Agree with Hap 100%. If the Blazers select a PG at #3 they will be selecting a back up. That's not to say the person they pick won't start, but if he does then Telfair's a back up and last years draft was a waste. At 3 they need to make an impact. As long as they are going to be in the lottery they need to take advantage of it. 

The more I ...um ....hear from people that would know nothing about it at all... I think the Blazers will trade the pick for an established shooting guard, ala Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce or another fairly young player that can take over a leadership role.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> The more I ...um ....hear from people that would know nothing about it at all... I think the Blazers will trade the pick for an established shooting guard, ala Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce or another fairly young player that can take over a leadership role.


not sure i understand what you're saying. dumb that down a bit, will yah?


----------



## Maybeso (Jan 29, 2003)

Not only is Joe Johnson a great SG/SF, Phoenix uses him as the alternate playmaker as well. He appears to be exactly what this team needs from both a talent and character standpoint. With that kind of acquisition, Paul or any other draft prospect would be irrelevant. JJ is worth the #3, but who do we give up to match his new (and high) salary?

I'm not as excited about other aging SGs out there.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I agree, but where does it stop? If you constantly change a player because the best player available is the same position as the year before, when does it stop?
> 
> Say next year, the team gets a lotto pick, and the best available player is a PG?
> 
> ...


Come on Hap, haven't you seen the movie Groundhog Day? Portland is going to keep doing it till they get it right dude! :biggrin:


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

In my unknowledgable opinion, it's good that we're taking a look at Paul. If for nothing else, to get NO and Charlotte sweating if they want him. I'd still prefer to get Green (I think...ahh! hard to weigh everything), but I think taking a look at other possibilities is a good thing as well.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

HOWIE said:


> Come on Hap, haven't you seen the movie Groundhog Day? Portland is going to keep doing it till they get it right dude! :biggrin:


great movie.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

I'm with Hap on this one. Bottom line. The upgrade at PG (by drafting Paul) is not as great as the updrade of getting a SG with the same pick.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

stockfire said:


> I'm with Hap on this one. Bottom line. The upgrade at PG (by drafting Paul) is not as great as the updrade of getting a SG with the same pick.


yeah i agree i think its foolish to draft a pg @3 becuase I dont see them being an upgrade from telfiar and we need a sg more, its only a move for a trade imo.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

OK I'm into hypotheticals....

If Telfair were in this years draft....

Portland Draft Board looked like this...
Williams
Bogut
Paul
Telfair
Green

And New Orleans Looked like this
WIlliams
Bogut
Paul
Telfair
Green

So Telfair may be more valuable to New Orleans than Green is, now Take Paul at the #3 pick and take Telfair off the list, then New orleans is looking at Green or Deron Williams.

IF these scenarios were remotely realistic, is it conceivable that Portland could take Paul with #3 (Assuming the think he is more valuable than Telafair) then Offer Telfair to New Orleans for the #4 pick, where Portland could take Green. Would that really hurt the team?


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

They're probably more excited about Paul than Telfair though. All the hype surrounding Paul and all...I really doubt they'd do Telfair for the 4.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

LameR said:


> They're probably more excited about Paul than Telfair though. All the hype surrounding Paul and all...I really doubt they'd do Telfair for the 4.


Like I said it's pure hypothetical


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Like I said it's pure hypothetical


Tried to factor that in, but it was really hard.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> not sure i understand what you're saying. dumb that down a bit, will yah?



Cool, dumbing things down is a specialty I have. I "think" the Blazers will trade the pick for someone like Joe Johnson or Paul Pierce. Or trade it for Michael Pietrus and GS pick.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> The more I ...um ....hear from people that would know nothing about it at all... I think the Blazers will trade the pick for an established shooting guard, ala Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce or another fairly young player that can take over a leadership role.


Interesting....I wish I knew some people that would know nothing about it at all....

Bottom line - it makes all the sense in the world for the Blazers to work out Paul. Gives them a chance to further evaluate whether or not he would be a significant upgrade over Telfair. Shows other teams that they're not afraid to pick him at #3. Keeps other teams guessing as to who they might take. Gives them leverage to trade down on or after draft day. Etc., etc.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Storyteller said:


> Interesting....I wish I knew some people that would know nothing about it at all....
> 
> Bottom line - it makes all the sense in the world for the Blazers to work out Paul. Gives them a chance to further evaluate whether or not he would be a significant upgrade over Telfair. Shows other teams that they're not afraid to pick him at #3. Keeps other teams guessing as to who they might take. Gives them leverage to trade down on or after draft day. Etc., etc.



You know a whole message board full of those people Storyteller.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

So Telfair will never be an All-Star? and most likely niether will Paul or D.Williams? 

Sounds like a whole lot of unsubstantiated opinion going on there..........


and if Paul or Williams are only viewed as marginally better than Telfair, which IMO is very likely the case (if not equal to or yes less than) then taking Paul at #3 to keep would be asinine.....


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> OK I'm into hypotheticals....
> 
> If Telfair were in this years draft....
> 
> ...



That's a really interesting idea, Schilly. :clap: Not to say that I'm for doing that necessarily (even assuming NO would) but, I love the way you presented it.

It might be fun to set the same sort of thing up for all of the first six or seven teams to pick, yes? Sure it's all guess work but really, it's not that hard to look at teams and at least get a fairly accurate take on their needs....


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Schilly, one more thing that I forgot to add last night due to being tired or just plain stupidity; I like how you set that up. Looking at it now, it makes more sense than it probably did last night. It still seems unlikely with Williams being around, but it's a good idea.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly's idea is really intriguing. we get the (hopefully) better pg AND line up our sg for the future. New Orleans fills a position of HUGE need for them. reminds me of the deal Chicago did with Elton Brand to get Chandler, except we aren't giving up anything nearly as proven as Brand. 

of course if New Orleans doesn't want to play ball, then we are forced to back up our threat to take Paul without unloading Telfair.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I would be pissed if the blazers picked another pg , pick Marvin Williams or Gerald Green


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I really enjoyed Telfair this year... he seems to have the P word. And he is a good egg... I liked what I saw of him playing the last part of the season. He seemingly cut down on his turnovers, and his jumper seemed improved as well. But I expected his assists to be much higher than they were.

I am for what ever improves the team. If its swapping Telfair for Paul .. I am for it. He seems to be just a bit taller... maybe an 1"...

Nice idea Schilly... 

How about Deron Wiliams? he is 6'-3" tall as well... I want a taller PG, but talent is probably more important than height.


Hey if they want a run and gun team... keep both Telfair and Paul and get the SG by FA or trades


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

T bob I hear u but Sebastian is a pure pg , Paul shoots alot and me personally I dont want another shoot first pg on the blazers


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

cimalee said:


> T bob I hear u but Sebastian is a pure pg , Paul shoots alot and me personally I dont want another shoot first pg on the blazers


Why not do some research instead of guessing as to what you might not like about a player? On a per minute basis last season, Chris Paul averaged taking 0.30 shots while Sebastian averaged 0.32. Damon? He jacked up 0.42 shots per minute last season, but of course he spent a good part of the year at the 2.

CP shot 45% overall, 47% from college 3's (yes I know it's shorter then the pros), and 83% from the line. Sebastian shot 39%, 24%, and 79% respectively. Basically Chris Paul is the better shooter, especially from deep. He is very adept/smooth at shooting his jumper off the dribble (IMO), which is a very good skill for a guard to have with the NBA's 24 second clock.

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Good post, Stomp. And, for what it's worth, I think Telfair was shooting more than any of us (and perhaps even Telfair himself) expected. Several radio guys (Rice included) seemed to think that at least Cheeks and perhaps Pritchard thought it'd be safer for him to break a guy down and get his own shot up. Part of the logic (as I understood it) came from guys not being ready for Telfair's passes (thus the TOs) and, that's the part of the equation that'd be most familiar to Telfair out of the blocks -- even beyond the higher level of play, the NBA has defenses (and plays to counter said defenses) that he'd be less ready to deal with. Hopefully that's different for him this coming year, wherever he's playing.

That said, I'm with T-bob and probably most everyone else here in wanting whatever's going to be best for the team long-term. While Telfair's shot seems to be improving, Paul's is better right now. And then there's the difficulty of comparing Telfair's high school and NBA time to Paul's college time, etc. I think at this point a case could certainly be made that Paul might be the better of the two players, both short-term and long. Otoh, as the year went on I was thinking that Telfair was looking more and more like a steal at 13 and there is certainly the need argument, particularly if NO doesn't go for Schilly's plan. At what point does need outweigh talent?


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

cimalee said:


> T bob I hear u but Sebastian is a pure pg , Paul shoots alot and me personally I dont want another shoot first pg on the blazers


If you want a pure PG, get D. Williams.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Why not do some research instead of guessing as to what you might not like about a player? On a per minute basis last season, Chris Paul averaged taking 0.30 shots while Sebastian averaged 0.32. Damon? He jacked up 0.42 shots per minute last season, but of course he spent a good part of the year at the 2.
> 
> CP shot 45% overall, 47% from college 3's (yes I know it's shorter then the pros), and 83% from the line. Sebastian shot 39%, 24%, and 79% respectively. Basically Chris Paul is the better shooter, especially from deep. He is very adept/smooth at shooting his jumper off the dribble (IMO), which is a very good skill for a guard to have with the NBA's 24 second clock.
> 
> STOMP


I think that you really can't compare how a player shoots per minute in college vs the NBA especially since the games are set up totally different (not in halves, 8 minutes longer and players have tons more to go against.). Thats not to suggest that Paul was a "shoot first PG" (which is one of the more over-blown things said).

Nor can you really compare their stats. A lot of players who shot good in college, don't necessarily start out shooting good in the NBA. Casey Jacobsen was a really good shooter in college. He sucks in the NBA. Damon shot a WHOLE lot better in college than he ever has in the NBA.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> I think that you really can't compare how a player shoots per minute in college vs the NBA especially since the games are set up totally different (not in halves, 8 minutes longer and players have tons more to go against.). Thats not to suggest that Paul was a "shoot first PG" (which is one of the more over-blown things said).
> 
> Nor can you really compare their stats. A lot of players who shot good in college, don't necessarily start out shooting good in the NBA. Casey Jacobsen was a really good shooter in college. He sucks in the NBA. Damon shot a WHOLE lot better in college than he ever has in the NBA.


Sure... but of course I was only trying to use what actual evidence we do have rather then letting Cim's impressions that Paul was jacking it up every time rule the day. As far as ST not being a shoot first PG... how many points per game did he average in HS again? It seems to me that being a shoot first PG might be a more legit complaint/concern directed his way then Paul's.

My impression of the two (having watched both quite a bit) is that CP is better overall as a pure point/running a team, and having a better outside jumper is a large part of why I feel this way. To me they are pretty similar otherwise.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Sure... but of course I was only trying to use what actual evidence we do have rather then letting Cim's impressions that Paul was jacking it up every time rule the day. As far as ST not being a shoot first PG... how many points per game did he average in HS again? It seems to me that being a shoot first PG might be a more legit complaint/concern directed his way then Paul's.
> 
> My impression of the two (having watched both quite a bit) is that CP is better overall as a pure point/running a team, and having a better outside jumper is a large part of why I feel this way. To me they are pretty similar otherwise.
> 
> STOMP


I asked Nash, and he said he thinks Paul is a better shooter (but that's not too hard to improve on) and Telfair is a better passer, and the other differences will be mental/attitude/effort, etc.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Though there has been a some players (ex:Redd) who've significantly improved their outside shot during their NBA careers, a whole lot of other players have struggled to do so. I doubt that in each case it was because they didn't put in the effort... IMO achieving this through effort/practice is far from a given. In my own experience, even when I was a little guy pushing the ball up with both hands from my chest I had a good shot... it was just something that came naturally. I doubt ST's outside shot will ever be on par with Paul's though. Of course if he's to be Portland's starting PG for the next decade I'd like him to have the best J in the league, but I'm just saying...

STOMP


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Totally FWIW, I was in NYC today, and saw a street kid in a Blazer jersey. Telfair!

Last time I saw a Blazer jersey in the streets of NY were in the days of The Glide.

iWatas


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> Totally FWIW, I was in NYC today, and saw a street kid in a Blazer jersey. Telfair!
> 
> Last time I saw a Blazer jersey in the streets of NY were in the days of The Glide.
> 
> iWatas


I can already hear joke now..
"you sure that street kid wasn't telfair himself? afterall, he is too short to play pg".

uke:


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Though there has been a some players (ex:Redd) who've significantly improved their outside shot during their NBA careers, a whole lot of other players have struggled to do so. I doubt that in each case it was because they didn't put in the effort... IMO achieving this through effort/practice is far from a given. In my own experience, even when I was a little guy pushing the ball up with both hands from my chest I had a good shot... it was just something that came naturally. I doubt ST's outside shot will ever be on par with Paul's though. Of course if he's to be Portland's starting PG for the next decade I'd like him to have the best J in the league, but I'm just saying...
> 
> STOMP


Sure Stomp -- that jump shot is part of what makes Nash so very dangerous. That was true for Stockton and Magic, too. Still, what Nash told Hap is accurate (and not another smoke screen, etc.), I'm thinking I'd still rather have a PG who's best skill is passing, such as a Jason Kidd who, at least at his best, has dominated games hardly shooting at all. Now, I'll grant you there's trouble if your starting PG is most skilled at passing but by inclination is shoot-first. :biggrin: I'm not yet convinced that's a point of concern for Telfair but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it becoming an issue either.

It's a hard call. Even if Nash somehow had a crystal ball to help answer the question of Paul vs. Telfair, and even if it stated clearly that Paul would be better but perhaps only by a slim margin, what decisions should get made?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Sure. That jump shot is part of what makes Nash so very dangerous. That was true for Stockton and Magic, too.


Stockton couldn't shoot well when he entered the league. He worked on it, and became a very solid shooter over time. Does anyone have his career stats (esp. from the trey)?

IMO, court vision is much harder to teach than shooting. Players have it or they don't.

If Paul was 6'6" and could play 2G, he'd be perfect for us. But another shooting PG on this team would be a poor call: we need someone who works very hard to make everyone else better. I believe Telfair is our man at the point.

iWatas


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Iwatas said:


> Stockton couldn't shoot well when he entered the league. He worked on it, and became a very solid shooter over time. Does anyone have his career stats (esp. from the trey)?



Here you are:

http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=STOCKJO01

Damn, he improved A LOT after his third season, I'll just let the numbers speak for themselves.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW on my hypotheitcal There is a distinct possibility that Portland would stack them like this

WIlliams, Bogut, Telfair, Paul, Green

and so on and so forth...fact is we don't know, and it's also a fact that we don't have access to what the scouts do. 

One more factor...Pauls Whiz Bang Computer contraption, who knows how they have it calibrated.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Stockton couldn't shoot well when he entered the league. He worked on it, and became a very solid shooter over time. Does anyone have his career stats (esp. from the trey)?
> 
> IMO, court vision is much harder to teach than shooting. Players have it or they don't.
> 
> If Paul was 6'6" and could play 2G, he'd be perfect for us. But another shooting PG on this team would be a poor call: we need someone who works very hard to make everyone else better. I believe Telfair is our man at the point.


but who is the shooting PG you're refering to? Going by the stats we do have, Chris Paul has shot *less* frequently then Sebastian. Statistically he has made a much higher percentage of the shots he does take though, especially from the outside. I happen to think that the ability to spread the court with a solid perimeter threat helps spread out the D, thereby helping offensive flow and benefitting everyone. As someone who has watched quite a few Wake games, I can assure you CP is no slouch as a passer either. He is no Stoudamire pounding the ball into the hardwood and only dishing as a last resort... he also averaged almost 3 steals a game. There is a lot to like about his game besides just his sweet stroke.

STOMP


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> but who is the shooting PG you're refering to? Going by the stats we do have, Chris Paul has shot *less* frequently then Sebastian. Statistically he has made a much higher percentage of the shots he does take though, especially from the outside.
> STOMP


My argument, which is developed in the thread titled "PGs", is that over thousands of games played, it is clear that shooting can be learned by guards, while playmaking by the second year is almost always as good as it gets. 

If Paul has a sweet shot, that is nice. Bassy will develop one if he works at it. But if Paul is not an assist monster, he will never be one. Check out the other thread.

iWatas


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> My argument, which is developed in the thread titled "PGs", is that over thousands of games played, it is clear that shooting can be learned by guards, while playmaking by the second year is almost always as good as it gets.
> 
> If Paul has a sweet shot, that is nice. Bassy will develop one if he works at it. But if Paul is not an assist monster, he will never be one. Check out the other thread.


I checked out the other thread, but I prefer to keep my discussions on one subject in one spot thanks. 

I think you're ignoring long lists of guys who couldn't develope an outside shot and only siting those that did. I'm pretty sure that Omar Cook has been working on his shoddy J for nearly a decade now. Over the years I can recall countless Blazers (Patterson, Miles, Wells, Kersey, ect) claiming they'd focus on their J in the offseason... we'd be given reports on the zillions of jumpers they were shooting a day only to see the same old bricks once the season started. 

Of course some guys have developed their outside shots during their NBA careers, just as some have become better at various other skills like passing, defending, rebounding... heck some guys have even grown taller during after they were drafted. It's possible for a player to improve a skill as his career moves along, but putting in the work does not make it a given to significantly improve by any means. 

STOMP


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/blazersblog/



> Draft notes
> With Sebastian Telfair already in place, PG Chris Paul refused an offer for an individual workout with the Blazers, reports the Tribune:
> “Last year, (power forwards) Al Jefferson and Kris Humphries refused to come in because we have Zach Randolph,” Nash says. “That might be the reason we have been unsuccessful” in getting Paul to visit.
> 
> ...


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I find it interesting that Nash was criticized heavily for getting Rahim when we already had Zach at power forward, yet now he is being encouraged to get Paul when we already have Telfair at point guard.


Another gem from TalkHard.....


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I love this ****!!!! This was right before I joined this place! If I had posted on this thread it would have gone like this............"Hey guys, this is my first post, well here we go. Here's a crazy idea. What if we picked this Paul kid or Williams from Illinois. Then we could trade Bassy next season to Boston! I know I'm new, but what do you think?"


----------



## dreamcloud (Aug 8, 2008)

haha, that was gold, nice find


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

It's easy to understand why I wasn't posting much at this time...


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Whenever I see that diagonal white arrow indicating I've posted in a long bumped thread, I always assume the worst. Relieved here. 

Amazing that anyone agreed with passing on Paul now. Threads like this just prove BPA.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

mook said:


> Whenever I see that diagonal white arrow indicating I've posted in a long bumped thread, I always assume the worst. Relieved here.


I know what you mean. 



> Threads like this just prove BPA.


Absolutely. Draft the very best player you can and use trades to sort it out later.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

This thread also proves that everything happens for a reason. Give us Paul over Webs and we dont end up with Roy, LMA or Oden. We would be picking 10-14 in the 06' draft.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> This thread also proves that everything happens for a reason. Give us Paul over Webs and we dont end up with Roy, LMA or Oden. We would be picking 10-14 in the 06' draft.


We might have Roy, but we wouldn't have LMA or Oden.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> This thread also proves that everything happens for a reason. Give us Paul over Webs and we dont end up with Roy, LMA or Oden. We would be picking 10-14 in the 06' draft.


Whats that reason? Are you saying God has a rooting interest in the NBA?

If Chris Paul (and lets say Linus Kleiza) had been drafted by Nash/Portland instead of Jack and Webster, would that 2005-6 team be really that much better then what turned out to be the league's worsts team that went 21-61? Here's the stats on that team. Zach played close to a full year but the other two guys who were paid to be part of the big 3 were Miles and Theo, and they were very limited by injuries. Who is the SG on this hypothetical team? Khryapa or Juan Dixon? I have a hard time believing that Portland would have been much better that year with Paul if at all... their talent level just generally sucked. 

Also, it wasn't Portland's 2006 draft position that landed them Roy and Aldridge, it was the new GM's judgement on who to go after and Patterson's ability to swing trades to get those guys. The true downside of this hypothetical of making the correct call on the 2005 draft is that Nash probably would have kept his job.

STOMP


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Whats that reason? Are you saying God has a rooting interest in the NBA?
> 
> If Chris Paul (and lets say Linus Kleiza) had been drafted by Nash/Portland instead of Jack and Webster, would that 2005-6 team be really that much better then what turned out to be the league's worsts team that went 21-61? Here's the stats on that team. Zach played close to a full year but the other two guys who were paid to be part of the big 3 were Miles and Theo, and they were very limited by injuries. Who is the SG on this hypothetical team? Khryapa or Juan Dixon? I have a hard time believing that Portland would have been much better that year with Paul if at all... their talent level just generally sucked.
> 
> ...


Didn't CP3 greatly improve the Hornets that year though? Who did they have on that team? That's actually a good question, I wonder how good the current Hornets would be without Paul. Still a contender?


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Ed O said:


> What about giving up on a player BEFORE one season?
> 
> You are disregarding Chris Paul before he's even played a game in the NBA irrespective of how good he will be.
> 
> ...


Damn. Ed O. was actually right about something.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> Damn. Ed O. was actually right about something.


Ed O is right about a lot of stuff. He has strong opinions that I don't always agree with, but he backs them up impeccably.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> Damn. Ed O. was actually right about something.


Ed O. is usually right, because he uses facts and logic. One can still get things wrong that way, since talent evaluation and predictions are never an exact science, but Ed at least starts from the right basis.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> I find it interesting that Nash was criticized heavily for getting Rahim when we already had Zach at power forward, yet now he is being encouraged to get Paul when we already have Telfair at point guard.


Life sure has a sick sense of humor dosen't it?


----------

