# Would you be willing to give up Telfair to get Ray Allen?



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Shareef and Telfair might be enough to get Allen. Telfair is the only "throw in" guy that might convince them to do it.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Otherwise you're not getting him.

On second thought, Shareef and Theo for Ray and ..... one of their bad contracts, not sure who... might do the trick.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

in a freakin' heartbeat for Telfair and SAR. 

Telfair is nice, but he's a 13th pick. he's not a deal breaker. he could work out great and live up to the John Stockton comparisons, or he could be a complete washout. 

if Telfair reached all the potential everyone seems to think he has, he'd be a top 5 NBA guard. 

Ray Allen already IS a top 5 NBA guard, with several good years ahead of him. 

this would be about like Chicago trading Elton Brand (a proven 20/10 player) for Tyson Chandler (whom they hope one day will be a 20/10 player).


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Otherwise you're not getting him.
> 
> On second thought, Shareef and Theo for Ray and ..... one of their bad contracts, not sure who... might do the trick.


nope. there's no point for either team on this deal. Seattle won't be good enough to contend, so Theo is wasted. Portland wouldn't be good enough to contend because we'd have no legit center.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

No,but both of them would really be sweet.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> in a freakin' heartbeat for Telfair and SAR.
> 
> Telfair is nice, but he's a 13th pick. he's not a deal breaker. he could work out great and live up to the John Stockton comparisons, or he could be a complete washout.
> ...


I was trying to think of scenarios where the trade could go down. They (Ray, Shareef) both have around the same contract (i think) and obviously Seattle isn't taking a straight swap... so you have to throw in some filler. Which means players under rookie contract from Portland, and a scrub from Seattle. Telfair is all you got. Otherwise, I don't see the trade happening.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> 
> 
> nope. there's no point for either team on this deal. Seattle won't be good enough to contend, so Theo is wasted. Portland wouldn't be good enough to contend because we'd have no legit center.


They'd have to include a bad contract, which means you'd probably get Potapenko. A bad center, but better than what you'd have without Theo.

I think Seattle could be competitive with this deal. I think both teams could. Seattle's biggest problems is the huge hole at center, and the lack of an experienced PF. They'd be getting both.

You'd be getting Ray Allen, a replacement for DA. Center would be a problem, but if San Antonio and Minnesota can get by with scrub centers, don't see why everyone else can't.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

No, we are a team building for the future. Ray Allen is pushing 30 years old and wants a big contract after this year. *Pass*.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

he wants a HUGE contract after this year....

Not only that, but I think Telfair could eventually be something great. Just a feeling. 

This team isn't going to win the title this year, or even next year. Why mortguage your future for maybe a second-round loss in the playoffs?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Telfair is nice, but he's a 13th pick


So? Clyde Drexler was a 14th pick, and he became one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history.

I'd say no to the trade. We drafted Telfair as high as we did because we thought so much of him. I want to see how he turns out. Ray Allen is a great shooter, but Telfair can potentially be a great point guard, and those are even rarer.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Ray Allen with the blazers would be nice , but trading Telfair no way


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

No way to the SAR and Theo trade, we would not trade Theo for Vince Carter, there is no way is is going to be considered a "throw in". As for SAR and Telfair, I could go either way on that trade. With that line up I think that the Blazers would have an outside chance of winning it all.

PG: Damon, NVE, Frahm
SG: Ray Allen, DA, Frahm
SF: Miles, Patterson, Outlaw
PF: Zach, Miles, Patterson, Theo
C: Theo, Pritz, Step

thats great at SG, PF, and C. decent at PG. SF is at least as good as PG and might get to the great level. The team is deep, mostly good natured and full of some very competitive minded people. All we would really need is a back up PF.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

if you didn't you would be insane...maybe they'd take Bowie...come one guys wake up!


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Why would Seattle want Telfair when they have Luke Rid?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

agreed... Seattle is already fairly good at PG...

I have to agree also with the above. I would not trade Telfair... he is our potential future.. you keep him, and Outlaw

Ray is over 30 and not worth mortgaging the farm to get to the 2nd round.. maybe the conf finals... (but I would love to be in the conf finals again soon)



I would stand my ground.. Rahim + Woods for Allen (yes, I am willing to part with our young SG Q now  )

If Seattle is forced to trade Allen.... then they will take a look at it... we do nto need to spice it up too much and give away Theo as well, or Zach

personally I would still want to get Redd over Allen now... much younger, more athletic, and not injured as of yet


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

I'd trade SAR for Allen, because SAR is a 3rd wheel on this team.

I'd trade Telfair for Allen, but only if Allen would play for Telfair's current salary.

If you can't tell, I'm not real excited about having Allen's declining talent and ego holding this team back.

Since Seattle clearly thinks the world of him, they should keep him.


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MARIS61</b>!
> I'd trade SAR for Allen, because SAR is a 3rd wheel on this team.
> 
> I'd trade Telfair for Allen, but only if Allen would play for Telfair's current salary.
> ...


AMEN!


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> if you didn't you would be insane


That's for sure. This isn't LeBron James we're talking about here. Sebastian Telfair is a mid-first-rounder who hasn't proven squat in the league, Ray Allen is a legitimate Top 20 player in his prime. I've never understood the obsession some fans have with "the future." Their team is average or worse, but they're convinced it will be awesome four years down the road. Clippers fans or Wizards fans do that all the time. When it gets to the point that you're not willing to trade an average prospect for a guy who would improve your record by 10-15 games, you're as bad as most Clippers fans.

Worry about the present in the present, worry about the future in the future.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> That's for sure. This isn't LeBron James we're talking about here. Sebastian Telfair is a mid-first-rounder who hasn't proven squat in the league, Ray Allen is a legitimate Top 20 player in his prime. I've never understood the obsession some fans have with "the future." Their team is average or worse, but they're convinced it will be awesome four years down the road. Clippers fans or Wizards fans do that all the time. When it gets to the point that you're not willing to trade an average prospect for a guy who would improve your record by 10-15 games, you're as bad as most Clippers fans.
> ...


Vlade Divac for Kobe Bryant?


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> Vlade Divac for Kobe Bryant?


Hasty Generalization.

Snap.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Actually, if my conclusion had been that taking the guy for the future is always better than taking the guy for the present, then it would have been hasty generalization. But my implied conclusion was that taking the guy for the future is sometimes better than the guy for the present (since you implied taking the guy for the present was the better choice). In this case, one example is all that was needed.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

If that was your only point, it was a pretty boring one. Any general principle is going to be wrong some of the time. I don't feel the need to write "There's a chance I'll be wrong" at the end of every post, because it just goes without saying.

Examples aside, I'm quite confident that the vast majority of the time, a 29-year-old perennial all-star will accomplish more during the remainder of his NBA career than a rookie drafted in the early teens. That's why Portland would be insane to pass up this trade, especially when the perennial all-star would fill their biggest hole.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

The only thing that would really hold me back from this deal is the fact that Ray wants a huge contract... if he decides to bolt if we don't ante up the $100,000,000 contract, then what are we left with? There's a difference between saying that we should think about winning now and crippling the team financially for the next half decade.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

NO


Let me repeat that again

NO


Why? Is Ray Allen going to lead POR to the promised land? I think not. He has lead better teams nowhere too, remember? He also is reaching that "dangerous" age, you know, the time when players begin their inevitable decline. The problem is, he want a MAX level deal leading well into theis time and beyond. Can you say "anchor" on your salary cap? Why do you think SEA is reluctant to give him that money? They may be cheap (and they are), but they aren't stupid...well....THAT stupid.

Besides, why would SEA want Telfair when they have Ridnour? What sense does that make?

Telfair is here to stay....for now.


----------



## PoorPoorSonics (Mar 20, 2004)

You are a team building for the future and Ray Allen is too old??

Nice to see your important center, Ratliff, is two years older than Allen, and isnt exactly an iron man himself.

If Allen asking for a big contract extension is an ego problem you have your hands full with SAR the crybaby proven loser and the criminal, wants a max extension Randolph.

Yes, its so obvious though that Allen is declining, that all-star spot and olympic invite are great indicators of that.

Seriously, how is Ray too old, when your center you are so high on is two years older?

P.S. Seattle doesnt want your garbage in Woods or SAR.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Last time I checked, older centers are more effective than older swing players. Just look what has happened to Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, Gary Payton and Allen Housten in there latter days. I think there decline was pretty rapid and quite ugly. Allen will ALWAYS be a great shooter, but his effectiveness WILL wane as he gets older, the question is WHEN will it start and how rapid of a decline will it be? and also would a team like POR be able to capitalize on Ray Allen's presence (ie compete for an NBA title) in the few years before that INEVITABLE decline begins? I don't think we would. I love Ray Allen's game, but he isn't worth a max contract either and that is what he wants, and he also IMO isn't I good enough to make POR a championship caliber team in the short term.

As for aging centers, I'd rather have Theo Ratliff at age 34 than Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, Gary Payton or Allen Housten. A center CAN still be effective as they get older, a swing player struggle more IMO. I think we have seen that time and time again. Not to mention a good center, even an "older" one is FAR more valuable than an "older" swing player to begin with, unless that players name is Jordan.

As for "our" garbage, you ought to take a look at the players that bottom dwelling roster of yours has on it before you go around calling other teams players garbage. 

Pot meet Kettle.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

In some cases you'd be right, trading a "prospect" for a proven player is usually a good idea. But Portland has been burned before. 

Need I remind some of you about a guy named Jermaine O'Neal?

Sure, you can say Theo is older than Ray, but Theo isn't exactly commanding a max contract now is he?

Fact is, we didn't have to mortguage our future in order to get Theo. 

If we had to deal Sebastian to get Ray Allen, a guy who is on the downside of his career, it could really hurt us three years from now.

In some cases it IS stupid to hope for the best, and stick with your prospects, but not on this team.

Some of our best players are under 25. (Zach Randolph, Darius Miles, Telfair, Travis Outlaw).

On another note, have you ever even seen Telfair play? If not, I'd ask that you hold judgement until you've seen what the kid can do....


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I don't really like the idea of trading SAR for Allen straight up so I definitely wouldn't add anything to get a deal done. I think you find out that SAR will be very valuable to the Blazers this year.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

oh I'd do SAR for Allen straight up... in a heart beat..... But "throwing in" a player like Telfair or Outlaw sours me on the idea.

Keeping SAR on this team is a dumb idea. He doesn't fit. He wants to start, but we don't have a spot for him. Think he's going to be happy coming off the bench for the entire season? Probably not....

If a deal comes along that helps the team, Nash should pull the trigger.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Telfair is only a #13 pick because of the Blazers. For comparison the Suns had ranked him #21 on the entire board behind several guys who fell to the 2nd round and just ahead of Romain Sato.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

What does his draft status have to do with anything? The only thing about being picked #13 that's important now is how much money it entitles Telfair. That's it. 

Need I remind you of how many good players have been taken in the late first round? Heck, we've got one of them on our team. Zach Randolph. 

I've watched this kid in practice, in the summer league, and in the locker room. He has "it". He may never amount to anything, but his potential is far too great to pass up on. In 10 years we will be able to honestly judge whether this guy was "worth" the 13th pick...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> What does his draft status have to do with anything? The only thing about being picked #13 that's important now is how much money it entitles Telfair. That's it.


I disagree. It shows what value he had a mere 5 months ago. No team in the top 12 was willing to draft him there, and Portland didn't trade up to get him... they were willing to wait until the 13th pick. At least one team has gone on record (Utah) as saying they would not have taken him with two later picks.

On the court, draft status rarely has anything to do with anything (although a top first round pick often gets more opportunities than a second rounder, even if they're playing at similar levels) but ignoring recent draft position when trying to determine a players' value doesn't make sense.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> Keeping SAR on this team is a dumb idea. He doesn't fit. He wants to start, but we don't have a spot for him. Think he's going to be happy coming off the bench for the entire season? Probably not....
> 
> If a deal comes along that helps the team, Nash should pull the trigger.


I disagree. The team has already indicated that it will start SAR at the 3 at the beginning of the season. Regardless, he will likely play about 30 mins per game. If the team wins then he will be happy. I believe Shareef is the type of person who will work hard even if the situation isn't ideal to him. By keeping Shareef the Blazers will have a definitive advantage in the front court with size and depth. I think we should play to that strength.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

The team never indicated that SAR was the starting small forward, SAR said that the team indicated to him in the offseason that he was probably going to be the starting small forward.

Fact is, Miles is much better for this team at that position. Even if Abdur-Rahim wins the starting spot, it's only a matter of time before Miles takes it back.

AND, if Reef IS the starting small forward, it's ONLY because the team is shopping him. 

Also, keeping Abdur-Rahim in the locker room when he's unhappy is a bad idea. You guys haven't seen how he acts after games where he's only played 15-20 minutes. That kind of attitude can be like cancer to a younger team.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Ed,

A lot has happened in those five months. Telfair opened a lot of eyes in the summer league. I don't think his value is at the same level as it was before or during the draft.

Also, the fact that Bassy was taken 13th may not mean he had value around the league, but it DOES show how much the Blazers think of him. The mere fact that they WOULD use a lottery pick on him says that they value him greatly.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Those of you who wouldn't trade Sebastian Telfair for Ray Allen because the Blazers are "building for the future," does that mean you'd like to trade Theo Ratliff for Robert Swift or Al Jefferson? If not, is it because you think Ratliff is better than Allen?



> oh I'd do SAR for Allen straight up... in a heart beat..... But "throwing in" a player like Telfair or Outlaw sours me on the idea.


Travis Outlaw? Goodness gracious.



> I disagree. It shows what value he had a mere 5 months ago. No team in the top 12 was willing to draft him there, and Portland didn't trade up to get him... they were willing to wait until the 13th pick. At least one team has gone on record (Utah) as saying they would not have taken him with two later picks.
> 
> On the court, draft status rarely has anything to do with anything (although a top first round pick often gets more opportunities than a second rounder, even if they're playing at similar levels) but ignoring recent draft position when trying to determine a players' value doesn't make sense.


Bingo. All 30 NBA management teams, who are full of people who know a lot more about talent evaluation than any of us, spent years looking at these prospects over and over again. When it came time to rank them, the management teams rated Sebastian Telfair as the 13th best player in the draft class. That shows the value they put on him.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

1. The Sonics already have a young talented up and coming point in Luke. Telfair wouldn't seem to project to play well with him at all.

2. Seattle's biggest need, by far IMO, is at 5. If they are to trade their best player, thats probably what they'll want back. Unless Joel shows a whole lot more the first few months of this season then he has so far in his career (which whould be OK by me  ), I doubt that Portland will be looking to part with what they'll want.

3. The two clubs are in the same division.

1+2+3= nope

STOMP


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Your Ratliff analogy doesn't work. Theo for just Al Jefferson or Swift isn't the same as Reef and Telfair for Ray Allen.

It would be more like Gary Payton (and I'm not saying we should get Payton) and Jefferson for Ratliff or Reef.

I also think you are forgetting that being drafted #13 doesn't necessarily mean you're the 13th best player in the draft, it could mean the 12 teams picking ahead of Portland either didn't need a point guard, or picked another point guard ahead of him. So.... a much better guage would be how many point guards were taken ahead of him. Ben Gordon, Shaun Livingston, and Devin Harris.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Ben Gordon, Shaun Livingston, and Devin Harris.


Good point Nate, and you can BET that one of those three guys you mentioned will be a relative BUST in the NBA, and they were all HIGH lottery picks. Where ONE particular team rates a player on their board means JACK. 

Was Zach Randolph the 17th best player in the draft?

Was Jermaine O'Neal the 19th player in the draft?

I think not. Draft position means nothing, performance on the floor is ALL that matters. Telfair's play ON the court these next few seasons will dtermine whether ot not he warranted the 13th pick, the 20th pick, the 5th pick or none at all. Only THAT is the true barometer of his "draft position". You would think people here would know that.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

history certainly doesn't show that draft position means nothing. I remember reading a great article some time ago that a top 5 pick stands an 80% chance of being an NBA-starter, a 6-10 pick a 60%, a 11-15 pick a 40%, etc. (I may be off some, but you get the idea.)

again, Ray Allen is a top 5 NBA guard RIGHT NOW. if everything works out perfectly, Telfair MIGHT be on that level in 5 years. he also might be a total bust. he might be a total jerk. or he might never develop three point range and become another Rod Strickland-type. 

Allen may only have three or four years left of being that good, but I'll gladly take the sure thing over the (all-too-common) upside project.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> Ben Gordon, Shaun Livingston, and Devin Harris.


I don't think this helps your argument. every year there are maybe one or two decent PG's in the draft. 

this shows he was generally viewed as the fourth best PG in the draft. 

don't get me wrong. you've seen him play and I haven't, so you've obviously got some credibility on this issue that I don't. 

I just remember only 6 or so months ago a lot of reporters getting excited about Omar Cook's passing, based mostly on practices. when your starting PG is Damon, it's easy to get excited about the court vision of whomever he's up against.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

If you wouldn't trade Telfair for Allen, that means you think Telfair is going to be a top 15 player in the league one day? Thats the best case scenario for Telfair, and Allen already is that. Theres really no question that Telfair for Allen is a pretty lobsided deal that rips off the Sonics in a bad way.


----------



## PoorPoorSonics (Mar 20, 2004)

I never claimed the entire Sonics roster was great. Fact is I have no interest in your crap...like SAR or Woods, and Im sure you have no interest in Seattles crap...we have plenty of it.
BUT, we arent talking about crap we are talking about Allen.

As far as Telfair, have no desire to add him either. Would much rather hang on to Ridnour and let him develop.

Also, saying Allen is on the downside of his career, is just ridiculous. He was an all-star last year and an olympic invitee.

Also your comparison of Allen to people like Payton, Houston, Richmond etc... that has nothing to do with Allen as a player.

There are plenty of guards that have played long successful careers and plenty of centers that have declined rapidly...last I checked it was pretty common for big guys to have knee problems...Sabonis?--Ewing declined pretty quick, so did Hakeem...dont remember seeing crap from him later in his career once he went to the Raptors.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> If you wouldn't trade Telfair for Allen, that means you think Telfair is going to be a top 15 player in the league one day? Thats the best case scenario for Telfair, and Allen already is that. Theres really no question that Telfair for Allen is a pretty lobsided deal that rips off the Sonics in a bad way.


First of all, the deal would include SAR, as well, who would become the Sonics' best player after the deal.

Secondly, Ray Allen probably doesn't have many more years of top-15 play in him, and there's almost a certainty that he'll never become a top-10 or -5 player. With Telfair, he might become a top 15 player, but Portland would enjoy cheap rookie contract years as he ascended to that, and they'd be in a position to capture all of his top seasons--and there's always a chance he might mature into a top-5 or -10 player in the NBA.

Obviously, there's the downside that he never would even become a starting-caliber PG, and there's the other factors (including Luke Ridnour, intra-division rivalry status, etc.) that make a deal between these two teams, especially involving Telfair, very unlikely.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> The team never indicated that SAR was the starting small forward, SAR said that the team indicated to him in the offseason that he was probably going to be the starting small forward.
> 
> Fact is, Miles is much better for this team at that position. Even if Abdur-Rahim wins the starting spot, it's only a matter of time before Miles takes it back.
> ...


At this time all indications are that Reef would play 25-30 minutes per game, not 15-20. I believe SAR would be happy in that role...especially if we're winning.

If SAR is starting at the 3 and the team is winning he will stay there. Whether they start shopping him hard or not depends on the team's performance.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm baffled by the amount of fans who won't give up Telfair and SAR for Ray Allen. It honestly amazes me. I also love the fans saying they'll give up SAR for Allen straight up like that has any sort of chance of happening. SAR and Telfair for Ray Allen is _more_ than fair for Portland, I don't think there's any question about it. This is just another case of young players being overrated by their fans like they're automatically going to be great players one day because they were a mid-first round pick.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I am baffled that so many fans don't understand the financial implications that aquiring a guy like Ray Allen would carry. The guy is expecting a $100 million contract... that would pay him an insane amount of money at the ages of 35-36. Perhaps some of you don't remember that we are in this whole situation because of the contracts we took on (Stouds, Kemp, Patterson, etc. etc.). As much as I'd love to get Ray Allen, I just don't see him bringing us a title in the window of talent he has left.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Was Zach Randolph the 17th best player in the draft?
> 
> Was Jermaine O'Neal the 19th player in the draft?


and another example.. was Clyde Drexler the 16th? best player in the draft (I think he was 16th pick.. too lazy to look it up)

apparently not... he is regarded as one of the top 50 players of all time


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Examples like Clyde Drexler, Jermaine, and Zach are totally irrelevant.

Nobody's saying that Telfair cannot evolve into a good or even great player... great players are drafted all over on draft day.

There are two pretty strong, pretty clear points, though, that have to do with what we're talking about:

1. The chances of a low-lottery pick like Telfair doing it, though, are reduced based on where he's selected, and

2. At least 12 teams weren't interested in selecting Telfair with their first pick at the draft, which was less than 6 months ago. That's almost half the league that didn't see him as being a great player, and points to him having less current value than many of the guys from his draft class.

People pointing to Drexler, Jermaine, and Zach are essentially citing examples where they've flipped 8 heads out of 10 coin tosses... it doesn't mean that you didn't flip 8 heads out of 10 (or maybe even 8 in a row), but it does mean that exceptions don't define the rules.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Examples like Clyde Drexler, Jermaine, and Zach are totally irrelevant.


Um...Yes IMO, they are Ed. You are saying that b\c Telfair was the 13th pick, or even better, that b\c in YOUR opinion he should have been (or was allegedly projected by other teams to have been) a pick in the 20's that somehow six months later this lessens or marginalizes his trade value. I find that to be overgeneralizing his trade value, b\c his trade value is really in the eye of the beholder, is it not? Maybe POR holds him as the best or 2nd best PG in the draft? Maybe to POR he was their 3rd or 4th highest rated guy? Maybe to POR he was their #1 guy all along? The same could be said to practically any team. How do we REALLY know how highly EACH team rated Telfair? The answere is....we don't.

I think the NBA draft is just a tad more complicated a matter than he was selected 13th, so 12 other teams were not interested in him, or those teams "did not see him as a great player". Maybe they did, maybe they liked another player better, maybe they opted to address a need..cough...TOR..cough...instead. Maybe like POR allegedly did with Jefferson, they had two guys rated equal and chose a position of need 1st. The reality is we will never know, b\c teams RARELY tell the truth over whom they liked and whom they would have selected, and their corresponding choices based on different scenarios are mind boggling.

The bottom line, as I said before, will ultimately be based on Telfair's play ON THE COURT. That will, in large part, determine whether or not he was worth being selected at #13, and in turn be a major factor in determining his relative trade value. As of now, he is just another rookie, and IMO I don't think POR would or should (nor do I think SEA would be interested...which makes this whole conversation moot IMO) trade Telfair, along with SAR for Allen.



> SAR and Telfair for Ray Allen is more than fair for Portland, I don't think there's any question about it. This is just another case of young players being overrated by their fans like they're automatically going to be great players one day because they were a mid-first round pick.


Well Nash has been PRETTY CLEAR that he doesn't think SAR is worth as little as YOU think he is, nor does he think Telfair is just another mid-first round pick. He thinks Telfair is going to be a very good\great PG in the future, and many other experts\coaches & GM's agree with him. I have no idea whether he thinks SAR straight up for Allen is a fair deal, but if he didn't, you can bet he would offer up another player before he would offer up Telfair. Besides, if Telfair is no good or overated like some of you claim, then why would SEA want him anyway? Not to mention with having Ridnour they wouldn't. SAR and another young (Monia, Khryapa?,Outlaw?) player? Yeah, I think Nash would do that, but I don't think, at present time SEA would.

Lastly, SEA fans can try and downplay the age and contract issue of Allen all they want, but it IS a negative factor in acquiring Allen. Particularly the two combined together. How much gas does he have left in the tank? b\c if POR did make such a trade and signed Allen to the max deal he wanted, then they are practically "locked in" to the team they have now, & I am not convinced that even with Allen, POR would be good enough to win a title.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I'll say it again... To those that doubt Telfair's value, have you ever even seen him play?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> I'll say it again... To those that doubt Telfair's value, have you ever even seen him play?


I've seen him play, absolutely. What does that matter, really?

Unless you've seen every other player in the NBA play since Telfair is drafted, then you're relying on (a) statistics, (b) second-hand reports, and/or (c) other history.

Look at it this way: if I look at one color picture and then a bunch of black and white ones, can I know for sure that the color picture contains a photo subject that is more colorful than what's represented in the other pictures? Obviously not.

Similarly, just because you've seen Telfair more than I've seen him (and I'm sure you have; I've only seen him in a handful of prep games and prep all-star games and the summer league game that was broadcast) doesn't mean you're in a better position to judge him _relative to players on other teams_ unless you've seen all of those players in person in the same time period, as well.

Added in an edit: 

With most players, you'd have previous play to compare a current sample to, and then you could reference the "new" player to the value of his old self. An example might be Derek Anderson: if he's stronger and shooting better and healthier than he was last year, then he should be worth "more" than he was last year.

With Telfair, we have no in-person track record to compare it to (except his draft position, which is determined primarily by scouting) so how well or poorly he's performed in practices just doesn't have much relevance to his current value.

Once he starts contributing in games, or if he has an extended period of excellence in practice (like Jermaine had, for example) I could see his value being increased. But at this point? It's too speculative for teams to be willing to pay more for him because of a couple of good weeks.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> Um...Yes IMO, they are Ed. You are saying that b\c Telfair was the 13th pick, or even better, that b\c in YOUR opinion he should have been (or was allegedly projected by other teams to have been) a pick in the 20's that somehow six months later this lessens or marginalizes his trade value. I find that to be overgeneralizing his trade value, b\c his trade value is really in the eye of the beholder, is it not? Maybe POR holds him as the best or 2nd best PG in the draft? Maybe to POR he was their 3rd or 4th highest rated guy? Maybe to POR he was their #1 guy all along? The same could be said to practically any team. How do we REALLY know how highly EACH team rated Telfair? The answere is....we don't.


First of all: my willingness to gamble on letting Telfair slip to 22 (or, rather, my willingness to gamble on acquiring him at lower than 13, since Portland still was in a good position to trade up or to trade down and didn't have to rely on waiting until 22) has NOTHING to do with my position here. Telfair could have been, in my mind, the biggest steal in history at the #13 pick and my analysis at this point would remain the same. You attributing my previous opinion to this discussion is either sloppy or disingenuous on your part.

Secondly: your willingness to ascribe outlier status to every pick (saying that every player selected might have been that team's top pick) spoils, IMO, any position you might take on the subject.

It's not necessary to attribute a specific value for every team to any player to know his general value, and if you are taking the position that it is then you've essentially got a bulletproof way to "disprove" any trade idea, but you've also made it impossible to reasonably speculate with you.

Ed O.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Good posts Ed O.

About the "I've watched Sebastian play a whole bunch and I'm sure he's awesome" argument: Sebastian falling to 13th in the draft tells us something about what NBA scouts and general managers think of him. The opinion of scouts and GM's holds more weight with me than the opinion of a guy who goes to Blazers scrimmages. Nate, I don't trust your player evaluation skills enough to decide that Sebastian should have been drafted higher just because you say he looked good in scrimmages. That isn't a slam on you, because there probably aren't any posters on this website whose player evaluation skills I trust more than those of scouts and GM's.

So when Sebastian Telfair is drafted 13th, and no meaningful NBA games have been played since the draft, I think it's logical to value him somewhere around the 13th best prospect in his draft class. At this point, rating him much higher than that is being a homer.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Actually I wasn't talking to you Ed. I was talking to Hobojoe... Fact is, if you've never seen Telfair play, it's kind of hard to judge his talent level. Yes, you have a point, it would be hard to judge Telfair in relation to Ray Allen, but that's not my point. MY point is that it's stupid to make judgement on a player unless you've had a chance to actually watch him.

I've watched a lot of basketball in my life. I've seen high school players, and how they act in their first year of NBA basketball. In my professional opinion, I think this kid has a bright future. Does that mean it's going to happen? No... But that's my opinion. 

Man this thread has gotten down to symantics... In debate this is called the "meta debate". Not discussing the actual topic, but discussing HOW you discuss the topic.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> MY point is that it's stupid to make judgement on a player unless you've had a chance to actually watch him.


The only person who has judged Telfair is you. I still haven't judged him, because I don't judge high school players until they've been in the NBA for at least three years. I'm just saying that his draft position gives us an idea (the best idea we can have, at this point in time) of his chances at being a star in the NBA, and those chances are small enough that he's much less valuable than Ray Allen. I think that's what hobojoe is saying, too.

If it's stupid to judge a player when you haven't seen him play, I don't think it's much better to judge him when all you've seen of him is some high school games, summer league games, and practices.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I don't understand why you guys keep saying Telfair for Ray Allen.... The deal was never Telfair for Ray Allen. The deal was Reef and Telfair for Ray Allen.

And the original problem was that it would be stupid to "throw in" Telfair to get Ray Allen. Not that Telfair wasn't worth Ray Allen, but that it would be foolish to add a guy who has so much potential. 

I just think there are so many factors that go into the draft, that using his eventual selection at #13 as an indicator of his value is foolish.

Of those 12 teams that picked before Portland, how many needed point guards? How many were willing to take a risk on a high school player? How many wanted to go with the best available athlete? Were they scared away by his size? If Telfair was the same height as Shaun Livingston, would HE be in Los Angeles instead of Livingston? Does that mean Livingston is a better player, or is he just taller? 

There are so many factors... Do you really think scouts or GM's know whether a player will be good or not? They can make educated guesses, just like I'm making an educated guess. Is my educated guess even 1/10th as good as theirs? No way... Does that mean theirs is right and mine is wrong? No...

How did the Blazers pass on Michael Jordan? How many teams thought Amare Stoudemire would be this good, this fast? 

All we have are our opinions. Mine is that Telfair is going to be good.

And my question wasn't meant to be a slap in the face, it was to see if you had seen the kid play. If you haven't, I would only hope that you would watch him in action before judging him.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

I'm with Nate on this one. Trading for a 30 year old SG who's going to want a $100 million contract after his season is a BAD idea. Similar to the Allan Houston situation, as years pass his play on the court declined while his salary went up. He has one of the (if not the most) un-moveable contracts in the NBA. Seattle can keep Ray-Ray for all I care.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

why do so many seem to assume that Ray Allen will indeed receive a $100 million contract this summer? as has been mentioned, the last 30+ year old SG to receive such a deal was Allen Houston, and almost everybody viewed it as a collosal blunder the day it happened. happened to be committed by New York, a franchise that seemed to have cornered the market on collosal blunders around that time. 

Allen may be asking for such a deal, but there's virtually no chance he's going to get it. no team with that much cap room is going to squander it on somebody that old. Cap room is just too hard to come by anymore to waste it so wantonly. 

if we trade for him, won't we be able to match other teams' offers for him? if so, he'll likely rate a 4 or 5 year deal averaging around $11 per year. that sounds fine to me. 

incidentally, from a Blazer perspective I view this more as a Telfair for Allen deal, with SAR thrown in. not the other way around. not that it matters that much.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I'm with Nate on this one. Trading for a 30 year old SG who's going to want a $100 million contract after his season is a BAD idea. Similar to the Allan Houston situation, as years pass his play on the court declined while his salary went up. He has one of the (if not the most) un-moveable contracts in the NBA. Seattle can keep Ray-Ray for all I care.


Well said...



> incidentally, from a Blazer perspective I view this more as a Telfair for Allen deal, with SAR thrown in. not the other way around. not that it matters that much.


That is why, IMO, this whole discussion makes little sense. Why would SEA, ask for Telfair over other prospects like: Monia, Khryapa, Outlaw or a future pick, when they have Luke Ridnour on their team, whom THEY spent a lottery pick on last year? It makes ZERO sense. Furthermore, I disagree that SAR is a mere throw in, he would be a tremendous upgrade at PF for SEA.



> I'm just saying that his draft position gives us an idea (the best idea we can have, at this point in time) of his chances at being a star in the NBA


Actually, that is not true at all. That is a big misnomer IMO. NBA draft history is full of players who were far better\worse players than their draft position indicated. Furthermore, it is EACH GM's perception of that players worth that matters FAR MORE than what postiion they were drafted at. GM's don't look at players and go "Well, he was the 13th pick, so I can place "X" value on him". That is just plain silly. EACH GM looks at EACH player and takes into account a MYRIAD of factors when looking whether to acquire a relatively unproven (at this point) player. It is just not as simple as you & others have stated.



> So when Sebastian Telfair is drafted 13th, and no meaningful NBA games have been played since the draft, I think it's logical to value him somewhere around the 13th best prospect in his draft class. At this point, rating him much higher than that is being a homer.


Well then I guess Nash is a homer then :grinning: b\c you can bet he didn't think Telfair was the 13th best prospect in the draft & I am willing to bet that several GM's thought he was better than the 13th best player as well. You are speaking in terms of a general consensus, and individual GM's don't place value on a player based on a general consensus, they have their own subjective value that they base their decisions on. 



> It's not necessary to attribute a specific value for every team to any player to know his general value, and if you are taking the position that it is then you've essentially got a bulletproof way to "disprove" any trade idea, but you've also made it impossible to reasonably speculate with you.


Well you & I disagree then, b\c IMO every GM does exactly that (placing a specific value for every player) before, during & after a draft. What the Toronto GM thinks of Telfair, may be far different from what the Clippers GM thinks of him, etc... Each team has a "big board" of players based on their own subjective ratings, and other factors can effect this or become the "deciding factor" for a team leaning one way or another, when it comes time to make their pick, or in this case deciding to make a trade for that player. 

What I was saying, is pretty much what I stated above. That you cannot place an arbitrary value on a guy selected at #13, b\c EACH GM will have their own value that they place on that particular player (in this case Telfair). Maybe some GM's think he is worth very little, others may value him more. I am not trying to "bulletproof" my arguement here either, I am merely stating that the nature of a players value is a little more complex than you and others have stated. That isn't being as homer, it is being realistic about how the NBA works.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> That is why, IMO, this whole discussion makes little sense. Why would SEA, ask for Telfair over other prospects like: Monia, Khryapa, Outlaw or a future pick, when they have Luke Ridnour on their team, whom THEY spent a lottery pick on last year? It makes ZERO sense. Furthermore, I disagree that SAR is a mere throw in, he would be a tremendous upgrade at PF for SEA.


I think you've got a great point there. the thread title specifically asks "would you be willing to give up Telfair to get Ray Allen." which is the question I answered, but it's not the optimal deal for either team. 

however, a more relevant question might be, "would you be willing to give up both of the Russkies (or Outlaw and Woods) and SAR to get Ray Allen?" 

again, I'd say yes. that deal makes much more sense for both teams. we've got way too much depth at SF, and this would clear up most of it.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Going back to those stupid examples people somehow think are relevant:

What exactly do Jermaine O'Neal, Zach Randolph or anyone else drafted lower than they should have to do with this? Honestly. I'll use that logic for a second here just to show you how incredibly stupid it is; I don't think the Blazers should trade Ha Seung-Jin and a filler for Vince Carter. Jin was a second rounder, look at what Carlos Boozer's done as a second rounder. Or even moreso, Ben Wallace was undrafted. Ha Seung-Jin should not be traded, he could be a *great* player!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

That is garbage Hobojoe....

Certainly you cannot deny that Nash (in particular) or other GM's for that matter, may assign differing degrees of worth (via his worth in trade) to Telfair? Heck, GM's do that all the time.

At NO TIME did I state that Telfair was worth Allen in trade, nor did I take it to your proposterously extreme example of Jin for Carter. However, I do think, & believe that Nash's thinks as well, that Telfair is going to be a good\very good player who is worth more than essentially a throw in to this deal. I think Nash places far more value on Telfair than you do, as for other GM's, I think they are across the board on Telfair. With some thinking his value lower, and some higher than many here think.

I think it is very presumptious to think that there is only one assigned value to Telfair's trade value.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> That is garbage Hobojoe....
> 
> Certainly you cannot deny that Nash (in particular) or other GM's for that matter, may assign differing degrees of worth (via his worth in trade) to Telfair? Heck, GM's do that all the time.
> ...


First off, when did I mention your name, quote you, or even imply I was addressing you? I have no idea why you're getting so defensive, I wasn't really even addressing you. Obviously Jin for Carter is proposterous, but that's my point entirely. Using the logic of, "well Jermaine O'Neal and Zach Randolph were picked in the teens, therefore everyone picked in the teens has a ton of value because they could be great" is equally proposterous, that's my point.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

the argument was never that Telfair would be good because he was picked in the teens, it's that using the draft as an indication of talent is wrong.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

*Talking about Telfair and his being drafted at #13....*



> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> What does his draft status have to do with anything? The only thing about being picked #13 that's important now is how much money it entitles Telfair. That's it.


Although postion in the draft does determine the $ according to the CBA. There are other factors. I believe its team need. Although in theory it does nto always work, as I will mention later on.




> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I disagree. *It shows what value he had a mere 5 months ago. No team in the top 12 was willing to draft him there, and Portland didn't trade up to get him... they were willing to wait until the 13th pick. At least one team has gone on record (Utah) as saying they would not have taken him with two later picks.*
> 
> On the court, draft status rarely has anything to do with anything (although a top first round pick often gets more opportunities than a second rounder, even if they're playing at similar levels) but ignoring recent draft position when trying to determine a players' value doesn't make sense.
> ...



Although I do agree witt his. Its still a roll of the dice. You are drafting on potential. Scouts, GM's, Coaches, owners spends countless hours each and every year looking at players. But at the time of the draft its still a crap shoot at best. You roll the dice. Sometimes you win.... many times you loose. 

I suspect this is the very reason abandoning the draft it has been talked about!




> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> Was Zach Randolph the 17th best player in the draft?
> 
> Was Jermaine O'Neal the 19th player in the draft?
> ...





> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> *First of all, the deal would include SAR, as well, who would become the Sonics' best player after the deal.*
> 
> Secondly, Ray Allen probably doesn't have many more years of top-15 play in him, and there's almost a certainty that he'll never become a top-10 or -5 player. With Telfair, he might become a top 15 player, but Portland would enjoy cheap rookie contract years as he ascended to that, and they'd be in a position to capture all of his top seasons--and there's always a chance he might mature into a top-5 or -10 player in the NBA.
> Ed O.


One of the main topics talked about is.. Rahim + Telfair for Ray

My position.. hold tight, we can afford to wait it out.. Rahim + (maybe Woods.. no to Viktor or Sergai... "they have the P word) for Ray or nothing... Ray is demanding big $.... Rahim is not... If Rahim walks at the end of the season and goes elsewhere... then .. oh well.... I hope we get good value for him in a trade..... I also hope he gets 6th man of the year and possible resigns.. but that is an experiment that will take 7-9 months to find out. He is a very proven and talented player. Will he work out for us :whoknows:




> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> and another example.. was Clyde Drexler the 16th? best player in the draft (I think he was 16th pick.. too lazy to look it up)
> 
> apparently not... he is regarded as one of the top 50 players of all time


My point in bringing up Clyde (its not stupid BTW Hobojoe), is that a players value is really only relevant to the team drafting him at the time, as Ed points out. Its all about potential, as others talk about here. In Clyde's case... many teams passed on him, many thought he might drop lower, some (US) may have thought he would be an eventual star in the league. I doubt we really knew he would be a top 50 player in the NBA. But I reacall we were very high on him.

How does this parallel Telfair? its called potential. Just like Clyde had potential.. so does Telfair. It does not matter if he was 13 or 16 or 22. Only time will tell. He met our need at #13... we may have been able to grab Jefferson and grab him 1-2 spots later. But that was risky. So we nabbed him at #13. Contraty to what others think.. the Blazer brass thought he best fit our needs and warranted the pick... where we were drafting, which just happend to be at #13.... As some make an example. Others were rumored to want him in the next few picks.

This is far from a stupid example, and it follows the conversation in the thread. Just look at the other posts here.





> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> *Examples like Clyde Drexler, Jermaine, and Zach are totally irrelevant.*
> 
> Nobody's saying that Telfair cannot evolve into a good or even great player... *great players are drafted all over on draft day.*
> ...


It was relevant... see above

What are you doing here Ed??? I do not think I am totally missing the conversation here.. why are you talking about coin flips? 

If I have missed your point kindly spell it out to me so I will not make any more stupid examples for others. Clyde at #16 seems liek a very relevant example to me... just not you and Hobojoe




> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> ... *NBA draft history is full of players who were far better\worse players than their draft position indicated. *Furthermore, it is EACH GM's perception of that players worth that matters FAR MORE than what postiion they were drafted at. GM's don't look at players and go "Well, he was the 13th pick, so I can place "X" value on him". That is just plain silly. EACH GM looks at EACH player and takes into account a MYRIAD of factors when looking whether to acquire a relatively unproven (at this point) player. It is just not as simple as you & others have stated.
> 
> ...
> ...


I pretty much agree with KMurph here. But want to add. There are many many reasons why a club picks a player.... Most are picked on need for the team. But as many posters remind us each year around draft time, its usually always the best player available that is picked regardless of our team need.





> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> Going back to those *stupid examples people* somehow think are relevant:
> 
> What exactly do Jermaine O'Neal, Zach Randolph or anyone else drafted lower than they should have to do with this? Honestly. I'll use that logic for a second here just to show you how incredibly stupid it is; I don't think the Blazers should trade Ha Seung-Jin and a filler for Vince Carter. Jin was a second rounder, look at what Carlos Boozer's done as a second rounder. Or even moreso, Ben Wallace was undrafted. Ha Seung-Jin should not be traded, he could be a *great* player!


your a moderator... and you call our posts stupid examples????
I expect more from a moderator than this.

Maybe you need to read this thread? 


Referring to KMurph


> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe</b>!
> *First off, when did I mention your name, quote you, or even imply I was addressing you? I have no idea why you're getting so defensive, I wasn't really even addressing you. * Obviously Jin for Carter is proposterous, but that's my point entirely. Using the logic of, "well Jermaine O'Neal and Zach Randolph were picked in the teens, therefore everyone picked in the teens has a ton of value because they could be great" is equally proposterous, that's my point.


:whoknows: See below.

Your Jin for Carter trade idea is not what he was referring to when he cited his examples.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> First off, when did I mention your name, quote you, or even imply I was addressing you?


I posted this....



> Was Zach Randolph the 17th best player in the draft?
> 
> Was Jermaine O'Neal the 19th player in the draft?
> 
> I think not. Draft position means nothing, performance on the floor is ALL that matters. Telfair's play ON the court these next few seasons will dtermine whether ot not he warranted the 13th pick, the 20th pick, the 5th pick or none at all. Only THAT is the true barometer of his "draft position". You would think people here would know that.


You posted this....



> What exactly do Jermaine O'Neal, Zach Randolph or anyone else drafted lower than they should have to do with this? Honestly. I'll use that logic for a second here just to show you how incredibly stupid it is; I don't think the Blazers should trade Ha Seung-Jin and a filler for Vince Carter. Jin was a second rounder, look at what Carlos Boozer's done as a second rounder. Or even moreso, Ben Wallace was undrafted. Ha Seung-Jin should not be traded, he could be a great player!


So who were you talking to then?

And I am not being defensive, I am merely stating a point. That the value of a player picked in the teens\twenties\wherever in the draft differs GREATLY depending upon what GM you are talking too. I never said that "every player picked in the teens has tons of value b\c they could be great" I don't know where you are getting that from.

Merely stating, he was the 13th player selected...therefore...he has value of a 13th player is not accurate IMO. B\c a players value, even one JUST DRAFTED, is highly subjective. What one GM likes, another may not. IMO, Nash probably didn't have Telfair ranked as his 13th best prospect, he was probably MUCH higher on POR board. So, I don't think that Nash would throw in Telfair to get Ray Allen. Monia? Khyrapa? Outlaw? yeah, maybe he would, but again IMO, I think Nash holds SAR value A LOT higher than many people on these forums do. Otherwise he would have traded him awhile ago.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

and Nash held onto Sheed for a long time, and I think he got a pretty decent value for him in the end. Hopefully he will do the same with Rahim... if not... he probably will go to another team via FA, and be off our books.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> ...
> 2. At least 12 teams weren't interested in selecting Telfair with their first pick at the draft, which was less than 6 months ago. ...
> 
> Ed O.



Another way to look at it is.. 

1) He was not probably worthy of a top 6 pick to begin with so you drop those out of the argument as well... so maybe 6-12 teams .. aka #7 pick to #19 were really in his target range (talent vs worth formula).... or much lower if he had dropped like Q did....

2) teams may have had interest in him... but chose not to take him becuase he was not the best player available for them... thus maybe, many of the teams drafting in his range did not need a PG... or they did not take him to trade him later on.. or they did not see him as the best available player in their respective drafting slot


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Talking about Telfair and his being drafted at #13....*



> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> It was relevant... see above
> 
> ...


I don't think your point was stupid at all. Sorry if I gave that impression. I just don't think it's relevant. EVERY player has potential on draft day, so Telfair isn't unique or, IMO, particularly like Drexler.

My comment about coin flips goes like this: everyone here should know that a standard coin flip is a 50/50 proposition, right? Assume for a moment that the 50% odds are in doubt... and we're discussing what the real percentages are for a heads or tail result.

One side could argue that there's a 50/50 chance... and the other could point out that in the past there have been stretches that they've flipped 8 heads out of 10 or even 8 heads in a row.

That anecdotal evidence is true, but it's not relevant... it doesn't change the underlying odds of the next toss.

Similarly, players tend to succeed at a rate consistent with their draft position... some undrafted players excel, and some high picks flop, but there IS a correlation and pointing out the exceptions doesn't change that.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Thanks Ed... knew you would clear it up for me.. you always do


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

http://www.hoopsworld.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi?archive=14&num=4202

This old article is relevant to the current discussion. It establishes a pattern of decreasing success the lower the draft position. Meaning: The blended wisdom of the many exceeds the wisdom of any one individual. People have won nobel prizes for proving that point.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

that's the article I was thinking of, Masbee. thanks for posting it. 

according to his data, 42% of all players picked between 11 and 15 in the draft between 1989 and 1998 were either out of the league or deep bench players after five years. 

another 26% were bench players. 

24% were of starter quality. 

only 8% (four out of fifty) were All-Star calibre. 

but! but! but! JERMAINE O'NEAL!!! ZACH RANDOLPH!!!!

yep, we've had two guys pass through our team recently who were in that 8%. we've been lucky. 

there's about an 8% chance we'll get lucky again with our pick from last spring.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

just to clarify, though, the article Masbee cited needs some caveats. in the past few years, the entire draft has become more of a crap shoot due to the increase in foreign and high school players. 

I think you're much more likely to find a diamond at the 20th pick now than you were in 1996, just because the talent pool is so broad. 

even more importantly, how do you compare a high school grad who averages 35/11 to a college junior who averages 20/10 to a Brazilian who averages 26/7? there's so much more context you have to put each player into now that teams are bound to make more bad picks in the lottery. 

the general truth still holds, though. a guy picked at 13 isn't nearly as likely to succeed as a guy picked at 5.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Back to the original thought.....

No, I wouldn't make that trade. I don't value Ray Allen AT THIS POINT because he is older than our core players, and his $$$ value is too high - expecting a new contract. Nash is building a team to contend in 3-4 years. Not now. In 3-4 years Ray Ray - though now a great shooter - would not be able to contribute to that Blazer team. Thus, I believe, why Nash chose Telfair - so that he can lead that team. Same with resigning Miles - not for now but for 3-4 years from now. Same I expect with Z-bo - signing an extention with POR. IMHO Nash is putting together pieces for the future. With the potential of Monia and Khryapa as shooters/defenders he might be well on his way with 5 players already for that 2008-09 season.

You guys are right! - Ray Allen is a stud player that all teams want. However, he doesn't fit into this (guess here) plan for the Blazers future.

I'm excited frankly. Telfair PG, Monia SG, Miles SF, Zbo PF, and ?? at center. Outlaw might continue to grow - and gain mass (ala his Dad). Nash is quickly building a nice nucleus of young players. Remember this team in about 1985-96. 2nd yr man Drexler, 1 yr man Kersey, Rookie Porter. It could get fun again!!!!!


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

nope sooner or later telfair will become the heart and soul and leader of this team. Allen has never been a leader wherever he's been. He's a much better player right now, but Telfair's got those jeter-esque intagibles.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Jeter-esque? Is that a term used a lot in NY? :laugh: :grinning:


----------

