# The Brass on Bassy



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Link 



> “As far as court vision, he is one of the top 3, 4 or 5 (passers) in the league. He PASSES the ball like Jason (Kidd), (Shaun) Livingston, (Steve) Nash and Lebron…Guys are going to love playing with him because if you get out and run, he will find you."
> “His strong suit is he is a LEADER, you can tell he is a natural leader, he’s wise beyond his basketball years.”





> A Utah coach told one of his players, ‘stay up on him (Telfair)!’ during the game. The player responded, ‘he’s too FAST!





> He’s probably always been told ‘he can’t do this,’ or, ‘he can’t do that,’ (because of his diminutive stature)… I don’t think he could be his size of a player and get this far by being a follower, he is a LEADER… He has a tremendous amount of CHARACTER… At some point, you have got to say this kid has IT!”


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

> At some point, you have got to say this kid has IT!”


This Kid has IT!

Leadership..........Check
Court vision.........Check
Passing...............Check
Character............Check
Speed.................Check
Quickness............Check
Killer Crossover.....Check
Killer Smile...........Check
Sense of Humor....Check
Experience...........Pending

What part of "IT" doesn't this kid have?


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 23, 2004)

To be honest, he hasn't even played in the NBA yet, and he's already one of my top-5 favorite NBA players.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TheoSaysNo</b>!
> 
> 
> This Kid has IT!
> ...


A jump shot.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

not so much a jump shot as he doesn't have a perimeter shot. Once he gets around 15 feet or closer he can hit jumpers all day...


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

the kid has it in due time he should be a great one


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> not so much a jump shot as he doesn't have a perimeter shot. Once he gets around 15 feet or closer he can hit jumpers all day...


Agreed. However, he will get very few open looks from 15 feet and in once he's in the league.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

no doubt, I'm just saying a jump shot isn't limited to three-point range :grinning: 

The only way he WILL be able to use that 15 footer is if he can use that speed to get by his man, OR take advantage of the pick-and-roll...

But the jumpshot thing is over-rated. Neither Jason Kidd OR Gary Payton had a jumpshot when they hit the league, and now they are probably considered the two best point guards of the 90's... It's the passing that's hard to find. Give the kid time and maybe he'll be considered the best point guard of 00's...


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Here's more....



> “I am impressed,” says Indiana coach Rick Carlisle. “He’s strong for a kid his age, very competitive, and he gets places with the ball and makes plays. I think it’s a hell of a draft choice for (the Blazers).”
> 
> ... “He has great eyes,” Chicago coach Scott Skiles says. “He sees where everybody is in the court. He can deliver the ball. He’s very quick. He’s going to be able to get into the paint almost when he wants to. He seems like a competitor and like he has leadership ability. What is there not to like? I’m not going to criticize his outside shot. With time, he’ll be fine.”
> 
> ...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reading all those glowing reports makes me excited that the Blazers have burried him on the end of the bench this year. I mean it's good to see that he will get virtualy no experience this year at all. 

Nice job guys. Maybe you should take a clue from the old regime and not let another Jermain O'neal get away by not playing him and realizing just how good he could have been.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

i've been watching telfair for a long time since he started makingthe papers here in nyc since his soph year in hs. By the end of the season all those chumps clamoring that jameer nelson getting passed for kids like telfair will be shut up. Clipper end teh season wishing they had a low lottery pick so they could've picked up telfair instead of livingston. Telfair has the intagibles these other hs'ers dont right now.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Hehe. This is funny. Now people are realizing that maybe the HS players were more talented than a lot of people realized. I wish Sebastian all the luck in the world. He has got the game. 

I wish people wouldn't be doubters for the sake of doubting.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
> Reading all those glowing reports makes me excited that the Blazers have burried him on the end of the bench this year. I mean it's good to see that he will get virtualy no experience this year at all.


if you read the article, even Telfair doesn't seem to mind. 

next season a huge opportunity is going to open up for Telfair. NVE and Damon both almost certainly aren't going to be around.

I despise Damon, but am actually fairly happy that Telfair is a third stringer this year. Lebron aside, there's a fairly substantial history that even great high school players don't do much right out of the blocks. 

besides, the it's not like NVE doesn't have an injury history.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

He's gonna get exposed. Nelson is the far better player. Bassy's passing ability is superior but without any real strength he'll get knocked around and forced into turnovers. 

I wouldn't be worried about his shooting if he could find ways to score but on this level I don't see how he'll score. No real touch to think of. 

He could be a better passing Tony Parker if he had any touch. But he doesn't. 

Its gonna take some time and patience with this kid. 

He has the heart so he'll eventually become a helluva player but not for a couple years.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Nope Telfair will be better than Nelson in the long run. The guy is a special talent, you can find a Nelson at any 5 and dime store in NYC.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
> Nice job guys. Maybe you should take a clue from the old regime and not let another Jermain O'neal get away by not playing him and realizing just how good he could have been.


Bad comparison guy. Unlike Jerm's situation, Telfair doesn't have two mid-20's players (one an AS) with years of being under contract ahead of them... he has two guys in their 30's with expiring deals who'll probably be gone after this season at the latest (IMO). 

Who knows... Damon could very well be dealt at the midseason deadline, and VanX's knees could blow out at any moment... regular rotation minutes and even the starting spot could be ST's in months. 

STOMP


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

His perimeter game will take the longest to remedy, but I'm not concerned about that at all because the rest of his game is so advanced.

Even if he becomes only a mediocre outside threat, I don't see this as a large enough liability to be worried about. We know he'll thrive in a running game. What we haven't seen is him paired up with a quality big man in the pick and roll. That's where he'll shine. There's very little a defense can do if this is run to perfection, and Bassy's mid range j would hit consistently.

Bassy and Randolph (yes, I could see Randolph developing a very good mid-range jumper.) could become quite the unstoppable pair. 

The problem is when Bassy plays the two-man game with Randolph in the post. If they're running that a lot, he'll have to hit 
from deep to free up Zach down low.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

It's really funny to see the bandwagoners jumping on, and to think a lot of you guys wanted to take guys like Pavel or Kirk Snyder. Boy I'm glad none of you guys are our GM.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> It's really funny to see the bandwagoners jumping on, and to think a lot of you guys wanted to take guys like Pavel or Kirk Snyder. Boy I'm glad none of you guys are our GM.


Try Al Jefferson.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> Try Al Jefferson.


Him too, but I think more wanted Kirk Snyder because of the backcourt help, and a few wanted Pavel which is just down right disgusting.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> It's really funny to see the bandwagoners jumping on, and to think a lot of you guys wanted to take guys like Pavel or Kirk Snyder. Boy I'm glad none of you guys are our GM.


I'm glad none of us are the GM too, but a wee bit early for I told you so's IMO... what specific fans are you refering to? Geez I'd think that most every Blazer fans would hope for the best from their GM's informed choice regardless of which horse they personally backed/projected based on nbadraft.net's ramblings. 

btw, nice post count Satanb:devil:nius

STOMP


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

I am just plain happy with him..
He needs to improve his shot tho...
he missed several shots fairly close in.

I am telling you...this kid has it !


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm glad none of us are the GM too, but a wee bit early for I told you so's IMO... what specific fans are you refering to? Geez I'd think that most every Blazer fans would hope for the best from their GM's informed choice regardless of which horse they personally backed/projected based on nbadraft.net's ramblings.
> ...


I specifically remember Ed. O wanting Portland to use the 13th on Pavel. And I never said I told you so, it is just that everyone is saying how great he is now and how good he will become and they were wrong about him. 

Thanks on the post count too, I've been workin on my more evil side.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> I specifically remember Ed. O wanting Portland to use the 13th on Pavel.


I still think Pavel at 13 would have been a better choice than Telfair at 13. I think this because I feel Telfair would have slipped to 22 or to a spot were Portland could have moved up to get him.

If he had not slipped, I would have been able to live with Nelson at 22. 

Having a 7'5" center at the end of the bench seems like a better bet to me than a 6' PG prospect.

I'm happy with what I'm seeing from Sebastian so far, but I still think it was an unncecessary reach to take him at #13.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I still think Pavel at 13 would have been a better choice than Telfair at 13. I think this because I feel Telfair would have slipped to 22 or to a spot were Portland could have moved up to get him.
> ...


well, you should've called the Blazers, and told them this tidbit..because I'm sure that because you, Ed O, thought that Telfair would be there at 22, that they would've gone "dang..I bet he's right.."


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I still think Pavel at 13 would have been a better choice than Telfair at 13. I think this because I feel Telfair would have slipped to 22 or to a spot were Portland could have moved up to get him.
> ...


Personally, in a few years, I think Telfair will be better than Wells.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> well, you should've called the Blazers, and told them this tidbit..because I'm sure that because you, Ed O, thought that Telfair would be there at 22, that they would've gone "dang..I bet he's right.."


I have the feeling that Warkentien WAS telling them that, and they disagreed, which is the reason he left.

NBA teams and pro teams make mistakes all the time. The mere fact that they acted a certain way doesn't mean that they acted correctly.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I still think Pavel at 13 would have been a better choice than Telfair at 13. I think this because I feel Telfair would have slipped to 22 or to a spot were Portland could have moved up to get him.


It has been said by Nash and others (IE Utah) that there were a lot of trades contingent upon the drafting of Telfair. There were more than two or three teams according to Nash that were waiting to see if Telfair was going to be picked at 13, if not they were going to deal to get a pick and take him. I don't know how much assurance you need but it is coming straight from Nash's mouth.



> If he had not slipped, I would have been able to live with Nelson at 22.


Fact of the matter is, Nelson didn't even last til the 21st pick, he was taken at 20, so your suggestion of taking Nelson at 22 is a bit impractical. 



> Having a 7'5" center at the end of the bench seems like a better bet to me than a 6' PG prospect.


Well if your drafting for players to sit at your bench, it doesn't really matter but if you are drafting for the best player who can reach the most potential it does. We don't draft for a player to sit at the end of the bench, we draft for the best possible player and the player who can help the team the most. Fact is, nobody had the desire to take Pavel, even the lonely Jazz traded him to the Mavs for a crappy pick because we all know the Mavs will at least be in the Playoffs for a while, thus resulting in a higher pick than the Jazz took him with. 

It may sound insane but I would personally draft a guy who's been playing basketball all his life and played regularly against NBA players since he was 16, rather than a guy who has a disease and has only played basketball for about 4 or 5 years.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> It has been said by Nash and others (IE Utah) that there were a lot of trades set up contingent upon the drafting of Telfair. There were more than two or three teams according to Nash that were waiting to see if Telfair was going to be picked at 13, if not they were going to deal to get a pick and take him. I don't know how much assurance you need but it is coming straight from Nash's mouth.


Well, if NASH said it, it must be true. He has NO vested interest in spinning a pick that many observers considered to be a reach.  

Utah said that they would NOT have picked him with their first two picks, and that they probably would have picked him and kept him if he had been there at 21. I seriously doubt that, considering they have Arroyo and Lopez, who are two young PGs, and that they had two rookies that they'd taken earlier in the draft. Using a roster spot on a third young PG would have made no sense.

I'm not guaranteeing that Telfair would have slipped to 22, or that Portland would have been able to move up, but considering the great class of PGs that is shaping up next year (Paul, Shakur, Fernandez, and Felton are in NBAdraft.net's top 8 for next year, and Gilchrist is right behind them), I wouldn't have been heartbroken on missing out on having a rookie PG at the end of our bench this year. 



> Fact of the matter is, Nelson didn't even last til the 21st pick, he was taken at 20, so your suggestion of taking Nelson at 22 is a bit impractical.


If Telfair was picked in between 15 and 21, I think that Nelson would have slipped. Do I know for sure? No way. But I find it likely.



> Well if your drafting for players to sit at your bench, it doesn't really matter but if you are drafting for the best player who can reach the most potential it does. We don't draft for a player to sit at the end of the bench, we draft for the best possible player and the player who can help the team the most.


No doubt. If both Telfair and Pavel reach their potential, Pavel's going to be far more valuable. Dominant centers win championships at a MUCH higher rate than any other position.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, if NASH said it, it must be true. He has NO vested interest in spinning a pick that many observers considered to be a reach.


Yes Ed, you are so much more credible than John Nash, by the way it was not only Nash who said this, but Utah admitted that they had a lot of calls from teams wanting to trade for their 21st pick if Portland did not take Telfair with 13. So I get to choose who I believe more? Either John Nash and the Utah Jazz's GM, who has absolutely nothing to gain from saying it, or some guy who posts on a message board? Okay, case closed.



> Utah said that they would NOT have picked him with their first two picks, and that they probably would have picked him and kept him if he had been there at 21. I seriously doubt that, considering they have Arroyo and Lopez, who are two young PGs, and that they had two rookies that they'd taken earlier in the draft. Using a roster spot on a third young PG would have made no sense.


As I stated above, Utah didn't say they were going to draft Telfair for themselves, they had a lot of inquiries from other teams about their 21st pick and other picks in case Portland didn't draft Telfair at 13, I think it is very conceivable to beleive Telfair would have DEFINITELY not been there at the 23rd pick. 



> No doubt. If both Telfair and Pavel reach their potential, Pavel's going to be far more valuable. Dominant centers win championships at a MUCH higher rate than any other position.


So when's the last time a center came into the draft, from another country, had less than 4 years experience, and had a successful career? NBA scouts have learned that the centers that are huge and look GREAT in workouts but only have 3 or 4 years of basketball experience, develope into absolute nothings. You should take a page out of their books. You have to have basketball in you from an early age, you cant just learn it in 4 or 5 years and expect to become great. That's why Jaber Rouzbahani didn't get drafted, cause he's only been playing for a few years, just like Pavel, who by the way has been on a team overseas but couldn't see any time due to his incapability of playing organized basketball.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> Yes Ed, you are so much more credible than John Nash, by the way it was not only Nash who said this, but Utah admitted that they had a lot of calls from teams wanting to trade for their 21st pick if Portland did not take Telfair with 13. So I get to choose who I believe more? Either John Nash and the Utah Jazz's GM, who has absolutely nothing to gain from saying it, or some guy who posts on a message board? Okay, case closed.


Relative credibility has little or nothing to do with it, so attacking me doesn't strengthen your argument.

If you think Nash has no incentive to say that Telfair was a good pick at #13, then you're ignoring reality. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by claiming that Telfair wouldn't have been there at #22... in fact, it's almost certain that he was convinced it's true.

It doesn't mean he was right. I'm willing to concede I might be wrong, too, but the gamble would have been worth it IMO.



> As I stated above, Utah didn't say they were going to draft Telfair for themselves, they had a lot of inquiries from other teams about their 21st pick and other picks in case Portland didn't draft Telfair at 13, I think it is very conceivable to beleive Telfair would have DEFINITELY not been there at the 23rd pick.


Portland had the #22 pick, so obviously he wouldn't have been there at #23. That's not much of a statement.

As to your recollection of what Utah's said: you're wrong. Here's what was said:



> (Jazz GM, Kevin) O’Connor says he likes Portland’s No. 1 pick, Sebastian Telfair — but not enough to have taken the high school point guard with Utah’s first two picks in the first round (14 and 16)....
> 
> ......“But we liked Telfair a lot. We had a lot of calls from teams about him at the 21st pick. Once he was off the board, those people stopped calling. I can’t say we would have taken him at 21, but if he were there, we probably would’ve kept the pick and taken him. He has a born gift for finding people open at the right time.”


No talk of people moving up to 14 or 16 to take him. Why would people call about the #21 pick if they thought Telfair was worth a lottery pick? And why would Utah be less inclined to deal with Portland than they would with other teams?

Seems like you're making stuff up to support your case... or maybe your memory isn't that great. Either way, I think you're wrong there.



> So when's the last time a center came into the draft, from another country, had less than 4 years experience, and had a successful career? NBA scouts have learned that the centers that are huge and look GREAT in workouts but only have 3 or 4 years of basketball experience, develope into absolute nothings. You should take a page out of their books. You have to have basketball in you from an early age, you cant just learn it in 4 or 5 years and expect to become great. That's why Jaber Rouzbahani didn't get drafted, cause he's only been playing for a few years, just like Pavel, who by the way has been on a team overseas but couldn't see any time due to his incapability of playing organized basketball.


Some thoughts on your assertions:

-- Pavel's attempt to reach NBA stardom is no less supported by precedent than Sebastian's. No prep PGs have gone directly to the NBA and succeeded. I don't think that this is a reason that Bassy would fail, and I don't think that a similar bit of evidence should be used against Pavel, either.

-- Pointing out that Jaber didn't get drafted as evidence that Pavel is going to fail doesn't make sense. If neither of them had been drafted, I guess I could see it. Pointing to an inferior prospect and attributing odds of failure to Pavel based on it doesn't make sense.

-- You point to experience of scouts and NBA people who "know" that players like Pavel look great in workouts but fail to develop into NBA players... who are these players? Which international big men have been drafted too high and then failed? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Olowokandi was maybe the closest thing, and he had 3 years of school, so scouts had plenty of opportunity to check him out.

-- Your assertion that only players who have played basketball their whole lives turn out to be good seems weak. Olajuwon didn't start playing until he was 15. David Robinson didn't start until his senior year of high school. The list of good and even great players that didn't play until their teenage years is considerable.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Relative credibility has little or nothing to do with it, so attacking me doesn't strengthen your argument.


It's not attacking, it is simple common sense that John Nash and Utah's GM is more credible than you, I don't see how I'm attacking you, seems your a bit sensitive perhaps.



> If you think Nash has no incentive to say that Telfair was a good pick at #13, then you're ignoring reality. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by claiming that Telfair wouldn't have been there at #22... in fact, it's almost certain that he was convinced it's true.


Re-read what I stated, never did I say Nash didn't have anything to gain, I said Utah's GM had nothing to gain by stating he was getting calls from other teams about their 21st pick in case Telfair slipped. 



> Portland had the #22 pick, so obviously he wouldn't have been there at #23. That's not much of a statement.


At the time Portland did NOT offically have the 22nd pick, Portland would have probably had more incentive to take the better player with the 23rd pick, rather than the 22nd, why? Because, like Monia, Telfair was a better prospect than Kryapa and in case the player plays all-star like, Portland would pay less on a maximum contract, because of taking the player at 23 rather than 22. That is why Kryapa was taken before Monia, that and they didn't want the Nets to have second thoughts and keep the pick. Your reasoning is no reasoning at all on this issue.




> No talk of people moving up to 14 or 16 to take him. Why would people call about the #21 pick if they thought Telfair was worth a lottery pick? And why would Utah be less inclined to deal with Portland than they would with other teams?


Of course Utah never mentioned moving the 14th or 16th pick in that article, because they never considered it. For the team getting Utah's pick, the difference between getting the 16th pick and the 21st from Utah is minute, if anything at all. 



> No prep PGs have gone directly to the NBA and succeeded.


Well actually, no prep PGs as small as Telfair have ever made the jump from highschool to NBA, so your argument is invalid. You should have just stopped at NBA in your statement, none have succeeded because none have made the jump. 



> -- Pointing out that Jaber didn't get drafted as evidence that Pavel is going to fail doesn't make sense. If neither of them had been drafted, I guess I could see it. Pointing to an inferior prospect and attributing odds of failure to Pavel based on it doesn't make sense.


Again, you need to read more carefully. Never did I say Pavel was going to fail BECAUSE Jaber didn't get drafted, I said NBA scouts have wised up on center projects that have only played a few years of basketball. I'm willing to bet 3 years ago, Jaber would have DEFINITELY gotten drafted, but not anymore, because scouts have gotten smarter and learned through experience. 



> -- You point to experience of scouts and NBA people who "know" that players like Pavel look great in workouts but fail to develop into NBA players... who are these players? Which international big men have been drafted too high and then failed? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Olowokandi was maybe the closest thing, and he had 3 years of school, so scouts had plenty of opportunity to check him out.


You're not going to make it this easy on me are you Ed? I can name a lot, lets start with I'm not going to speak of the last three years because it's still too early but lemme start his off.

Desagana Diop, Dalibor Bagaric, Jake Tsakalidis, Mamadou N'diaye, Primoz Brezec, Jake Voskuhl, Alek Redojevic, Frederick Weis, Kandi, Yinka Dare. This is nothing, I can name a million more who went to college and never became anything. These are mostly just foreign guys, being a center has a high bust rate anyways, fact is most centers who are drafted into the NBA dating from the early 90's have always been labeled "projects" because that is exactly what they are, having basketball experience isn't going to erase that label but it's going to help you. Pavel playing 4 years of basketball is beyond "project", I wouldn't have taken him in the first round of the draft, and most centers who are become nothing. 



> -- Your assertion that only players who have played basketball their whole lives turn out to be good seems weak. Olajuwon didn't start playing until he was 15. David Robinson didn't start until his senior year of high school. The list of good and even great players that didn't play until their teenage years is considerable.


I already knew of those two, but can you honestly add anyone else to the list? Of course there are exceptions, but not many at all.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> It's not attacking, it is simple common sense that John Nash and Utah's GM is more credible than you, I don't see how I'm attacking you, seems your a bit sensitive perhaps.


It's certainly an ad hominem attack. MY credibility has nothing to do with this. I am offering nothing more than common sense and an opinion. You offer misquotes and false assertions and when those fail, you resort to attacking credibility.



> Re-read what I stated, never did I say Nash didn't have anything to gain, I said Utah's GM had nothing to gain by stating he was getting calls from other teams about their 21st pick in case Telfair slipped.


I didn't say that you said that. I said "if you think that". There's a prettu substantial difference. 

Who cares whether O'Connor had anything to gain? He had nothing to lose by saying it, either.



> At the time Portland did NOT offically have the 22nd pick, Portland would have probably had more incentive to take the better player with the 23rd pick, rather than the 22nd, why? Because, like Monia, Telfair was a better prospect than Kryapa and in case the player plays all-star like, Portland would pay less on a maximum contract, because of taking the player at 23 rather than 22.


That's just wrong. A player's eligible for the same maximum contract irrespective of where they were drafted.

Their ROOKIE CONTRACT amount is different based on where they're picked, but considering the money at #22 and #23 is guaranteed, the only place that would make a difference is in the option year.



> That is why Kryapa was taken before Monia, that and they didn't want the Nets to have second thoughts and keep the pick.


Wrong and wrong. The Nets deal was reported well before the draft for a reason: it was a done deal.

As to Monia being a better prospect than Khryapa: again, I think you're wrong. The Blazers worked out Khryapa before the draft, but they didn't work Monia out and between that and the fact that they're working to bring Khryapa over but not Monia (in SPITE of the fact that they chose Khryapa a pick earlier, so have to pay him more money in his rookie deal than Monia) I see it as a clear indication that the Blazers were more interested in Khryapa than Monia.



> Of course Utah never mentioned moving the 14th or 16th pick in that article, because they never considered it.


Um. What? You're saying they are omitting calls they got because they never considered trading the 14th and 16th picks? Why would O'Connor leave that tidbit out?

I think it's obvious that he didn't leave it out... it just never happened.



> For the team getting Utah's pick, the difference between getting the 16th pick and the 21st from Utah is minute, if anything at all.


So you're saying that if Telfair was there at 16, teams thought he'd be there at 21, too... right?

And doesn't that just support my assertion that spending the #13 on Telfair is a reach?



> Well actually, no prep PGs as small as Telfair have ever made the jump from highschool to NBA, so your argument is invalid.


No international player has ever been drafted in the first round at 7'5". My argument is meant to parallel yours, so by pointing out that my argument is invalid just shows how weak your original assertion was.



> Again, you need to read more carefully. Never did I say Pavel was going to fail BECAUSE Jaber didn't get drafted, I said NBA scouts have wised up on center projects that have only played a few years of basketball.


But you brought up a weaker prospect to support a weak assertion. You were trying to draw a link between a bad prospect (Jaber) and a good one (Pavel).



> I'm willing to bet 3 years ago, Jaber would have DEFINITELY gotten drafted, but not anymore, because scouts have gotten smarter and learned through experience.


This statement makes NO sense. 

Why, if scouts have wise up, did Pavel get drafted this year?

And, perhaps more importantly to your point, why weren't players like Jaber getting drafted three years ago? Or did the international players suddenly get taller? Last year Vranes and Sinanovic and Xue were drafted, but that was an aberration relative to 2001 and 2002 and 2004.



> You're not going to make it this easy on me are you Ed? I can name a lot, lets start with I'm not going to speak of the last three years because it's still too early but lemme start his off.
> 
> Desagana Diop, Dalibor Bagaric, Jake Tsakalidis, Mamadou N'diaye, Primoz Brezec, Jake Voskuhl, Alek Redojevic, Frederick Weis, Kandi, Yinka Dare. This is nothing, I can name a million more who went to college and never became anything.


So you're listing all centers who are busts, irrespective of whether they're 7'5", irrespective if they come to the NBA without college experience, and irrespective of whether they're international players?

Congratulations for answering a totally different question than I asked.



> I already knew of those two, but can you honestly add anyone else to the list? Of course there are exceptions, but not many at all.


Dikembe Mutombo went to Georgetown on a USAID scholarship, and John Thompson convinced him to play basketball. Adonal Foyle didn't start playing hoops until his sophomore year of high school. Tim Duncan didn't hoop until 9th grade. Eric Williams didn't play until 12th grade.

Players like Anthony Mason (junior year in high school) and John Amaechi (age 17) are recent NBA players who started late.

This is in like 5 minutes of googling. I'm SURE there are many more out there. How many examples do you want?

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> It's certainly an ad hominem attack. MY credibility has nothing to do with this. I am offering nothing more than common sense and an opinion. You offer misquotes and false assertions and when those fail, you resort to attacking credibility.


It's good to see you took Philosophy 101 but I was merely comparing who I should believe, you, a guy who is NOT linked to any NBA team or NBA employment, or a guy named John Nash who has been NBA affiliated for 18 years, no attack there. 




> Who cares whether O'Connor had anything to gain? He had nothing to lose by saying it, either.


So you're saying O'Connon said it just to say it? Wow, now you are really grasping for things, the guy has nothing to gain by saying teams wanted Telfair, so he goes out of his way to say? Okay Eddy. 




> That's just wrong. A player's eligible for the same maximum contract irrespective of where they were drafted.
> 
> Their ROOKIE CONTRACT amount is different based on where they're picked, but considering the money at #22 and #23 is guaranteed, the only place that would make a difference is in the option year.


Agreed that I made a mistake, but the point is the Blazers would have to pay Monia less on that option year, he was considered well before the draft a lotto pick. It was a conscious decision to have Khryapa taken before Monia. 



> Wrong and wrong. The Nets deal was reported well before the draft for a reason: it was a done deal.
> 
> As to Monia being a better prospect than Khryapa: again, I think you're wrong. The Blazers worked out Khryapa before the draft, but they didn't work Monia out and between that and the fact that they're working to bring Khryapa over but not Monia (in SPITE of the fact that they chose Khryapa a pick earlier, so have to pay him more money in his rookie deal than Monia) I see it as a clear indication that the Blazers were more interested in Khryapa than Monia.


I never said the deal wasn't reported, I said the deal wasn't officially announced until AFTER the draft, therefore wasn't official when we all heard it. Nets could have easily changed their minds if they felt Monia was a good enough prospect.

Again, whether or not the Blazers thought Khryapa was a better prospect than Monia is not the issue, the scouts all had Monia going before Khryapa. Every mock draft had Monia going in the top 15 picks, they had going Khryapa slipping to the second round, so you're wrong again. 



> Um. What? You're saying they are omitting calls they got because they never considered trading the 14th and 16th picks? Why would O'Connor leave that tidbit out?
> 
> I think it's obvious that he didn't leave it out... it just never happened.


So you're giving O'Connor credibility when he DOESN'T say the other picks were being called on but you don't believe him when he says plenty of teams were calling for their 21st to get Telfair? So you're going to pick and choose? You flip flop more than John Kerry man, which is it?




> So you're saying that if Telfair was there at 16, teams thought he'd be there at 21, too... right?
> 
> And doesn't that just support my assertion that spending the #13 on Telfair is a reach?


I personally don't think if Telfair was there at 16 he would be there at 21, but I'm sure some teams thought so, they were willing to risk it. With that much interest some team was going to take him and get some good value for him at the very least in a trade. 

Also, on paper you could say he was a reach, then again while you are just looking at mock drafts, along with 99% of this board, it isn't a good way to measure if a player is taken too early or not. Earlier in the year many had Telfair going top 5, so your argument pretty much goes out the window. I remember when everyone said we took Jermaine too early, and everyone was mad at Zach. NBA Drafts NEVER go the way they are supposed to, nobody can predict what GMs and scouts are thinking of each team, Qyntel went from 3 to 21. Peirce was supposed to go top 7. Please don't put too much stock in your mock drafts you find on various websites, they mean nothing in the end. 




> No international player has ever been drafted in the first round at 7'5". My argument is meant to parallel yours, so by pointing out that my argument is invalid just shows how weak your original assertion was.


Sorry, Priest Lauderdale was 7-4 I believe and Shawn Bradley was 7-6, but I am sure they are pretty sure they are equivalent in size. My point was you have no way to measure Sebastian's situation. Tell me another player who has been playing against NBA pros since he was 15/16? 



> But you brought up a weaker prospect to support a weak assertion. You were trying to draw a link between a bad prospect (Jaber) and a good one (Pavel).


Never was I trying to compare the players value wise, we know Pavel is a more valuable prospect. Point was, Jaber was predicted to go middle 2nd round, Pavel was predicted to go lottery by most, both fell hard, why? Because scouts have become smarter and they know better to pick a big guy who has played only a few years of basketball. 





> Why, if scouts have wise up, did Pavel get drafted this year?
> 
> And, perhaps more importantly to your point, why weren't players like Jaber getting drafted three years ago? Or did the international players suddenly get taller? Last year Vranes and Sinanovic and Xue were drafted, but that was an aberration relative to 2001 and 2002 and 2004.


Pavel showed MORE than most big stiffs and more than most centers in general that projected to be projects. Dude can shoot the ball, he can do a lot of nice things when it comes down to isolated workouts set up by his agent, but he can't even do any of that overseas against weaker competition than NBA. Jaber never showed the things that Pavel is, that is why Pavel got drafted. He showed ENOUGH, for someone to risk a pick on him. Mavericks gave up basically nothing to get him, considering they will likely have a last first rounder next season. 



> So you're listing all centers who are busts, irrespective of whether they're 7'5", irrespective if they come to the NBA without college experience, and irrespective of whether they're international players?
> 
> Congratulations for answering a totally different question than I asked.


You must have memory loss, you never asked for players who were 7-5 and international, you just asked for centers who were international and picked too high and that never lived up to their pick. Go check your quotes again, son. I even stated that some of the players I named went to college, I could add Raef, Shawn Bradley and many more in there if I wanted to, but I didn't. What you said is....



> -- You point to experience of scouts and NBA people who "know" that players like Pavel look great in workouts but fail to develop into NBA players... who are these players? Which international big men have been drafted too high and then failed? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Olowokandi was maybe the closest thing, and he had 3 years of school, so scouts had plenty of opportunity to check him out.



--- You point to experience of scouts and NBA people who "know" that players like Pavel look great in workouts but fail to develop into NBA players... who are these players? Which international big men have been drafted too high and then failed? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Olowokandi was maybe the closest thing, and he had 3 years of school, so scouts had plenty of opportunity to check him out.- You point to experience of scouts and NBA people who "know" that players like Pavel look great in workouts but fail to develop into NBA players... who are these players? Which international big men have been drafted too high and then failed? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Olowokandi was maybe the closest thing, and he had 3 years of school, so scouts had plenty of opportunity to check him out.



> Dikembe Mutombo went to Georgetown on a USAID scholarship, and John Thompson convinced him to play basketball. Adonal Foyle didn't start playing hoops until his sophomore year of high school. Tim Duncan didn't hoop until 9th grade. Eric Williams didn't play until 12th grade.
> 
> Players like Anthony Mason (junior year in high school) and John Amaechi (age 17) are recent NBA players who started late.


Mutombo from what I understand has had a pretty substantial amount of basketball experience, not as much as one would like but he DID stay under the wings of coach Thompson, one of the best big man developers in the world. 

Adonal Foyle is worth his pick? Are you on crack kid? He's a solid contributor? I don't give a crap what his new contract is worth, he isn't worth 5% of it. 

Tim Duncan in 9th grade is great, I don't mind that. Eric Williams is also a weak player for his draft position, he's not even a center Eddy. We are talking about center projects. Anthony Mason is not bad for his draft position but he's not a center either. Amaechi doesn't even want to play basketball, he's mostly garbage too. He had one good season and then started writing poetry. Stick to listing centers.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> It's good to see you took Philosophy 101 but I was merely comparing who I should believe, you, a guy who is NOT linked to any NBA team or NBA employment, or a guy named John Nash who has been NBA affiliated for 18 years, no attack there.


As I said: it's not about credibility. I'm not asking you to trust me and I'm not calling Nash a liar.

It's like you arguing that your side is stronger because Nash is taller than I am. It's irrelevant.



> So you're saying O'Connon said it just to say it? Wow, now you are really grasping for things, the guy has nothing to gain by saying teams wanted Telfair, so he goes out of his way to say? Okay Eddy.


He was asked, almost certainly, about Telfair by a Portland Tribune writer. I don't know if he went "out of his way" to say it.

And I'm not denying what he said is true, in any case: teams probably WERE calling to move up to 21 to get Telfair. Portland should have been one of those teams, instead of picking Bassy at 13.



> Agreed that I made a mistake, but the point is the Blazers would have to pay Monia less on that option year, he was considered well before the draft a lotto pick. It was a conscious decision to have Khryapa taken before Monia.


Nobody's arguing it was accidental or otherwise not conscious. The question is WHY the Blazers picked Monia at 23, rather than 22. The Blazers picked Viktor first because they liked him better, IMO. Not because they will save money by having Monia as the 23rd pick, rather than the 22nd.



> I never said the deal wasn't reported, I said the deal wasn't officially announced until AFTER the draft, therefore wasn't official when we all heard it. Nets could have easily changed their minds if they felt Monia was a good enough prospect.


You don't know that. Teams make agreements in advance of official announcements all the time.

The deal was almost certainly consumated before the draft, considering how widely reported it was, and the reason the Nets didn't make the deal official is so they wouldn't be unable to trade their first rounder next year. Remember, teams can't be in a position without a first rounder two years in a row, so if NJ had made the trade with Portland before they picked Viktor they wouldn't have been able to move their 2005 pick until after the draft next year unless they acquired other 2005 first rounders.



> Again, whether or not the Blazers thought Khryapa was a better prospect than Monia is not the issue, the scouts all had Monia going before Khryapa.


Huh? The Blazers' opinion on which player is the better prospect is not the issue? ... it's who "the scouts all" have going before whom?



> Every mock draft had Monia going in the top 15 picks, they had going Khryapa slipping to the second round, so you're wrong again.


Why do you suddenly care about what the mock drafts had? 

Maybe because it helps your weak assertion that the Blazers picked Monia behind Viktor because (a) all the scouts liked Sergei better, and (b) it will save them money on an option year 4 years from now (actually 5, I think, if Monia stays in Moscow a year)?

That argument makes no sense.



> So you're giving O'Connor credibility when he DOESN'T say the other picks were being called on but you don't believe him when he says plenty of teams were calling for their 21st to get Telfair? So you're going to pick and choose? You flip flop more than John Kerry man, which is it?


Do you even know what "credibility" means? You keep throwing it out there when it's not relevant.

I'm not saying that teams didn't call about the #21 pick. YOU are the one saying that he said he'd trade it (when in fact he said he probably would NOT have--that part I think he was bluffing on).

When I point out that people have never said what you SAID they did, it's suddenly credibility, rather than facts, that you fall back on. Weird.



> I personally don't think if Telfair was there at 16 he would be there at 21, but I'm sure some teams thought so, they were willing to risk it. With that much interest some team was going to take him and get some good value for him at the very least in a trade.


Perhaps. Perhaps not.



> Also, on paper you could say he was a reach, then again while you are just looking at mock drafts, along with 99% of this board, it isn't a good way to measure if a player is taken too early or not. Earlier in the year many had Telfair going top 5, so your argument pretty much goes out the window.


Um. No, it doesn't. 

People don't just make mock drafts by throwing darts at a wall.

The reason Telfair's position slid over time is because mock drafts realized that teams weren't interested in using high lottery picks on him. In fact, only the Blazers were willing to use ANY kind of lottery pick on him.



> I remember when everyone said we took Jermaine too early, and everyone was mad at Zach.


Well, you weren't paying attention to people who knew what they were talking about if everyone said those things.

Jermaine was a bit of a reach, but considering the rest of the crap (and, yes, I thought John Wallace would turn out to be crap based on his age and lack of dominant trait) that was available it was certainly a good pick.

And I don't know WHERE you saw that "everyone was mad at Zach". I remember being very excited, and the community I was at at the time (I don't recall if I was on Fanhome at the time, or RealGM, or if I was still just on BLT) shared a lot of excitement about a guy who had slipped.



> NBA Drafts NEVER go the way they are supposed to, nobody can predict what GMs and scouts are thinking of each team, Qyntel went from 3 to 21. Peirce was supposed to go top 7. Please don't put too much stock in your mock drafts you find on various websites, they mean nothing in the end.


Thank you, wise one. 



> Sorry, Priest Lauderdale was 7-4 I believe and Shawn Bradley was 7-6, but I am sure they are pretty sure they are equivalent in size.


Both of those guys went to college. Neither of them are international. Again, you're attempting to widen the population set.

Throw in the fact that they were considerably older (21 for Bradley and 23 for Lauderdale in their rookie seasons) and they're not comparable in any way except height.



> My point was you have no way to measure Sebastian's situation. Tell me another player who has been playing against NBA pros since he was 15/16?


I can't. 

Tell me another 19 year old 7'5" guy with Pavel's skills that's been drafted.

You can't.

Stalemate. That's my point.



> Never was I trying to compare the players value wise, we know Pavel is a more valuable prospect. Point was, Jaber was predicted to go middle 2nd round, Pavel was predicted to go lottery by most, both fell hard, why? Because scouts have become smarter and they know better to pick a big guy who has played only a few years of basketball.


They do? Again, please show me the guys that were drafted in the past that have scared off scouts because of lack of experience. Maybe Tskitishvili, but I doubt he's had that big of an impact on teams' thinking already.



> You must have memory loss, you never asked for players who were 7-5 and international, you just asked for centers who were international and picked too high and that never lived up to their pick. Go check your quotes again, son. I even stated that some of the players I named went to college, I could add Raef, Shawn Bradley and many more in there if I wanted to, but I didn't. What you said is....
> 
> 
> 
> > You point to experience of scouts and NBA people who "know" that players like Pavel look great in workouts but fail to develop into NBA players... who are these players? *Which international big men have been drafted too high and then failed?* I can't think of any off the top of my head. Olowokandi was maybe the closest thing, and he had 3 years of school, so scouts had plenty of opportunity to check him out.


(I bolded the question I asked.)

Yep... and you listed players like Diop (who played high school basketball in the US) and Voskuhl (who's originally from Oklahoma and went to UConn) and a bunch of guys who went to college who have international backgrounds. 

You DID legitimately list Weis and Bagaric, but Tsakalides has been a good value for where he was picked and Brezec might be the starter at center (at age 24) for the Bobcats.

But now you're saying you could "add Raef, Shawn Bradley and many more in there" ... well, you COULD, but considering LaFrentz and Bradley are not international players your list would once again be artificially inflated.

It seems that the list of international flops is no worse than the list of domestic ones. It seems like you just have an aversion to drafting centers at all.



> Mutombo from what I understand has had a pretty substantial amount of basketball experience, not as much as one would like but he DID stay under the wings of coach Thompson, one of the best big man developers in the world.


Please let me know if you find something that indicates he played basketball before going to Georgetown. I haven't been able to find it.



> Adonal Foyle is worth his pick? Are you on crack kid? He's a solid contributor? I don't give a crap what his new contract is worth, he isn't worth 5% of it.


Ah. Gotcha.



> Eric Williams is also a weak player for his draft position,


You follow the NBA, right? Eric Williams has started 258 games out of 554 career games... that's a pretty regular starter, and not a bad return on a mid-first round pick.



> he's not even a center Eddy. We are talking about center projects.


#1: Eddy?

#2: ONLY center projects need to have started basketball early? Your quote seems pretty general:



> You have to have basketball in you from an early age, you cant just learn it in 4 or 5 years and expect to become great.





> Anthony Mason is not bad for his draft position but he's not a center either. Amaechi doesn't even want to play basketball, he's mostly garbage too. He had one good season and then started writing poetry. Stick to listing centers.


I've listed enough players--centers and not--to show that your quote "You have to have basketball in you from an early age, you cant just learn it in 4 or 5 years and expect to become great." is a bunch of hot air.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> As I said: it's not about credibility. I'm not asking you to trust me and I'm not calling Nash a liar.
> ...


That's a completely retarded comparison, are you serious? Seriously? Nash has had NBA employment for 18 years, what are your credentials?




> He was asked, almost certainly, about Telfair by a Portland Tribune writer. I don't know if he went "out of his way" to say it.
> 
> And I'm not denying what he said is true, in any case: teams probably WERE calling to move up to 21 to get Telfair. Portland should have been one of those teams, instead of picking Bassy at 13.


Where is your proof that he was asked about the Telfair situation? Please show your proof, even if he was, he still has nothing to gain. 
Why would Portland risk giving up the player they have their eyes set on for someone else they see not as productive in the future? 
Perhaps Portland didn't have the players sufficient enough to get the pick. 

[/QUOTE]
Nobody's arguing it was accidental or otherwise not conscious. The question is WHY the Blazers picked Monia at 23, rather than 22. The Blazers picked Viktor first because they liked him better, IMO. Not because they will save money by having Monia as the 23rd pick, rather than the 22nd.[/QUOTE]

Why the Hell would the Blazers take a player with another pick if it wasn't theirs? Your assumption is completely retarded, how the Hell would you know if they liked Khryapa more than Monia? I wouldn't know but what would they have to gain to take Victor over Sergei if they have 2 consecutive picks? There is something to it Ed, just THINK. 




> You don't know that. Teams make agreements in advance of official announcements all the time.
> 
> The deal was almost certainly consumated before the draft, considering how widely reported it was, and the reason the Nets didn't make the deal official is so they wouldn't be unable to trade their first rounder next year. Remember, teams can't be in a position without a first rounder two years in a row, so if NJ had made the trade with Portland before they picked Viktor they wouldn't have been able to move their 2005 pick until after the draft next year unless they acquired other 2005 first rounders.


I am almost certainly sure that the Blazers and Nets trade was basically done, but there was a conscious ever to take a player not rated as high over the Blazers pick, probably because they didn't want the deal to be retained. I am aware of the NBA rules on draft picks but taking a player ranked a lot lower than Monia is done purposely. 




> Huh? The Blazers' opinion on which player is the better prospect is not the issue? ... it's who "the scouts all" have going before whom?


Exactly my point, me saying Monia should have gone before Khryapa is about as legit as you saying Pavel should have gone before Telfair, thing is you are basing your evaluation all on mock drafts, nothing more. 



> Do you even know what "credibility" means? You keep throwing it out there when it's not relevant..
> 
> 
> > Obviously I do, the point I was trying to make is that you want to pick and choose when you want to choose O'Connor, the Jazz's GM, one minute you don't want to believe him, the next you do, what is it John Kerry Jr.?
> ...


----------



## patticus (Jan 4, 2004)

anyways u guys keep arguing I hope bassy gets to play.... if you're looking for a p/r forward, shareef is it.

too bad he's gonna be shipped out soon


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> That's a completely retarded comparison, are you serious? Seriously? Nash has had NBA employment for 18 years, what are your credentials?


Irrelevant. Seriously... what is your problem here?

Credibility has nothing to do with this. 

Classy use of "retarded", by the way.



> Where is your proof that he was asked about the Telfair situation? Please show your proof, even if he was, he still has nothing to gain.


It was an article written by Kerry Eggers for the Tribune. O'Connor also happens to talk about both CSKA guys... do you think that's coincidence?



> Why would Portland risk giving up the player they have their eyes set on for someone else they see not as productive in the future?


Because 13 was overpaying. Sometimes I need gas for my car but I'm not willing to pull over and pay too much. I keep driving and know that there will be a pretty good chance that I can get gas later more cheaply.



> Perhaps Portland didn't have the players sufficient enough to get the pick.


Perhaps, perhaps not.



> Why the Hell would the Blazers take a player with another pick if it wasn't theirs?


What? As I've said: *Portland had acquired the NJ pick BEFORE the draft.* New Jersey was picking FOR PORTLAND.

Or do you think, once again, that it's coincidence that NJ picked a guy Portland brought in for workouts?



> Your assumption is completely retarded, how the Hell would you know if they liked Khryapa more than Monia?


What is up with your use of that word? Seriously that's not cool, and you sound like you're 13.

As far as why I think they like Khryapa more than Monia: read my previous posts. I list my reasons there.



> I wouldn't know but what would they have to gain to take Victor over Sergei if they have 2 consecutive picks? There is something to it Ed, just THINK.


What? You've offered no actual reasons for Portland picking Khryapa first but liking Monia more... you made up something about their maximum contract differences, and you claim that "all the scouts" liked Monia more.

But *I'm* the one who's supposed to "just think"? Sure...



> I am almost certainly sure that the Blazers and Nets trade was basically done, but there was a conscious ever to take a player not rated as high over the Blazers pick, probably because they didn't want the deal to be retained. I am aware of the NBA rules on draft picks but taking a player ranked a lot lower than Monia is done purposely.


What is that purpose? You keep asserting something without any logic here...



> I never said he would trade it or not, do you seriously suffer from down-syndrome? I said AT THE VERY LEAST HE COULD TRADE THE TELFAIR PICK. Many teams were inquiring about it, if he didn't want it he could at least get good value for it.


One track mind with the insensitivity, it seems.

In spite of what you SAID you said, here it is to refresh your memory:



> _As I stated above, Utah didn't say they were going to draft Telfair for themselves, they had a lot of inquiries from other teams about their 21st pick and other picks in case Portland didn't draft Telfair at 13_


Doesn't look like you said "AT THE VERY LEAST HE COULD TRADE THE TELFAIR PICK". The quote from O'Connor also didn't indicate that the team was willing to trade the #21 pick if Telfair was there... so not only did you not say what you said, but what you said you said was wrong.



> Is that much of a statement considering Portland took Telfair with 1 pick before the last lottery pick? Terrible statement. 13-17 isn't much of a difference. Lottery pick or not.


Accurate=terrible ?



> Are you serious? I remember every media outlet in Portland showing fans being sad/mad/upset about the Zach Randolph pick. We even have posters on this board admitting their dissapointment with the pick at the time, please get your head out of there. Everyone and their mother's wanted Haywood.


Portland general fan reaction has little relevance to intelligent opinion. People wanted Ed O'Bannon. People wanted John Wallace. People wanted Brendan Haywood... 

People can be pretty silly sometimes.



> I think Shawn Bradley is a perfect comparison, regardless of age dude.


INTERNATIONAL. He was born in Germany, but he grew up in Utah and played a season for BYU before going on his mission. I think that your "perfect comparison" is anything but perfect.



> Every post you make is about age, sometimes you need to let it go. Yea, age could help somebody like R. Kelly but dude, this is basketball, chill out and stop riding so much.


Age is almost as critical in evaluating a prospect as height. It's hilarious that people ignore age and then they try to prove that older failures are evidence that young prospects are going to fail.



> Bradley showed more in his workouts than Pavel did in his, Bradley in the end will probably be more of a productive player in his career than Pavel, just a predicment though.


That's crap. Shawn Bradley was coming off of a 2 year mission up until May, 1993, less than two months before the draft, and he gained 30 pounds and played no basketball when he was in Australia.

Bradley had put up some awesome numbers as a freshman at BYU... he wasn't a workout fiend by any stretch.



> Wow, you listed like 5 or 6 players out of all the years the NBA has been in existance and you expect me to believe players who have only played for a few years can become NBA ready? Other than Hakeem and a couple others none are legitimate. Peace.


Who are the great post-Kareem centers?

Hakeem
Ewing
Robinson
Shaq

Half of those guys started late. Duncan is considered by many to be a center, and HE started late.

Pavel's been playing basketball for six years, which means he started when he was 13. Pippen, Chris Webber and others started in 6th grade, which is about the same age.

If you want me to find players that have excelled after 4 years or fewer before being drafted, it'll have to wait for another day because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Ed O.


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

All of this is irrelevant. Several picks were considered reaches on Draft Day. Toronto's big man, Araujo, was considered a reach. 

Nobody will ever know whether or not Telfair would have been available when the Blazers were drafting later. Utah could have been lying about taking Telfair so that Portland would feel forced to take him (letting Snyder slide, as Portland was supposedly very interested in him). Boston was considered very interested in Telfair.

*But it's all irrelevant because Blazers brass got exactly who they wanted all along.* And thus far, according to executives around the league, it's looking like Portland has made a very solid pick.

All of a sudden, executives say that this has the potential to change a team's future outlook, and that he could be a star. All I know is that Telfair was a sure-Top 3 pick up until about two months or so before the draft. 

Instead of arguing about what could have been, why not talk about what could be. Because on draft day, sure Telfair could have fallen. But it's beginning to look like Portland may not have reached afterall.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> It was an article written by Kerry Eggers for the Tribune. O'Connor also happens to talk about both CSKA guys... do you think that's coincidence?


Well he IS an NBA scout, and his star player WAS a teammate of both Khryapa and Monia. I don't understand where you are trying to go with this. 




> Because 13 was overpaying. Sometimes I need gas for my car but I'm not willing to pull over and pay too much. I keep driving and know that there will be a pretty good chance that I can get gas later more cheaply.


Terrible analogy, you are basically suggesting Telfair's qualities are much like the rest of the point guards. Yea you could get your gas for cheaper, but taking that risk of getting cheaper gas down the road may really screw up your car. 




> What? As I've said: *Portland had acquired the NJ pick BEFORE the draft.* New Jersey was picking FOR PORTLAND.
> 
> Or do you think, once again, that it's coincidence that NJ picked a guy Portland brought in for workouts?


The pick wasn't offcially acquired before the draft, just the verbal agreement that NJ would pick for Portland, they admitted if a player they felt was significant enough in talent, they would have drafted him and kept the pick. It was announced after the pick that it was traded, therefore not making it official until after the pick was taken. 




> What? You've offered no actual reasons for Portland picking Khryapa first but liking Monia more... you made up something about their maximum contract differences, and you claim that "all the scouts" liked Monia more.


Monia has more star potential than Khryapa, he was also rated much higher than Khryapa. Monia would be paid less on an option and they didn't want NJ to have second thoughts about possibly keeping the pick. 




> Doesn't look like you said "AT THE VERY LEAST HE COULD TRADE THE TELFAIR PICK". The quote from O'Connor also didn't indicate that the team was willing to trade the #21 pick if Telfair was there... so not only did you not say what you said, but what you said you said was wrong.


You're not making any sense. 




> Portland general fan reaction has little relevance to intelligent opinion. People wanted Ed O'Bannon. People wanted John Wallace. People wanted Brendan Haywood...
> 
> People can be pretty silly sometimes.


So you admit the Portland media disliking the Randolph pick, because they really did dislike the pick, contrary to what you said earlier. 




> INTERNATIONAL. He was born in Germany, but he grew up in Utah and played a season for BYU before going on his mission. I think that your "perfect comparison" is anything but perfect.


Yea and Shawn Bradley probably also likes long walks on the beach and reading poetry, how is this basketball related? They have similar skills, regardless of where they were born. 



> Age is almost as critical in evaluating a prospect as height. It's hilarious that people ignore age and then they try to prove that older failures are evidence that young prospects are going to fail.


Of course age is a big factor and a significant issue, but by the time Pavel will be able to play in the NBA he will likely be older than Shawn Bradley when he started playing. 



> That's crap. Shawn Bradley was coming off of a 2 year mission up until May, 1993, less than two months before the draft, and he gained 30 pounds and played no basketball when he was in Australia.
> 
> Bradley had put up some awesome numbers as a freshman at BYU... he wasn't a workout fiend by any stretch.


He DID workout for NBA teams prior to the draft, as do any lotto pick, how is he any different than Pavel in regards to workouts?




> Who are the great post-Kareem centers?
> 
> Hakeem
> Ewing
> ...


In all the years of basketball you can only name 5 centers? That's not a very good ratio Ed. Of course some will turn out to be good, but look at the ratio. The chances of Pavel ever living up to the hype is slim. 



> Pavel's been playing basketball for six years, which means he started when he was 13. Pippen, Chris Webber and others started in 6th grade, which is about the same age.


The dudes on ESPN on draft night said Pavel only had 4 years of basketball experience, before that he never seemed to play organized basketball, unlike Scottie Pip or Chris Webber, so it is completely different. It doesn't really count when you are playing against people in a park, that's not organized.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CrGiants</b>!
> All of this is irrelevant. Several picks were considered reaches on Draft Day. Toronto's big man, Araujo, was considered a reach.


No doubt. Araujo was a *bad* pick. That doesn't really matter in terms of what Portland did, though.



> Instead of arguing about what could have been, why not talk about what could be. Because on draft day, sure Telfair could have fallen. But it's beginning to look like Portland may not have reached afterall.


We have more information on what might have been than what might be. Why should discussion on the future be any more valuable than discussions of the past?

Ed O.


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> No doubt. Araujo was a *bad* pick. That doesn't really matter in terms of what Portland did, though.
> ...


Yes, as a matter of fact, it is relevant. I don't recall anyone saying Araujo would go that high, do you? So regardless of what Nash and Co., or the O'Connors of the world, or anyone else says, we have no frickin' idea where Telfair would have gone. He could have gone anywhere in the first round, and we'll never know. Nearly everything you hear around the draft is BS. Despite other teams not appearing interested in Telfair, he may have had more interest in him than we're aware, just as Araujo apparently had more interest than most were aware. 

The bottom line is, Portland management obviously saw something in Telfair that they liked, so they went for it. He was the guy all along, so why should they wait to see if he fell? 

Portland felt he was the right choice, and all the posturing throughout the league was irrelevant. He was Portland's guy, and they took him. And I don't necessarily believe he would have been gone at 22/23, but there are always teams that make unexpected picks (Toronto). 

Do we? As much as your disregarding Nash and O'Connor's words saying Telfair would not have been there at 22/23, you're putting stock in other people saying Telfair would have been there at 22/23? That makes a lot of sense. Every year around the draft, a lot of BS is tossed, and there are a ton of bluffs thrown out. You, nor do I, have any clue, as to what was reality and what were bluffs. But the fact that Telfair has impressed during summer league, and the belief by many that Telfair was a top pick up until the last few months before the draft have me feeling pretty good about attaining Telfair.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CrGiants</b>!
> 
> The bottom line is, Portland management obviously saw something in Telfair that they liked, so they went for it. He was the guy all along, so why should they wait to see if he fell?
> 
> ...


I wish I would have said that. :clap:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CrGiants</b>!
> 
> Yes, as a matter of fact, it is relevant. I don't recall anyone saying Araujo would go that high, do you?


Absolutely. There was an article in a paper that covers the Jazz that said that Araujo would definitely be picked at 14, but the odds of him not being there were slim.



> So regardless of what Nash and Co., or the O'Connors of the world, or anyone else says, we have no frickin' idea where Telfair would have gone. He could have gone anywhere in the first round, and we'll never know.


Actually, that's not true. We know he didn't go higher than 13, and we know he wouldn't have gone lower than 23. That leaves 8 spots where he might have gone if the Blazers hadn't picked him at 13.



> The bottom line is, Portland management obviously saw something in Telfair that they liked, so they went for it. He was the guy all along, so why should they wait to see if he fell?


That's not the bottom line for me. The bottom line is that I think the team should have gambled he would have been available at a lower pick.



> Do we?


I have no idea what your asking. I re-read your post several times and it confuses me.



> As much as your disregarding Nash and O'Connor's words saying Telfair would not have been there at 22/23, you're putting stock in other people saying Telfair would have been there at 22/23?


What "other people" am I putting stock in?

It seems if you're willing to put words into my mouth and thoughts into my head you should at least be specific.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> It seems if you're willing to put words into my mouth and thoughts into my head you should at least be specific.
> ...


I think you know what he meant in his entire post, Ed. You're getting a little bit rediculous, now - don't ya think?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> Well he IS an NBA scout, and his star player WAS a teammate of both Khryapa and Monia. I don't understand where you are trying to go with this.


You asked for "proof" that O'Connor was answering a question about Telfair.

Based on the facts that O'Connor was:

-- quoted in a Portland newspaper, and
-- answering questions about other Blazers draftees

it seems clear that he was responding to questions about Telfair when he offered the info.



> Terrible analogy, you are basically suggesting Telfair's qualities are much like the rest of the point guards. Yea you could get your gas for cheaper, but taking that risk of getting cheaper gas down the road may really screw up your car.


Your lack of understanding doesn't mean an analogy's terrible.

Telfair IS much like other PGs. He's not even the best PG in his high school class, and given (a) there was another decent prospect in Jameer Nelson that might have slipped to 22, and (b) next year's draft looks to be stacked with PG prospects, missing out on Telfair wouldn't have been the end of the world.



> The pick wasn't offcially acquired before the draft, just the verbal agreement that NJ would pick for Portland, they admitted if a player they felt was significant enough in talent, they would have drafted him and kept the pick. It was announced after the pick that it was traded, therefore not making it official until after the pick was taken.


So what?



> Monia has more star potential than Khryapa, he was also rated much higher than Khryapa. Monia would be paid less on an option and they didn't want NJ to have second thoughts about possibly keeping the pick.


Weak, weak, weak. Grasping at straws.



> You're not making any sense.


It makes perfect sense. You claimed O'Connor said something he didn't.



> So you admit the Portland media disliking the Randolph pick, because they really did dislike the pick, contrary to what you said earlier.


No... you said, _"and everyone was mad at Zach."_

Is "everyone" defined by the Portland media? Maybe to you, but not to me. Not by a long shot.

Who really cares what the Portland media thinks, especially about the results of the NBA draft?



> Yea and Shawn Bradley probably also likes long walks on the beach and reading poetry, how is this basketball related? They have similar skills, regardless of where they were born.


I asked for *international* prospects of Pavel's size. You gave me Shawn Bradley. I was trying to stretch the interpretation of my question, rather than chalking it up to you being confused again.



> Of course age is a big factor and a significant issue, but by the time Pavel will be able to play in the NBA he will likely be older than Shawn Bradley when he started playing.


Not in my opinion. And didn't you just say that age is more appropriate for discussions of R Kelly?



> He DID workout for NBA teams prior to the draft, as do any lotto pick, how is he any different than Pavel in regards to workouts?


Because he was NOT picked for his workout prowess. He was picked for being excellent in his freshman year at BYU. 

As I pointed out, Bradley was out of shape following his mission. He hadn't shot the ball in 2 years. If you think that he had great workouts that catapulted him: more power to you. I can't find any evidence of that online, my memory doesn't recall that being the case, and common sense says it's not accurate.



> In all the years of basketball you can only name 5 centers? That's not a very good ratio Ed.


When you make a categorical assertion, and then I point out several instances that directly go against your assertion, it's not my job to convince you through endless research. It's simpler to just discard it as another mistake on your part.



> Of course some will turn out to be good, but look at the ratio. The chances of Pavel ever living up to the hype is slim.


What hype is that? I'm advocating taking him at #13, and he ended up going at #21. I don't know what "hype" you're talking about.



> The dudes on ESPN on draft night said Pavel only had 4 years of basketball experience, before that he never seemed to play organized basketball, unlike Scottie Pip or Chris Webber, so it is completely different. It doesn't really count when you are playing against people in a park, that's not organized.


Ah... so now it's not when you start playing basketball that matters, it's when YOU think they start playing REAL basketball that matters.

Interesting.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> I think you know what he meant in his entire post, Ed. You're getting a little bit rediculous, now - don't ya think?


I'm being a bit ridiculous? Please. 

If he (using gender-neutral sense here; don't know whether it's a woman or man) says I'm putting stock in what other people say, I want to know WHO he's talking about.

I've specifically articulated why I don't think that Nash's defense of his pick holds any particular weight and why I don't think O'Connor's comment that he probably would have kept the pick and taken Sebastian would have been the way the Jazz went.

If he thinks he knows what other sources I'm relying on, I want to hear what those are.

If he DOESN'T think he knows, then he shouldn't try to twist what I'm saying.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm being a bit ridiculous? Please.
> ...


It's been rather documented that Nash/O'Connor, and others seemed to think that Telfair wouldn't be there at 23. From what I recall (and I may be incorrect in this recollection), you seemed to think that there were other reports indicating that, indeed, Telfair could easily slide that far.

The seeming fact in all this is, the Blazer brass wanted Telfair, and weren't going to take ANY chances to acquire him - right, wrong, or indifferent on their part. I think that's pretty darned plain to see - at least it is to me.

Everything else - including your bantering with CrGiants - is futile conjecture. That's the context of my using the term, "rediculous."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> It's been rather documented that Nash/O'Connor, and others seemed to think that Telfair wouldn't be there at 23.


True.



> From what I recall (and I may be incorrect in this recollection), you seemed to think that there were other reports indicating that, indeed, Telfair could easily slide that far.


I don't think that I am relying on reports. I am relying on looking at the picks between 13 and 22... 14 and 16 were Utah, who have SPECIFICALLY said that they wouldn't have chosen Telfair.

That leaves 15 and 17-21. 6 picks. The odds of Telfair slipping past those 6 picks were pretty good, IMO. The odds that Portland could have moved up to one of those picks to take Telfair are also considerable. The odds that Nelson would have slipped if Telfair had been taken are significant.

There's a chance, of course, that Portland would have missed out on both Telfair AND Nelson by waiting until 22, but that would have been worth the gamble, to me, because next year's crop of PGs is looking so strong.



> The seeming fact in all this is, the Blazer brass wanted Telfair, and weren't going to take ANY chances to acquire him - right, wrong, or indifferent on their part. I think that's pretty darned plain to see - at least it is to me.


I don't disagree, but it's irrelevant to me for the purposes of this discussion. The mere action of someone doesn't mean that action was correct.

If we can NEVER talk about anything after it's happened except in a positive light: what's the point?



> Everything else - including your bantering with CrGiants - is futile conjecture. That's the context of my using the term, "rediculous."


99% of what we do on this board is conjecture. We all read the same stuff and we all have the same access to information. We don't need to come here to get that stuff... the value that this board adds is how we all process that information and the angles that we take on it.

As long as opinions are formulated cogently and rely on the latest information, presumably we all have an opportunity to read and learn from them.

If you think that's ridiculous: sorry. It's kind of the whole point of this board as far as I'm concerned.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Telfair IS much like other PGs. He's not even the best PG in his high school class, and given (a) there was another decent prospect in Jameer Nelson that might have slipped to 22, and (b) next year's draft looks to be stacked with PG prospects, missing out on Telfair wouldn't have been the end of the world.


He's not even the best PG in his H.S. class? The statistics indicate so, considering Livingston significantly had less points AND assists while playing in an easier part of the country, I would say Telfair is MUCH better than Livingston. The McDonald's All American game is further proof that Telfair out played Livingston. Livingston was only taken higher because of his height. Look at the stats for yourself son. 

Jameer Nelson isn't ever going to be a star point guard, Telfair has the potential to be that. Telfair seems to have all the qualities a great point guard has, I don't see why you want the Blazers to pass up on the guy if they thought he was the future. 




> So what?


So you admit you were wrong, the Khryapa pick wasn't official until after he was drafted. I see why Portland felt more inclined to take the player who has less buzz around him, because they didn't want the Nets to end up keeping it. It's called common-sense, please use it. 




> No... you said, _"and everyone was mad at Zach."_
> 
> Is "everyone" defined by the Portland media? Maybe to you, but not to me. Not by a long shot.
> 
> Who really cares what the Portland media thinks, especially about the results of the NBA draft?


I said everyone including the media and Blazer fans were mad at the Zach pick, please read carefully. The media showed fans going off on the pick and how they wanted a center.




> I asked for *international* prospects of Pavel's size. You gave me Shawn Bradley. I was trying to stretch the interpretation of my question, rather than chalking it up to you being confused again.


I don't know what you want, Slavko Vranes? He's international and relatively the same size as Pavel. Now you will probably argue that Vranes is an inch taller and from some other country because you can't come up with a legitimate reason to bash me. 



> Not in my opinion. And didn't you just say that age is more appropriate for discussions of R Kelly?


You brought the age issue up, not me. If you had a sense of humor (which I doubt), you would know I was joking. Ha.........Ha.




> Because he was NOT picked for his workout prowess. He was picked for being excellent in his freshman year at BYU.
> 
> As I pointed out, Bradley was out of shape following his mission. He hadn't shot the ball in 2 years. If you think that he had great workouts that catapulted him: more power to you.


Corliss Williamson also had a great year in college, same with Clancy, Jameer Nelson as well. Point is, you have to show something in workouts, or you'll end up being picked in the low first round or even 2nd round, maybe not even drafted. A single year at a college isn't a free pass to being a lotto pick. 



> I can't find any evidence of that online, my memory doesn't recall that being the case, and common sense says it's not accurate.


Well Ed. O, sorry to break it to ya but life DOES exist outside of the internet, but I don't think you would know considering your post count. 




> What hype is that? I'm advocating taking him at #13, and he ended up going at #21. I don't know what "hype" you're talking about.


What hype? Don't you remember last season when everyone and their mama said Pavel would go top 5 before he withdrew? It wasn't that long ago man. 



> Ah... so now it's not when you start playing basketball that matters, it's when YOU think they start playing REAL basketball that matters.


Four years, or six years, neither justifies taking Pavel with the 13th pick kiddo.

Furthermore, I think taking Telfair was absolutely the right thing to do, easy to find a big stiff center like Pavel, easy to find a slashing two-guard like Snyder. The only player I would have taken a look at if there was no Telfair was Al Jefferson.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> He's not even the best PG in his H.S. class? The statistics indicate so, considering Livingston significantly had less points AND assists while playing in an easier part of the country, I would say Telfair is MUCH better than Livingston.


I think that you would be in the minority as far as which player is the better PG prospect.

Which, of course, is quite alright. I'm in the minority on this board in thinking that Portland reached for Telfair (and a minority of a minority, perhaps, in thinking that Bassy's still got an excellent chance of being a good player). We're all entitled to our opinions.



> Telfair seems to have all the qualities a great point guard has, I don't see why you want the Blazers to pass up on the guy if they thought he was the future.


Because there was a pretty significant chance that he'd have fallen to them at 22. Whether you refuse to believe that that's what I think or not doesn't really matter.



> So you admit you were wrong, the Khryapa pick wasn't official until after he was drafted.


No. I never claimed the trade was official until after Viktor was picked. I think that the trade was agreed to well before then, though, so New Jersey was picking for Portland.



> I see why Portland felt more inclined to take the player who has less buzz around him, because they didn't want the Nets to end up keeping it. It's called common-sense, please use it.


There's NO WAY ON EARTH that the Nets would have agreed to take a player for Portland and then changed their minds and kept him. That makes no sense, common or otherwise.



> I said everyone including the media and Blazer fans were mad at the Zach pick, please read carefully. The media showed fans going off on the pick and how they wanted a center.


Who cares what the fans want? You held it up as "everyone being mad" at the pick, when in fact the media didn't necessarily represent accurately what educated fans thought.



> I don't know what you want, Slavko Vranes? He's international and relatively the same size as Pavel. Now you will probably argue that Vranes is an inch taller and from some other country because you can't come up with a legitimate reason to bash me.


I want you to admit that there HAS been no prospect like Pavel. Just like there has been no prospect like Telfair. 

I don't bring up guys that ALMOST fit the bill of Sebastian to try to downgrade Telfair's potential, but you've consistently tried to do that to Pavel.



> You brought the age issue up, not me. If you had a sense of humor (which I doubt), you would know I was joking. Ha.........Ha.


Whether you made the point with R Kelly or not, your point was that age didn't matter, and that I focused too much on it. 

Then your next post was that age DID matter. Seems inconsistent.



> Well Ed. O, sorry to break it to ya but life DOES exist outside of the internet, but I don't think you would know considering your post count.


(Fall back to the personal shots when you don't have a good argument. Nice.)

You're claiming Shawn Bradley was a workout warrior. I've not found ONE piece of evidence that this is true. I followed the draft that year very closely and have a pretty good memory, and I don't remember that to be true. 

It's well documented that Bradley was away from the game for 2 years and gained some weight (presumably due to lack of physical activity)... but since "life DOES exist outside of the internet" your original point should be taken at face value without any evidence? Please.



> What hype? Don't you remember last season when everyone and their mama said Pavel would go top 5 before he withdrew? It wasn't that long ago man.


You're talking about the hype from over a year ago?

Who cares about that? Really... what does it matter?

If I were arguing that Portland should have used a top 5 pick on him, I could see how that old news would matter. I'm not, though, so it doesn't.



> Four years, or six years, neither justifies taking Pavel with the 13th pick kiddo.


His experience isn't the JUSTIFICATION. His skills and size and upside are.

Ed O.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Yeesh, this thread has been dragged through enough mud it might as well have been investigated by Kenneth Starr. What's next, Hitler comparisons? Civility, as a general rule, is not helped when words like "retarded" are used.

For the actual topic, though, I'm quite willing to admit that Telfair was a slight reach. I guess it doesn't bother me in the least, though, since 1) there was no taken between 13 and 22 that I particularly cared for (Snyder is closest), and 2) if there was a good chance of him not lasting to 22, then I don't see that much value could have been extracted out of trading down or up to get him (a bit of cash, or future second rounder? whatever).

As it's turning out, I think Telfair is showing signs that he may be worth the pick, and having him for a year to tryout is very helpful, since next year there the position is very up in the air with Damon and NVE's exoiring deals, and still another draft to go through. I think we saw enough of Dickau and co. to know they were not going to be future factor factors. I'd still like to see Pmar Cook around, since he looked like he was only a jumper away, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I still think Pavel at 13 would have been a better choice than Telfair at 13.


Ed, you are going to regret having made that comment in a few years IMO. Of course the proof will be displayed on the floor, but IMO PAvel will\is a bust and will NEVER see significant minutes (20+ min) in the NBA.


Of course, I could end up regretting that statement  

But I seriously doubt I will.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> Ed, you are going to regret having made that comment in a few years IMO. Of course the proof will be displayed on the floor, but IMO PAvel will\is a bust and will NEVER see significant minutes (20+ min) in the NBA.
> 
> ...


Hehe. I admit, too, that I could be wrong... heck, I *HOPE* I'm wrong, because I hope that Telfair proves to be so good that it doesn't matter how highly he was chosen.

I know that I've taken a position that I almost certainly can't be proven correct. I'm just defending my opinion (and the foundations of it) the best I can.

Ed O.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Well,my two cents on Pavel is this..

I believe he is too big..
I read somewhere he has a pituitary problem.
It was not Marfan Syndrome (Abe Lincoln),but something similiar.

I am 100% sure I read it,I think it was on a site that I ran thru
Babel to translate it..
Wish I could produce it for you now.

I don't feel bad at all about getting him.

He could be out of the NBA soon if he does have problems.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that you would be in the minority as far as which player is the better PG prospect.


Not really, even Clipper fans seem to like Telfair more, yea Livingston is the better prospect but Telfair is by far a better player now. 



> Because there was a pretty significant chance that he'd have fallen to them at 22. Whether you refuse to believe that that's what I think or not doesn't really matter.


I don't think there was more than a 15% chance that Telfair would fall to 22, just my opinion but I'll let you entertain me for now. 




> No. I never claimed the trade was official until after Viktor was picked. I think that the trade was agreed to well before then, though, so New Jersey was picking for Portland.


You're switching up, you should change your alias to John Kerry. It's funny though. Before you said it was a done deal, done deal means official, not verbal, like it was before the pick was announced. 




> There's NO WAY ON EARTH that the Nets would have agreed to take a player for Portland and then changed their minds and kept him. That makes no sense, common or otherwise.


Why not? The Nets' GM even admitted he really wanted to keep the pick and take Monia once he saw he was available, I don't think its inconceivable that he would have kept the pick if he was forced to take Monia. 




> Who cares what the fans want?


Apparently Paul Allen, John Nash, and Steve Patterson considering they got rid of Rasheed Wallace and Bonzi Wells, the head of the trouble of the team. So you asked an odd question there. 



> You held it up as "everyone being mad" at the pick, when in fact the media didn't necessarily represent accurately what educated fans thought.


Well, regardless of who you think is educated or not, MOST fans disliked the drafting of Zach Randolph when the team's need was a center. Most Blazer fans wanted Brenden Haywood with the pick. The media outlets just voiced the fans' opinions, don't be mad. 




> I want you to admit that there HAS been no prospect like Pavel. Just like there has been no prospect like Telfair.


There has, not down to every detail but there has. 



> I don't bring up guys that ALMOST fit the bill of Sebastian to try to downgrade Telfair's potential, but you've consistently tried to do that to Pavel.


It's not that I want Pavel to fail or anything, I just think it's insane to want to take a guy of 4-6 years of basketball experience over a dude who's been playing since he was born and has been hailed as the next big thing, and legitimately by the way. I wouldn't have minded taking Pavel, just no way would I think about drafting the stiff at pick 13. 



> Whether you made the point with R Kelly or not, your point was that age didn't matter, and that I focused too much on it.


Go back and read, never did I say age is not important, I just stated you make it into something much bigger than it is, obviously you want younger players, rather than older ones, we all know that. Age is one of the most important factors when drafting a player, something the Raptors know nothing about when drafting Araujo with the number nine. 




> You're claiming Shawn Bradley was a workout warrior. I've not found ONE piece of evidence that this is true. I followed the draft that year very closely and have a pretty good memory, and I don't remember that to be true.


I hate Bill O'reilly but dude, stop spinning. I never said Bradley was a "workout warrior." I said obviously he had strong workouts to be taken so early in the draft. Evidence or not, in my opinion I can see Bradley doing great in workouts, because he can shoot and is pretty mobile for a guy his size. 



> You're talking about the hype from over a year ago?
> 
> Who cares about that? Really... what does it matter?


Hype does matter, if it wasn't for hype from last year, Pavel likely wouldn't have even been drafted in the first round. It's funny to hear basically nothing about him this time around. He had much hype from all the sport outlets last season, more than Darko and Carmello surely. 



> His experience isn't the JUSTIFICATION. His skills and size and upside are.


Skills? What has he shown in a game? NOTHING. If you want to isolate a guy with no real game happening, sure they can show individual skills, but can the player put it in the game? He couldn't get off the bench in Europe of all places, he stats were terrible and there was nobody his size to challenge him, and he still didn't get no PT.

There are plenty of people who can hit 500 free throws in a row, there are people who can hit 10 out of 10 three pointers in a row, but most can't translate it in an organized basketball game.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> You're switching up, you should change your alias to John Kerry.


Good one. Is that for people who didn't see that exact same joke a few posts back? Or is it just supposed to be funnier the second time?



> It's funny though. Before you said it was a done deal, done deal means official, not verbal, like it was before the pick was announced.


Deals are often considered agreed to before they're official. The trade could have been agreed to beforehand in spite of not getting league approval.



> Why not? The Nets' GM even admitted he really wanted to keep the pick and take Monia once he saw he was available, I don't think its inconceivable that he would have kept the pick if he was forced to take Monia.


Either they picked Khyrapa for Portland or they passed on Monia and LATER decided to trade Khyrapa to the Blazers.

It makes no sense that NJ was empowered to not trade the pick, that they loved Monia, and then Portland was able to force them to pick a guy the Nets didn't want so the Nets would have to make the trade.



> Apparently Paul Allen, John Nash, and Steve Patterson considering they got rid of Rasheed Wallace and Bonzi Wells, the head of the trouble of the team. So you asked an odd question there.


Who cares what the fans want in terms of *the draft*. Few fans spend any time reading about draft prospects.



> Well, regardless of who you think is educated or not, MOST fans disliked the drafting of Zach Randolph when the team's need was a center. Most Blazer fans wanted Brenden Haywood with the pick. The media outlets just voiced the fans' opinions, don't be mad.


Who's mad? I loved the pick and I don't know why you brought up Zach in the first place. That the media reflected ignorant fan ravings doesn't matter one way or the other.



> There has, not down to every detail but there has.


Who? All I want is an international teenager that's around seven and a half feet tall and went in the first round.



> I hate Bill O'reilly but dude, stop spinning. I never said Bradley was a "workout warrior." I said obviously he had strong workouts to be taken so early in the draft. Evidence or not, in my opinion I can see Bradley doing great in workouts, because he can shoot and is pretty mobile for a guy his size.


So because you can envision him, after 2 years away from the game, blowing people away in workouts, you think that's similar in any way to how Pavel has impressed people in workouts? I just don't see it.



> Hype does matter, if it wasn't for hype from last year, Pavel likely wouldn't have even been drafted in the first round. It's funny to hear basically nothing about him this time around.


If you heard nothing about him this time around, you weren't paying attention. Maybe that's why you're relying on comparing him to hype that's like 14 months old.



> Skills? What has he shown in a game? NOTHING. If you want to isolate a guy with no real game happening, sure they can show individual skills, but can the player put it in the game? He couldn't get off the bench in Europe of all places, he stats were terrible and there was nobody his size to challenge him, and he still didn't get no PT.


He got no PT because the team knew he was leaving and didn't want to rush him. As you SHOULD know, players his age rarely get playing time and when their teams know they're leaving it's even more common for them to rot.

It's mentioned obliquely in this week's ESPN the magazine by one of his teammates. You might want to read it.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Good one. Is that for people who didn't see that exact same joke a few posts back? Or is it just supposed to be funnier the second time?


Funny both times, again you have no sense of humor. 



> Deals are often considered agreed to before they're official. The trade could have been agreed to beforehand in spite of not getting league approval.


I don't doubt that the deal was agreed upon, in fact I am almost a 100% sure the deal was completed verbally. The Blazers didn't want to take the risk of the Nets turning on them though. It's just a safety precaution, not a big deal. 




> Either they picked Khyrapa for Portland or they passed on Monia and LATER decided to trade Khyrapa to the Blazers.
> 
> It makes no sense that NJ was empowered to not trade the pick, that they loved Monia, and then Portland was able to force them to pick a guy the Nets didn't want so the Nets would have to make the trade.


Again, read above and my past posts. I know the deal was verbally agreed upon, but the Blazers felt they needed to take precautions until the deal was announced and passed officially by the league. 




> Who cares what the fans want in terms of *the draft*. Few fans spend any time reading about draft prospects.
> 
> 
> Who's mad? I loved the pick and I don't know why you brought up Zach in the first place. That the media reflected ignorant fan ravings doesn't matter one way or the other.


You asking me who cares says nothing, you aren't a part of the NBA nor the Portland Trail Blazers organization, for all we know they do care, quit assuming so much. 

Whether you loved the pick or not is irrelevant, you don't even represent 1% of Blazer fans, so telling me you loved the pick means nothing. The statement I posted earlier was that most Blazer fans disliked the Zach Randolph pick, it was fact. 



> So because you can envision him, after 2 years away from the game, blowing people away in workouts, you think that's similar in any way to how Pavel has impressed people in workouts? I just don't see it.


I do, they have similar skills man. Shawn Bradley was probably a better prospect than Pavel was when he got drafted. 




> If you heard nothing about him this time around, you weren't paying attention. Maybe that's why you're relying on comparing him to hype that's like 14 months old.


His hype from last year has helped his draft position this year, you are ignorant enough to think that Pavel's last year hype didn't alter his draft position this year? You are coked out of your mind then. 



> He got no PT because the team knew he was leaving and didn't want to rush him. As you SHOULD know, players his age rarely get playing time and when their teams know they're leaving it's even more common for them to rot.
> 
> It's mentioned obliquely in this week's ESPN the magazine by one of his teammates. You might want to read it.



The team knew he was leaving so they didn't play him? What did they have to lose by playing? A better question is why they didn't command a large buyout on the guy if he ever proved anything. He never proved a damn thing unfortunately. 

I don't read ESPN magazine, these are the same guys who stated there was a 7-11 guy in Africa which the NBA found his letter to enter the draft a day before the last day of participation of the NBA draft. Most the stuff they say is crap, Aldridge was credible but he was one of the only. Please don't promote ESPN magazine again on this board.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> Hype does matter, if it wasn't for hype from last year, Pavel likely wouldn't have even been drafted in the first round. It's funny to hear basically nothing about him this time around. He had much hype from all the sport outlets last season, more than Darko and Carmello surely.


Well it wasn't hype that broke his hand prior to the draft this year... I doubt that helped either his workouts or hype. 

Broken hands heal up well though. The Kid is really big, moves and jumps decently, and was pretty coordinated with the ball in the clips I saw. IF he's healthy, I could easily see him turning out to be a real quality big. Those aren't easy to come by, though hopefully Nedzad and/or Ha will turn out for Portland down the line. Like so many of these nearly complete unknown rooks, we'll just have to see whats what when the real games begin... though I'd guess that Telfair and Pavel have very similar 1st seasons sitting and clapping. 

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Well it wasn't hype that broke his hand prior to the draft this year... I doubt that helped either his workouts or hype.


Well have a pituitary gland problem is an issue too, but the folks who knew about that last year didn't seem to mind according to where he was projected to go in the draft. 



> Broken hands heal up well though. The Kid is really big, moves and jumps decently, and was pretty coordinated with the ball in the clips I saw. IF he's healthy, I could easily see him turning out to be a real quality big. Those aren't easy to come by, though hopefully Nedzad and/or Ha will turn out for Portland down the line. Like so many of these nearly complete unknown rooks, we'll just have to see whats what when the real games begin... though I'd guess that Telfair and Pavel have very similar 1st seasons sitting and clapping.


Private worksouts Stomp, don't be infatuated with a 7-5 guy who plays against 6 foot trainers on isolated drills, seriously. I heard the same things about a lot of centers in the past 10 years. I don't fall for them guys.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> I still think Pavel at 13 would have been a better choice than Telfair at 13. I think this because I feel Telfair would have slipped to 22 or to a spot were Portland could have moved up to get him.
> 
> ...





> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Hehe. I admit, too, that I could be wrong... heck, I *HOPE* I'm wrong, because I hope that Telfair proves to be so good that it doesn't matter how highly he was chosen.
> 
> ...


You've done a credible, and probably tiring, job of backing up your feelings on the subject, Ed.

Your last thoughts set much better with me, though. Thanks for sharing those.

On a different note, I'll trot-out this analogy again:

A few years back, Sacto's GM, Geoff Petrie was confronted with drafting an undisputed fan favorite and extremely logical choice - John Wallace from Syracuse - or somene else. He chose someone else - an obscure choice in Predrag Stojakovic. Petrie was practically booed out of the place. Some thought he should be canned.

But, the rest is history...................

For all us fans' sake, let's hope Nash & Co. have similar foresight and savvy.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> Well have a pituitary gland problem is an issue too, but the folks who knew about that last year didn't seem to mind according to where he was projected to go in the draft.


Sam, how doesn't Pavel being injured possibly help explain why he didn't generate the buzz over his abilities this year compared to last? Last year his workouts, especially his ability to shoot and handle the ball at his size, were reportedly what had the scouts raving. With a broken hand, those skills are not going to be on display, and scouts are left looking at a super sized Ostertag. Many/most mocks still projected him to go a lot higher then he did though...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=2154577cap&prov=st&type=lgns

Everyone knows about the pituitary issue, and sure thats got to be of some concern, but from what I've read, modern medicine already has that under controll. Your quoted assertion above is just wrong though... his pituitary problem was not known about when he was being projected last year near the top of the lotto... once it started becoming common knowledge, he started slipping out of the lotto in the mocks. Shortly thereafter, he withdrew his name to address his medical condition and to work on skills for one more year.

Don Nelson and his son Donnie have been pretty shrewd talent evaluators over the years... their track record for spotting talent is much more impressive then Nash's. I think it's very premature to call posters out for a pre-draft feeling someone else may have been a better pick. Further, I see nothing wrong (or "funny") about a Blazer fan feeling that way and still cheering ST on. 

Lastly, I've really found your consistent personal insults throughout this thread to be unnecessary and classless. Be better then that... keep that bleep out of here.

STOMP


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Sam, how doesn't Pavel being injured possibly help explain why he didn't generate the buzz over his abilities this year compared to last? Last year his workouts, especially his ability to shoot and handle the ball at his size, were reportedly what had the scouts raving. With a broken hand, those skills are not going to be on display, and scouts are left looking at a super sized Ostertag. Many/most mocks still projected him to go a lot higher then he did though...
> ...


the bottom line, if most nba gm's thought pavel would be a great big man in the future he would've been a top pick. The fact that he was passed shows me no one think he'll be special. SO i'd rather go for the kid who can be very special, than an ok big man which isnt that rare.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>knickstorm</b>!
> 
> ...if most nba gm's thought pavel would be a great big man in the future he would've been a top pick. The fact that he was passed shows me no one think he'll be special. SO i'd rather go for the kid who can be very special, than an ok big man which isnt that rare.


yeah, no "special" players have ever slipped, & no top picks have ever turned out to be busts  

You could field a pretty competitive team of guys who went later then #21 or weren't even drafted. 

Ben Wallace- undrafted
Brad Miller- undrafted 
Andrei Kirilenko- #24 
Manu Ginobli- #57
Gilbert Arenas- #31

Mark Blount- #55
Memet Okur- #38
Carlos Boozer- #35
Tayshawn Prince- #23
Al Harrington- #25
Latrell Sprewell- #24
Tony Parker- #28

IMO thats a better squad then the world champs.

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Sam, how doesn't Pavel being injured possibly help explain why he didn't generate the buzz over his abilities this year compared to last? Last year his workouts, especially his ability to shoot and handle the ball at his size, were reportedly what had the scouts raving. With a broken hand, those skills are not going to be on display, and scouts are left looking at a super sized Ostertag. Many/most mocks still projected him to go a lot higher then he did though...


If the scouts had a look at him last year and were impressed and knew he was injured this coming year, it shouldn't have changed their opinion on the guy last season. GMs are smarter than that, a broken hand is really a non issue when it comes to drafting a player, a bad back is different. No scout who thought he should be a top 5 pick from last year is gonna let him drop past 15 because of a broken hand, it doesn't work like that buddy. 



> Everyone knows about the pituitary issue, and sure thats got to be of some concern, but from what I've read, modern medicine already has that under controll. Your quoted assertion above is just wrong though... his pituitary problem was not known about when he was being projected last year near the top of the lotto... once it started becoming common knowledge, he started slipping out of the lotto in the mocks. Shortly thereafter, he withdrew his name to address his medical condition and to work on skills for one more year.


Well it was a pretty bad decision by him and his agent last season, he would have gone top 10 definitely in the 2003 draft, but he waited it out and went further down. The hype alone from last season would have made him a top 10 pick from last season. He should fire his agent. 



> Don Nelson and his son Donnie have been pretty shrewd talent evaluators over the years... their track record for spotting talent is much more impressive then Nash's. I think it's very premature to call posters out for a pre-draft feeling someone else may have been a better pick. Further, I see nothing wrong (or "funny") about a Blazer fan feeling that way and still cheering ST on.


Well considering Don Nelson gave up crap to get Pavel, shrewd talent evaluator or not, they gave up virtually nothing to get a big 7-5 guy with promise, nothing wrong with that. They have the luxury of taking the risk, they have enough talent on that team in case Pavel never materializes. I don't think it is premature to talk about the draft picks, this is a message board, people express their opinions on different issues concerning the Blazers, don't be so sensitive. I can't fault Ed for wanting to take Pavel over Bassy no more than he can fault me for wanting to take Bassy over Pavel, it's all opinion and predictions. 

We have a long while before we know who was right or wrong and who will turn out to be a more productive player in this league, time will tell. 



> Lastly, I've really found your consistent personal insults throughout this thread to be unnecessary and classless. Be better then that... keep that bleep out of here.


Keep the bleep out of here? Oh yea, that's very classy man. I laugh at anyone who takes message board talk serious, it's like you guys are trying to make laws on the internet, it's really funny. I don't take insults personally, it is the internet, life IS outside of this internet, it's not like I live on this thing. Lighten son, you don't have to try and appear hard on a message board. 


Sambonius


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

Ed, who am I referring to? I am referring to you thinking that Telfair would slide to 22/23. Where did you get the idea that Telfair would slide that far? You're attacking others who said that Telfair would not be available at 22/23 because they're believing O'Connor. Well, I would assume that you felt Telfair would be available at 22/23 because that is the way some scouts or analysts talked. So, apparently the O'Connor's word means little while the ones who say Telfair would be around at 22/23 hold value?


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

BTW, Ed, I did read your post on you supposedly not basing your judgment on Telfair sliding on analysts. However, I do not fully buy that. I think Telfair would have been a better selection than most of the picks between 16-21, and I don't buy that any of your judgment there is not influenced by what some analysts had to say. 

That being said, again, this whole thing is pretty pointless. The bottom line, whether you agree or not, is that Portland really wanted Telfair, no ifs, ands, or buts. And so they were not willing to take the risk you suggested. Could Telfair have slid to 22/23? It's possible. But I don't think there is absolutely any info out there that had enough basis that would have Telfair sliding to 22/23, so Portland was not going to take the gamble and assume Telfair would slide.

Why argue with Portland when they got the player they truly wanted? I feel they had enough info to believe Telfair would have been gone at 22/23 to justify the selection at 13. I am not a huge Nash fan, but I do not believe that Patterson would have allowed the selection at 13 if he believed Telfair would slide.

On Pavel, I am going to ask the obvious question: Why would a 7'5" center slide so far in the draft, especially with such a premium on big men?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CrGiants</b>!
> You're attacking others who said that Telfair would not be available at 22/23 because they're believing O'Connor.


Bullcrap. I'm not attacking ANYONE for feeling that way.

I'm fully accepting that Telfair might have been gone at 22. I'm simply willing to have taken the risk that he wasn't, and I reject that it's been categorically shown that he would have DEFINITELY been gone.



> Well, I would assume that you felt Telfair would be available at 22/23 because that is the way some scouts or analysts talked.


You're assuming incorrectly. 



> So, apparently the O'Connor's word means little while the ones who say Telfair would be around at 22/23 hold value?


Again, it's not true so if it's apparent to you you're missing something.



> Why argue with Portland when they got the player they truly wanted?


Because I think they overpaid. How many times do I have to answer the exact same question?



> On Pavel, I am going to ask the obvious question: Why would a 7'5" center slide so far in the draft, especially with such a premium on big men?


There's a ton of possible explanations...

Because he's 19 and he hasn't played very much. Because most teams haven't scouted him that thoroughly. Because with the early returns on international players like Tskitishvili and Darko, GMs don't want to take a chance on an international big guy.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> If the scouts had a look at him last year and were impressed and knew he was injured this coming year, it shouldn't have changed their opinion on the guy last season. GMs are smarter than that, a broken hand is really a non issue when it comes to drafting a player, a bad back is different. No scout who thought he should be a top 5 pick from last year is gonna let him drop past 15 because of a broken hand, it doesn't work like that *buddy*


Are you a scout (or NBA insider) or are you just some guy banging out guesses on the internet? You're writing as if you've got insight into how the system works, but I suspect your just speculating and condescendingly passing off your guesses as fact. 

I's my opinion as a mere fan that this is exactly how it works. The guy who's made the latest strong impression is the guy that scouts are in love with for today. Time will tell who was right.



> Well it was a pretty bad decision by him and his agent last season, he would have gone top 10 definitely in the 2003 draft, but he waited it out and went further down. The hype alone from last season would have made him a top 10 pick from last season. He should fire his agent.


I don't think things worked out badly for Pavel at all. So what that he lost out on a few bucks on his rookie deal? He took care of his medical concerns, and got another year of experience in Europe. Now at the ripe old age of 19 he landed in a very good situation with a HOF coach on a good team in dire need of a 5. Everyone knows (maybe even the Portland media) that the real money for players in the league is not on their rookie deal but when they become FA's. Portland just signed a FA to be their backup 2 guard at about the same pay that the #1 overall pick was signed for. Landing in a good situation where a prospect can contribute to a winning team and thrive is much more important for a players max prospects (IMO) then being drafted higher. Even still, he's got more guarenteed cash coming off this #21 rook deal then most of us will make in a lifetime.



> Well considering Don Nelson gave up crap to get Pavel, shrewd talent evaluator or not, they gave up virtually nothing to get a big 7-5 guy with promise, nothing wrong with that. They have the luxury of taking the risk, they have enough talent on that team in case Pavel never materializes. I don't think it is premature to talk about the draft picks, this is a message board, people express their opinions on different issues concerning the Blazers, don't be so sensitive. I can't fault Ed for wanting to take Pavel over Bassy no more than he can fault me for wanting to take Bassy over Pavel, it's all opinion and predictions.
> 
> We have a long while before we know who was right or wrong and who will turn out to be a more productive player in this league, time will tell.


Right, time will tell. It's not premature to talk about draft picks and recall who guessed who would be good, but it's premature (and classless IMO) to laugh at, and call other Blazer fans names (bandwagoner ect) when no results are in. 

Yeah it's just a message board, but there are other boards where smacktalk is the norm. Thats not here. I'm not trying to make up rules, those were the rules that were in place when I signed on to be part of BBB.net



> Keep the bleep out of here? Oh yea, that's very classy man. *I laugh at* anyone who takes message board talk serious, it's like you guys are trying to make laws on the internet, it's really funny. I don't take insults personally, it is the internet, life IS outside of this internet, it's not like I live on this thing. Lighten *son*, you don't have to try and appear hard on a message board.


From what I'm reading, it's you who is doing the laughing at, namecalling, and out of nowhere assertions. Others have commented on it too. As far as me saying keep that bleep out of here... there is a big difference between saying someone's opinion stinks and saying a poster stinks. I don't know where you're pulling this nonsense that I'm trying to appear hard, thats hardly my MO... perhaps you're reading too much into my handle. 

Is it too much to ask you to knock off the personal cheapshots and remain civil like everyone else is being? 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Just wanted to add a couple of thoughts to my assertions about how unimportant it is how high a player is drafted compared to being in the right situation with at least a 1st rounders guarentee of 3 years of NBA money. 

A year back or so, I heard a radio piece discussing how the current CBA, which was partially constructed with getting the vets/not the rooks the available big dollars, is effectively encouraging young players to skip college come out early. In the piece they had some clips of Zach speaking saying that his only career regret was spending a year in college instead of going strait to the pros from HS. I can't quote him directly, but he stated something along the lines of "got to get on the clock and get that rookie deal over with."

As far as players angling to get into good situations for them to thrive in even if it means less $$$ in the short-term... the Warriors pick this year (Biedrins) reportedly didn't work out for several teams higher in the lotto then GS, because he and his agent felt that Phili and others weren't as good a situation for him to develope. Portland's Sinanovic didn't work out for anyone last year in hopes that he wouldn't be drafted at all and would be able to enter the league as a UFA in a couple of years.

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you a scout (or NBA insider) or are you just some guy banging out guesses on the internet? You're writing as if you've got insight into how the system works, but I suspect your just speculating and condescendingly passing off your guesses as fact.


Let's say I am just guessing and speculating, how is my speculation any less than Ed. O's when saying Telfair would still be there at 22? I do know the NBA though, probably far greater than you have imagined. 



> I's my opinion as a mere fan that this is exactly how it works. The guy who's made the latest strong impression is the guy that scouts are in love with for today. Time will tell who was right.


That's not a bad assumption if you are trying to generalize guys who are not of impressive size, on the other hand we are talking about a guy who is 7-5, a very big guy who has shown great skills in isolated workouts 14 months ago, the first workouts won't be forgotten by GMs and scouts due to a player being 7-5, you may have a case for a guy who is 6-6, but not a guy who is 7-5. 




> I don't think things worked out badly for Pavel at all. So what that he lost out on a few bucks on his rookie deal? He took care of his medical concerns, and got another year of experience in Europe. Now at the ripe old age of 19 he landed in a very good situation with a HOF coach on a good team in dire need of a 5. Everyone knows (maybe even the Portland media) that the real money for players in the league is not on their rookie deal but when they become FA's. Portland just signed a FA to be their backup 2 guard at about the same pay that the #1 overall pick was signed for. Landing in a good situation where a prospect can contribute to a winning team and thrive is much more important for a players max prospects (IMO) then being drafted higher. Even still, he's got more guarenteed cash coming off this #21 rook deal then most of us will make in a lifetime.


Of course things didn't workout bad for Pavel, he's gonna be making millions soon, but he could have made much more if he came out in 2003. In the end Stomp, this is a business, few care about a good situation, the primary goal is to get the largest contract possible, the agents should be pushing that on their clients as well. 




> Right, time will tell. It's not premature to talk about draft picks and recall who guessed who would be good, but it's premature (and classless IMO) to laugh at, and call other Blazer fans names (bandwagoner ect) when no results are in.


Exactly, no results are in and everyone is jumping on the Telfair bandwagon after nearly ever Blazer fan and their mama chastized the kid when he got drafted, including media outlets not only locally but nationally. Now because he has good games at the Rocky Mountain Revue everyone is on his jock? I see something wrong with that, you should too. It is comedy to see him being chastized by everyone then everyone on his jock because he is playing good in these summer games, I hope you find it comedic too. 




> From what I'm reading, it's you who is doing the laughing at, namecalling, and out of nowhere assertions. Others have commented on it too. As far as me saying keep that bleep out of here... there is a big difference between saying someone's opinion stinks and saying a poster stinks. I don't know where you're pulling this nonsense that I'm trying to appear hard, thats hardly my MO... perhaps you're reading too much into my handle.
> 
> I don't take it too kindly when posters twist my words around and say things I never said, I have a problem with that. The only laughing I did was at all the jockage Telfair is getting from the same fans who chastized him when he got drafted at 13. I never said anyone's opinion sucks nor did I say any poster sucks. You are again trying to make assumptions on what my opinion is, and nowhere did I say the things you are.
> 
> ...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> Of course things didn't workout bad for Pavel, he's gonna be making millions soon, but he could have made much more if he came out in 2003. In the end Stomp, this is a business, few care about a good situation, the primary goal is to get the largest contract possible, the agents should be pushing that on their clients as well.


You seem to be addressing the obvious yet missing my point. The CBA is set up to reward UFAs not rookies. The amount of cash that players can make on their 2nd contract dwarfs what they make on their 1st. The most important thing for these rooks business wise is to be worthy of a max type deal when they are done with their initial contract. If they are sitting on the bench behind established quality players (not getting the opprotunity to show off and improve their skills), or are in a negative situation on a bad team, it's less likely that they'll be deemed worthy of the big bucks when they hit the market. 

Look at the dollars from this year. If all the options are exercised on #1 pick Dwight Howard's rook deal, he's due to make about 20 mil in his first 5 years. As the #21st pick, Pavel will make about 10 mil over his first 5 (again assuming all options are exercised). While the 10 mil difference is significant dollars, if all goes well and teams think enough of them, they'll be signing contracts that net them 60 mil or so over the following 5 years... and then at 29 they'll be in line for another fat payday. 

As to your assertion that Pavel should fire his agent because he gave up so much money not coming out last year... weren't you also the one who claimed earlier that drafts never go the way they're expected to and to put no stock in the mocks? There is no guarantee had he not dropped out to address his medical condition that he would have been drafted in the first (where the guaranteed money is) or at all. He very well could have slid like Lampe did.



> Exactly, no results are in and everyone is jumping on the Telfair bandwagon after nearly ever Blazer fan and their mama chastized the kid when he got drafted, including media outlets not only locally but nationally. Now because he has good games at the Rocky Mountain Revue everyone is on his jock? I see something wrong with that, you should too. It is comedy to see him being chastized by everyone then everyone on his jock because he is playing good in these summer games, I hope you find it comedic too.


I'd assume that everyone here is a Blazer fan first and foremost. We (us diehards here at BBB.net) speculate over everything Blazer related, and this last draft was no different. Regardless of whether the team goes the direction a poster advocated, I see nothing wrong (or funny) with Blazer fans rooting for Blazer players. Just for reference I wanted the team to somehow trade up for Livingston or Biedrins, and expressed concerns about the ego Telfair seemed to flash in the McDs game. I promptly started hoping for the best for/from him when he was selected. Is there really anything wrong with that IYO?

I find it weird that you're telling me how I should view things, specifically that I should be upset that the press critisized the pick. IMO, the press is often well off the mark regardless of the topic, so whatever... those writers have deadlines and editors who want them to take a compelling stand today. IMO, the goal is to hook you and get a reaction, not report the dry facts and take a wait and see attitude. It seems like your buttons were effectively pushed, I'm going to wait until the real games begin before praising/critisizing the selection.



> No personal cheap shots at all, but there will be if you guys continue to make up things that I said or did, I never laughed at any one poster, I never said their opinion sucks, nor did I say they sucked. So lighten up, this is a place for dialogue not assumptions.


 How is accusing someone of being *"coked out of their mind"* not an insulting personal cheap shot? Theres multiple other unnecessary derogatory references you've made towards others mental states too. Calling people "kiddo" and "son" is condescending and does not in any way help our dialogue. 

If you are honestly confused in how you're being offensive, I'd be glad to help you out through PMs, but I suspect/hope you already know how to play nice.

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> You seem to be addressing the obvious yet missing my point. The CBA is set up to reward UFAs not rookies. The amount of cash that players can make on their 2nd contract dwarfs what they make on their 1st. The most important thing for these rooks business wise is to be worthy of a max type deal when they are done with their initial contract. If they are sitting on the bench behind established quality players (not getting the opprotunity to show off and improve their skills), or are in a negative situation on a bad team, it's less likely that they'll be deemed worthy of the big bucks when they hit the market.


You make a pretty compelling case except your forgetting that a player Pavel's size could have his career end tomorrow for all we know. It's been said that he has had some injury problems though I've never followed it. 



> Look at the dollars from this year. If all the options are exercised on #1 pick Dwight Howard's rook deal, he's due to make about 20 mil in his first 5 years. As the #21st pick, Pavel will make about 10 mil over his first 5 (again assuming all options are exercised). While the 10 mil difference is significant dollars, if all goes well and teams think enough of them, they'll be signing contracts that net them 60 mil or so over the following 5 years... and then at 29 they'll be in line for another fat payday.


Again, that's all fine and dandy if you're assuming Pavel is going to have an injury free career at a guy his size, which is pretty uncommon actually. 



> As to your assertion that Pavel should fire his agent because he gave up so much money not coming out last year... weren't you also the one who claimed earlier that drafts never go the way they're expected to and to put no stock in the mocks? There is no guarantee had he not dropped out to address his medical condition that he would have been drafted in the first (where the guaranteed money is) or at all. He very well could have slid like Lampe did.


I think as an agent you gotta get what you can, waiting another year is a risky move by his agent. As an agent I think you HAVE to look at the mock drafts and where your client is projected to go, who knows if your client will fire you or get injured before the next draft. Lampe was different case than Pavel, Lampe was labled as a skilled player but Pavel is 7-5 and had a lot of hype around him, no way he would have slipped past 10 in 2003 much less the 1st round. 




> I'd assume that everyone here is a Blazer fan first and foremost. We (us diehards here at BBB.net) speculate over everything Blazer related, and this last draft was no different. Regardless of whether the team goes the direction a poster advocated, I see nothing wrong (or funny) with Blazer fans rooting for Blazer players. Just for reference I wanted the team to somehow trade up for Livingston or Biedrins, and expressed concerns about the ego Telfair seemed to flash in the McDs game. I promptly started hoping for the best for/from him when he was selected. Is there really anything wrong with that IYO?


There is nothing wrong if you were expressing your concerns about Telfair before the draft, that's legitimate, what is not legitimate is calling him a bust, a midget who is another Damon, a guy who can't shoot the ball or play on the NBA level. I don't know if you did that but I know the majority of Blazer fans DID say those things about Telfair before and after he got drafted by us. What you say you did wasn't wrong, you were merely expressing concerns and hoping for other players, you didn't bash him illegitamately like most Blazer fans. It IS funny to me what's going on now. 



> I find it weird that you're telling me how I should view things, specifically that I should be upset that the press critisized the pick. IMO, the press is often well off the mark regardless of the topic, so whatever... those writers have deadlines and editors who want them to take a compelling stand today. IMO, the goal is to hook you and get a reaction, not report the dry facts and take a wait and see attitude. It seems like your buttons were effectively pushed, I'm going to wait until the real games begin before praising/critisizing the selection.


Excuse me but I wasn't the one who started telling you how to view things, you did that to me. You said I shouldn't find it funny and humorous on the issue we are speaking of now. I'm not telling you to view it comedic, I'm just asking how you cannot. I wasn't even focusing on the Portland journalists because I don't even live there anymore, but I DO know what was said and what was not. I agree with you that it's the local media who is trying to hook you, I have no doubt and that's why I'm not mad at them, I'm mad at the so called fans for all the garbage they spewed about Telfair before they even got to see him play. 




> How is accusing someone of being *"coked out of their mind"* not an insulting personal cheap shot? Theres multiple other unnecessary derogatory references you've made towards others mental states too. Calling people "kiddo" and "son" is condescending and does not in any way help our dialogue.


I don't get offended when someone says I must be coked out of my mind when someone disagrees with my opinion, it's a funny way of creating a conversation, nothing wrong at all. It makes it to where there's less tension that way. "Son" is a term used mainly in the east coast for buddies/friends in case you didn't know, it is in no way derogatory. I'll give you kiddo but even that is becoming really sensitive. 

If you are honestly confused in how you're being offensive, I'd be glad to help you out through PMs, but I suspect/hope you already know how to play nice.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

This thread surely has shattered the record for average word count per post.

Dan


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I'm amazed at the Telfair vs Podkolzine debate in this thread. It is obvious that the logical choice at #13 was Al Jefferson. Telfair _might_ turn out to be a decent player, but I agree with Ed's assertion that he likely would have been available at #22.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> You make a pretty compelling case except your forgetting that a player Pavel's size could have his career end tomorrow for all we know. It's been said that he has had some injury problems though I've never followed it.


As far as I'm aware, his injury problems have been limited to a high ankle sprain last year and a broken hand this year... nothing to be overly concerned about for a 19 year old. Any young player (regardless of their size) could have their career end tomorrow to an ACL or something, but most of them are able to play into their 30's. Many of the great centers of the past have been able to nurse their pro careers along into their late 30's and even their 40's. I guess MJ and Stockton did too, but it seems to me that bigs last longer if anything. I'm not assuming he'll have an injury free career, heck pretty much no one does, but outside of Sam Bowie and Ralph Sampson, what other promising big(s) can you point to that had their careers derailed by injury. It's my impression that the odds of him having a long career are actually in his favor.



> I think as an agent you gotta get what you can, waiting another year is a risky move by his agent. As an agent I think you HAVE to look at the mock drafts and where your client is projected to go, who knows if your client will fire you or get injured before the next draft. Lampe was different case than Pavel, Lampe was labled as a skilled player but Pavel is 7-5 and had a lot of hype around him, no way he would have slipped past 10 in 2003 much less the 1st round.


You must not remember his stock dropping like a rock following the glandular revelation. At the time he dropped out last year, I recall his agent stating that he was unable to generate a promise from anyone in the lotto. So according to the most inside of sources, you're contention that _no way he would have slipped past 10 in 2003 much less the 1st round_ is off.



> Excuse me but I wasn't the one who started telling you how to view things, you did that to me.


Really? I'm refering to this...



> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> ...because he has good games at the Rocky Mountain Revue everyone is on his jock? I see something wrong with that, *you should too.*





> You said I shouldn't find it funny and humorous on the issue we are speaking of now.


I'd love to have you show me where I told you how you should feel and what you should find funny. I clearly stated that *I* feel differently about matters then you (not finding them funny) and explained why. I make frequent use of *IMO...* and *I think...* to differenciate between my opinions on how things are and the cold hard facts of what's what.

Gotta go!

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> but outside of Sam Bowie and Ralph Sampson, what other promising big(s) can you point to that had their careers derailed by injury.


Pervis Ellison. I'm sure I could find more but I'm not into putting effort into things. 



> You must not remember his stock dropping like a rock following the glandular revelation. At the time he dropped out last year, I recall his agent stating that he was unable to generate a promise from anyone in the lotto. So according to the most inside of sources, you're contention that _no way he would have slipped past 10 in 2003 much less the 1st round_ is off.


I know Pavel was sliding but I never heard to the magnitiude you speak of. I never heard he was going to drop out of the lotto, I think that is a huge exaggeration, whether his agent said it or not, just my opinion. 


Good day sir.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

you guys done with your novels?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> you guys done with your novels?


Ahhhh yes, it's way past time to get back to the Hap and Howie show  

Here's nbadraft.net just prior to the draft on Pavel dropping out last year

http://nbadraft.net/draftbuzz007.htm

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Ahhhh yes, it's way past time to get back to the Hap and Howie show


it's all about the ratings baby!


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

So, Ed, where are you getting your entire perception of Telfair from?

I ask because in the majority of the media, Telfair is essentially glorified (although some skepticism has come out in recent months). Therefore, unless you've followed his every move, I would have to assume that most of the opinions you've formed about Telfair are through the media, analysts, scouts, etc. 

Your perception is that Portland drafted Telfair too high. Portland got the one player they truly wanted, and so in their minds, they were going to get him at all costs, and therefore, there is no overpaying for him.

But your perception that Portland overpaid to attain him is formed somewhere. So I am curious to know how you formed that opinion. And I have little doubt it's mostly through media. 

And, please don't answer with, "Oh, I watch the McDonald's game and two others." (like many other posters do...it's lame, but I think you know what I mean).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CrGiants</b>!
> So, Ed, where are you getting your entire perception of Telfair from?


I'm less concerned about Telfair than I am with where we could have got him. If Portland had passed on him at 13, that leaves picks 14 through 21 that might have chosen Sebastian or might have allowed other teams to trade up.

Utah has already said that they would not have chosen him at #s 14 or 16. That leaves 15 (Boston, who picked a PG in the first round last year), 17 (Atlanta, who might have chosen him even though they've got a big committment to Terry), 18 (New Orleans, who has a massive amount of money tied up in their best player, PG Baron Davis), 19 (Miami, who I thought needed a PG but seems set on Wade as their future 1), 20 (Denver, who has 2 PGs on long-term contracts, but obviously were willing to trade their pick), and 21 (Utah, who claims they probably would have kept the pick and taken Bassy, but who ALSO has two young, small PGs on their roster).

I think that the odds that Telfair would have made it past those picks, or that Portland would have been able to move up to get one of them from a team not interested in Telfair, were pretty good.



> Your perception is that Portland drafted Telfair too high. Portland got the one player they truly wanted, and so in their minds, they were going to get him at all costs, and therefore, there is no overpaying for him.


That CAN'T be true. Why didn't they trade Zach to Seattle to ensure they could pick Telfair at 12? I'm sure Seattle would have taken Zach + the 13th pick for their #12 and filler... it had to be because that would have been too high of a price for Portland to pay (and therefore your assertion that there "is no overpaying for him" is false).

The Blazers were willing to wait until their pick at #13 to get him. I wish they had been willing to wait and see if he'd dropped to 22.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I think that the odds that Telfair would have made it past those picks, or that Portland would have been able to move up to get one of them from a team not interested in Telfair, were pretty good.


That's really what it all comes down to: Pretty good odds. Not whether one thinks Telfair was picked too high or if he would have been available at 22/23, but whether one thinks Telfair is important enough to the future of the franchise to gamble. Pretty good odds. If you feel he would have likely been available later and we should have risked it, then you clearly don't place great value on the guy and wouldn't have lost sleep if we missed out on him. If you feel he was the best possible fit for the team available at that pick, then not only do you probably believe he would've been gone by 22, but that it wasn't worth risking.

Pretty simple, huh?

One possibility I haven't seen floated, although I admit to barely skimming the volumes of hot air in this thread, is that NJ might have taken Telfair at 22 and held onto the pick. a) They're pretty weak when Kidd goes down, b) who better to school the youngster, and c) they're rumored to be contemplating moving Kidd. The trade wasn't finalized until after the draft, so who's to say they wouldn't or couldn't have changed their minds if the opportunity presented itself? (If nothing else, they'd have had great trade leverage all of a sudden for SAR.)

Dan


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I felt the warm breeze, and then I saw dkap had posted  I thought Planinic (their 1st rounder last year) was to be their PG of the future? He didn't show much this year on the court, but he's only 20 and came into a whole new culture behind the best PG in the world. They were supposively really high on him last year even having him shut down his workouts on their promise of picking him. I also think it would be a bad faith move to back out of an agreed apon trade at the last moment.

All said, I find it unlikely NJ would have taken Telfair. 

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> NJ might have taken Telfair at 22 and held onto the pick. a) They're pretty weak when Kidd goes down, b) who better to school the youngster, and c) they're rumored to be contemplating moving Kidd. The trade wasn't finalized until after the draft, so who's to say they wouldn't or couldn't have changed their minds if the opportunity presented itself? (If nothing else, they'd have had great trade leverage all of a sudden for SAR.)
> 
> Dan


That's what I've been trying to explain to Ed but he continues to say that basically when it's verbally agreed upon it is a done deal. I told him it wasn't OFFICIAL until after the pick, meaning they could have ended up keeping the pick and bailing out on the trade. Verbal agreements aren't a 100%(IE Carlos Boozer).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> 
> Verbal agreements aren't a 100%(IE Carlos Boozer).


Any agreement Carlos Boozer might have made with the Cavs would have been ILLEGAL under the CBA, meaning no agreement at all. That's not the case with a deal two teams agreed to in advance of the draft.

Additionally, a player like Carlos Boozer has a VERY limited number of transactions with NBA franchises... this summer was one of maybe a half-dozen times in his career he'd have to (or want to) sign a deal with an NBA team. Because of this, Boozer's incentive to "cheat" the Cavs would have been relatively strong, knowing the chances of it burning him down the line were limited. When dealing with one another, NBA teams understand that their ongoing relationships with one another makes "cheating" in any given transaction much less beneficial

While it's possible that the Nets might have reneged on their deal, I find it unlikely that they would have.

(It's also possible that the Nets and Blazers REALLY hadn't agreed to do the deal before the draft. I find that possibility more likely, but find it peculiar that the deal would have leaked out as "done" if it really were not.)

Ed O.


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> That CAN'T be true. Why didn't they trade Zach to Seattle to ensure they could pick Telfair at 12? I'm sure Seattle would have taken Zach + the 13th pick for their #12 and filler... it had to be because that would have been too high of a price for Portland to pay (and therefore your assertion that there "is no overpaying for him" is false).
> 
> ...



For someone so emphatic about the possibility of Telfair dropping down, this is a ridiculous statement. Portland was as sure as it possibly could have been that Telfair would be at around at 13, so there was no need to move up. Telfair was the one guy they wanted in the draft, and there was NO GUARANTEE that he'd drop far enough to grab, so Portland went for it. 

You don't think that every other Blazers fan and the management wishes we couldn't have grabbed Telfair at 22/23? It sure would have been the sweetest thing to grab Al J. at 13 and then Telfair at 22/23. But management had its eyes on Telfair, and I have no doubt it was for good reason. And so Portland was no willing to take that risk.

Anyway, this is getting old. Let's just agree to disagree. You would have taken the risk that Telfair drops because you're likely not as high on him as Blazers management is -yet, anyway. And that's okay. I wish we could have taken someone else at 13 and still ended up with Telfair, but I also realize that Portland brass drafted exactly who it wanted. 

Long time reader of the board, and I post only on occassion. This is likely the first topic I've disagreed with you over, and maybe that motivated me to post.

Anyhow, the last Blazers pick that was so highly debated turned out to be a stud (O'Neal). I just hope we don't let Sebastian slip through our fingers before we find out exactly the kind of player he'll be.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> (It's also possible that the Nets and Blazers REALLY hadn't agreed to do the deal before the draft. I find that possibility more likely, but find it peculiar that the deal would have leaked out as "done" if it really were not.)


Most such deals tend to [reportedly] be conditional on certain players still being on the board. By that reasoning, NJ may well have had an out that wouldn't have been regarded as "cheating" as far as future relations were concerned.

STOMP, not sure if I should be honored or offended...  

Dan


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> STOMP, not sure if I should be honored or offended...


Neither was my intention. I was trying to play off your "hot air" comment as a preface to why I didn't feel your NJ selecting ST thoughts worked. I gave it about three seconds of thought as I typed it... It probably would have translated better if I'd quoted you and made the hot air comment bold to connect the dots on my bad jokes.

Next time...

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I sort of thought that's what you were referring to, but I wasn't quite sure of that or which way the comment was intended...

Anyway, Chicago keeps drafting more point guards with high picks, presumably until they get it right. NJ could well do the same thing if their guy no one knows much of anything about isn't developing. Int's are such a long shot these days... Darko can't get on the floor as a #2 pick, and we've got 2nd rounders that nearly went undrafted, are about as polished, and get scrub minutes on their overseas teams.

Dan


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!but outside of Sam Bowie and Ralph Sampson, what other promising big(s) can you point to that had their careers derailed by injury.


This doesn't detract from the point you make in your post, but how 'bout Big Red? I know, it's not the best example, as Walton played a fairly long career, but after his injury, he was never nearly as good. 

That said, I agree with your point that bigs tend to have longer careers than 1's, 2's and 3's.

Go Blazers


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Bigs like Walton and Sabas make my point. Even as broken down shadows of themselves in their 30's, they were still being patched together to play important roles on good teams. Supply and Demand is very much in favor of big guys with some skills, so they can draw a good sized NBA check even after their physical abilities fade to injuries and age.

It's usually different for the smaller guys. Once they've lost a half step, it's all but over.

STOMP


----------

