# If the draft was today...who do you take?



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

I realize we've had this kind of thread before, but now that the entries are solidified, I want to see how people are feeling right now.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Bargnani.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Bargnani. He is the only one I'm somewhat excited about. Morrison would be a solid second. Gay would be my dark horse. Everyone else I could leave behind.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Today my choice would be Bargani..tomorrow who knows. 

I would be happy with Morrison or Alridge though....would be unhappy with Gay or Thomas. 

Would also be happy with us trading down and drafting Roy.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I have only seen morrison play and aldridge for like 5 minutes in one game and thomas once.I would have to see each of them more to choose.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

Bargnani, for sure. Morrison a close second.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Zidane said:


> I have only seen morrison play and aldridge for like 5 minutes in one game and thomas once.I would have to see each of them more to choose.


You mean you'd allow actual knowledge to cloud your opinion?  

What's up with that? :biggrin:

Oh, yeah. I may as well stick my neck out for future ridicule by admitting that I voted Bargnani. :clown:


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Since im not gm i will say morrison if i was gm i would have to see each of them play more before i chose.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Going strictly on what scouts say and the little I've seen of him on NBA tv and highlites I would say Bargnani is the obvious choice. The guy has skills, passion, and is 7'0ish tall.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Aldridge = Jermaine

vs

Bargnani = Dirk

tough choices.... but I chose Aldridge right now


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Bargnani would be a good choice for his size.Does anyone have his 3% and shooting % stats handy?If he can hit threes from close to the same nba 3point mark then it might be a good choice.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)




----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Bargnani. He's the only one I think has a significant chance to be a really valuable player.

All the other top prospects _could_ become stars, but their negative qualities are such that I feel it's very unlikely.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

QRICH said:


>


 You want to draft Kieth Patridge? I know he can sing, but can play ball?


----------



## italianBBlover (Mar 5, 2003)

If I would a Blazer fan, I would have Andrea on my team.

Even if Morrison looks very good too ...

Tough choice


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> You want to draft Kieth Patridge? I know he can sing, but can play ball?


Keith Partridge? Ouch!

In all seriousness, I voted for Morrison ... I don't believe I can make an educated judgment about Bargnani (I wasn't able to play that video) but his numbers look promising and he DOES have size. And Morrison is a go in the event the Blazers *don't* get the top pick. I'm not sure I'd take Morrison in the No. 1 slot. There are still a lot of things that have yet to come into play between now and June 28.

Lamarcus Aldridge scares me from the standpoint he did have a fairly serious injury at one time (I think freshman year at Texas); I'm not convinced that Gay and Thomas are truly ready for the NBA.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

italianBBlover said:


> If I would a Blazer fan, I would have Andrea on my team.


What do you mean, *IF*? :raised_ey You know you  the Blazers. Give in to the force. :starwars: 

Draft the :wiz:.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

1. Aldridge: 

He addresses the need for low post scoring and defense. Also, he will get 10-12 pts/game on drive/dishes from Telfair alone. I am concerned about a lack of heart, his workouts should prove interesting.

2. Bargnani

A new breed SF who will open up the court for Zbo, Martell and Jackfair. He could grow into a PF, but would be fine at SF.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

soonerterp said:


> Keith Partridge? Ouch!
> 
> In all seriousness, I voted for Morrison ... I don't believe I can make an educated judgment about Bargnani (I wasn't able to play that video) but his numbers look promising and he DOES have size. And Morrison is a go in the event the Blazers *don't* get the top pick. I'm not sure I'd take Morrison in the No. 1 slot. There are still a lot of things that have yet to come into play between now and June 28.
> 
> Lamarcus Aldridge scares me from the standpoint he did have a fairly serious injury at one time (I think freshman year at Texas); I'm not convinced that Gay and Thomas are truly ready for the NBA.


 For what it is worth, I like your analysis. Morrison looks like he will give the Blazers what they so desperately need . . . an emotional player who will bleed for the team. But to take him number one just seems too risky to me.

Every player I have had a brief time to watch appear to have some issues. So, if the Blazers get the 1 pick, I vote for the euro out of default.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

ThePrideOfClyde said:


> Bargnani, for sure. Morrison a close second.





sa1177 said:


> Today my choice would be Bargani..tomorrow who knows.
> 
> I would be happy with Morrison or Alridge though....would be unhappy with Gay or Thomas.
> 
> Would also be happy with us trading down and drafting Roy.


I agree with these comments. Bargnani is definitely my first choice, but Morrison isn't far behind. Aldridge would be my third choice after a small dropoff. There is a big dropoff after my top three.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

I am also willing to see about trading down with Chicago for their two first round picks if they have a player they really want, but probably only if I am reasonably confident that one of my top two will still be around.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Bargnani 

i would also like morrison too


----------



## Toxicity (Jul 21, 2004)

29 out of 45 (64%) would pick Andrea Bargnani... wow! :banana: 

p.s.= you can imagine which kind of choice i made in this poll... :biggrin:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Morrison #1 
Bargnani #2

It is a toss up after that


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

1. Bargnani, by far

2. Morrison, by a hair over...
3. Thomas, by far over...

4. Tough call between Aldridge, Gay, Roy, and trading down.

Stepping Razor


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I vote Thomas. This team needs a NASTY player, and a shot of athleticism. Plus defense and rebounding. Of the players who are ready to contribute (Morrison, Roy, Aldridge and possibly Bargnani) Bargnani has the highest ceiling but just isn't a type of player I can get too excited about (at least until we draft him and I have to) - I'm not a big Dirk fan. Watching that Drexler tribute got me hungry for some nasty dunking, something we haven't had since the glory days of Rasheed. So I'm prepared for us to suck for a while, but we might as well improve our defense and watchability in the meantime.

Thomas won't win ROY, but remembering that Damon won ROY in a year of Sabonis, Garnett and Rasheed, I don't especially care.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

meru said:


> I vote Thomas. This team needs a NASTY player, and a shot of athleticism. Plus defense and rebounding. Of the players who are ready to contribute (Morrison, Roy, Aldridge and possibly Bargnani) Bargnani has the highest ceiling but just isn't a type of player I can get too excited about (at least until we draft him and I have to) - I'm not a big Dirk fan.


Sounds like you hate people from Europe. Especially people from Europe who come and live in the US, possibly in places like Michigan.


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

So many votes for Bargnani, but how many of you actually seen him play?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

with all the gm and pitchard viewing him i am sure we are taking bargnani!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> with all the gm and pitchard viewing him i am sure we are taking bargnani!


 Assuming he isn't gone before the Blazer pick . . .


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Sounds like you hate people from Europe. Especially people from Europe who come and live in the US, possibly in places like Michigan.


What moron would want to do that? Sheesh.

(Although, you're right - I didn't think much of Darko Milicic.)


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

The teams needs some size and a power forward who isn't afraid to mix it up, get back on defense, show up to shootarounds on time, etc ...

Not that I don't love Morrison, though ... and who knows? Maybe the workouts will change my mind.

But right now, I'm all about Bargnani.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:



> The teams needs some size and a power forward who isn't afraid to mix it up, get back on defense, show up to shootarounds on time, etc ...
> 
> Not that I don't love Morrison, though ... and who knows? Maybe the workouts will change my mind.
> 
> But right now, I'm all about Bargnani.


Is Bargani really a PF who isn't afraid to mix it up? seems that he's a SF in a skinny C's body, who likes to shoot outside jumpers.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

I'm completely frustrated trying to figure out who the best player is going to be. Who really knows.

There ought to be a rule that when a team is as bad as the Blazers that they get two top five picks if it's a weak draft.

With that said I voted for Aldridge but I didn't feel really confident about it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> Is Bargani really a PF who isn't afraid to mix it up? seems that he's a SF in a skinny C's body, who likes to shoot outside jumpers.


He's got sharp elbows, dude. He's gonna be known as Andrea the Impaler.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> He's got sharp elbows, dude. He's gonna be known as Andrea the Impaler.


heh, thanks. I needed a little humor tonite.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

you see what dirk did to the grizz thats bargnani of play that would be a nice addition to our time.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I selected Bargnani, but would be happy with Morrison or even Aldridge.

I decided to order my tickets and I ask the guy I get the tickets from who he thought we'd pick and mention those three as who I'd like us to pick. His reply:



> I think if we keep our draft pick it will be one of the 3 guys you mentioned. There is the possibility that we could package our pick with a player in a trade. I really like Bargnani, at least from the videos I've seen of him. Tall, athletic, and can shoot!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mgb said:


> I selected Bargnani, but would be happy with Morrison or even Aldridge.
> 
> I decided to order my tickets and I ask the guy I get the tickets from who he thought we'd pick and mention those three as who I'd like us to pick. His reply:


 I have also heard whispers about the Blazers looking to package the trade for an experienced player.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Bargnani and Morrison are my number ones. After that, Tyrus Thomas followed by whoever the Blazers think is best.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Aldridge.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I have also heard whispers about the Blazers looking to package the trade for an experienced player.


I'd be kind of disappointed if this happens. Of course it'd depend on who we got and who we got rid of, but you don't get the #1 pick or the top 3 very often.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Alot of the Mock draft sites including espn.com have us taking Thomas at #1. :curse: 

I'll be seriously pissed if that happens....last thing we need/I want is another project player.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Alot of the Mock draft sites including espn.com have us taking Thomas at #1. :curse:
> 
> I'll be seriously pissed if that happens....last thing we need/I want is another project player.


Agreed.

I still like Bargnani and Morrison, but am warming to the idea of Aldridge. He does have good size and will likely add some weight (more likely than Thomas). His average stats were down last year because of a few games with foul trouble. I think he can overcome this. If you get rid of the high foul/low minute games he is a 10+ board guy. Long term, he could also give time at the 4 or 5. So, if the Blazers get Oden, he could stay on at PF. If the Blazers don't keep Joel, Aldridge would probably be a very useful center with some scoring ability. I'm sure that the Blazers will get Bargnani, Morrison, or Aldridge, and any of those guys will make the team better.


----------



## DimeTime (May 2, 2006)

Why is it that the votes go to the latest, hotest news story in the media? After the NCAA tourney it was all Morrison, now it's Bargnani. If Nash goes to Brazil, everyone will vote Splitter. I say we got enough youth. Package the pick with one of our troublemakers and get a solid vet.

Dime


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

DimeTime said:


> Why is it that the votes go to the latest, hotest news story in the media? After the NCAA tourney it was all Morrison, now it's Bargnani. If Nash goes to Brazil, everyone will vote Splitter. I say we got enough youth. Package the pick with one of our troublemakers and get a solid vet.
> 
> Dime


For instance: ________?

It's a nice thought, but nobody is giving away talented vets with good attitudes and reasonable salaries. Did you have anyone in mind?

The best example I've seen of this in recent history is where the Clippers stole Brand from Chicago. I bet they wish they could have that one back.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

DimeTime said:


> Why is it that the votes go to the latest, hotest news story in the media? After the NCAA tourney it was all Morrison, now it's Bargnani. If Nash goes to Brazil, everyone will vote Splitter. I say we got enough youth. Package the pick with one of our troublemakers and get a solid vet.
> 
> Dime


I agree about the "flavor of the week", but I dont think we could get a decent vet even with a trade, barring a dismantling of the team.

meaning, if we trade the pick, it'll be some HUGE trade were we trade like half the roster for a "superstar", and still suck next year.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

DimeTime said:


> Why is it that the votes go to the latest, hotest news story in the media? After the NCAA tourney it was all Morrison, now it's Bargnani. If Nash goes to Brazil, everyone will vote Splitter.


Um, unlikely. Splitter plays in Spain.



> I say we got enough youth. Package the pick with one of our troublemakers and get a solid vet.
> 
> Dime


Nice idea. Trouble is, nobody's offering a solid vet for that. I don't think anybody else is any more enthused about the top of this draft than we are. 
Presumably if this hypothetical other team is taking one of our "troublemakers" off our hands, then the "solid vet" will be less valuable (in their eyes) than the player they plan to pick. Frankly I'd rather have the better player and work out what to do with Miles (for presumably it is he of whom we speak) later.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Reep said:


> ......Long term, he (Aldridge) could also give time at the 4 or 5. So, if the Blazers get Oden, he could stay on at PF. If the Blazers don't keep Joel, Aldridge would probably be a very useful center with some scoring ability. I'm sure that the Blazers will get Bargnani, Morrison, or Aldridge, and any of those guys will make the team better.


I think there are two major lines of thinking:

1. Draft for positional need = Aldridge (PF with Oden, C with Zach)
2. Draft best available player (highest upside/star potential) = Bargnani

I lean towards #1, but remember that's not always best long term.

We had the #1 pick in similar weak draft - 1978. Mychal Thompson played a good, solid, career - but was never a star. Aldridge reminds me of him. I could live with that contribution, but know that he didn't win a title until teamed with Magic and Kareem.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Reep said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I still like Bargnani and Morrison, but am warming to the idea of Aldridge. He does have good size and will likely add some weight (more likely than Thomas). His average stats were down last year because of a few games with foul trouble. I think he can overcome this. If you get rid of the high foul/low minute games he is a 10+ board guy. Long term, he could also give time at the 4 or 5. So, if the Blazers get Oden, he could stay on at PF. If the Blazers don't keep Joel, Aldridge would probably be a very useful center with some scoring ability. I'm sure that the Blazers will get Bargnani, Morrison, or Aldridge, and any of those guys will make the team better.


Aldridge got 15 pts, 9 boards and 2 blocks as a sophomore. I think Duncan had something like 17 pts, 12 boards and 4 blocks at the same age. Aldridge clearly isn't the shot blocker Duncan was. However, regarding rebounding, you have to remember that Aldridge was playing next to another 9+ rebound/game guy--I don't think Duncan was. That would lower Aldridge's numbers.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Reep said:


> ...nobody is giving away talented vets with good attitudes and reasonable salaries. Did you have anyone in mind?
> The best example I've seen of this in recent history is where the Clippers stole Brand from Chicago. I bet they wish they could have that one back.


And, conversely, you have SAR for Pau Gasol. I bet Atlanta would like _that_ one back. 

But then you also have the Wiz and Dallas swapping Antawn Jamison and Devin Harris - that seems fair on both sides.

(Wasn't Corey Maggette traded for someone? Horace Grant? And didn't the Bulls get the pick that became Luol Deng off the Suns for someone?)

Of course, the ideal is to be like New Jersey in 2001, and swap Eddie Griffin (#7) for Richard Jefferson (13), Jason Collins (18) and change.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> We had the #1 pick in similar weak draft - 1978. Mychal Thompson played a good, solid, career - but was never a star. Aldridge reminds me of him. I could live with that contribution, but know that he didn't win a title until teamed with Magic and Kareem.


How ironic that you mention Mychal Thompson (like Aldridge) who Portland picked over Larry Bird (like Morrison [in part]).

With my limited knowledge and based on the games I've seen and video footage, I would likely take Bargnani first also. But, if Bargnani isn't available, then a modern Mychal wouldn't be the worst player to end up with.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> We had the #1 pick in similar weak draft - 1978. Mychal Thompson played a good, solid, career - but was never a star. Aldridge reminds me of him. I could live with that contribution, but know that he didn't win a title until teamed with Magic and Kareem.


interesting analoy cuz.

I personally see Bargani as more of a "Pau Gasol" type player (read: a lower level "star")...Aldridge as a Mychal Thompson type player (same)...Thomas as a better offensive Theo Ratliff....and Morrison as a better all around Wally Skerbiak. 

None is worth a "1st pick" out-right (meaning, you basically can't go "wrong" with any of them).

Who I still want us to pick isn't decided yet (altho I'm fairly certain most of you can guess who I "prefer"). We don't know our pick, and we don't know who's traded. I'd rather not go into next season with Travis or Viktor as the starting SF..and I'd rather not have Webster there either, because it'd mean Juan Dixon is still on the team and the starting SG or Jack is..which as much as I like him and he's good defensively..he's still a 6'3" SG.

I don't think Travis can play SG (or god forbid, should). I don't think we need a "big man", especially if Dorkius is traded, because I think Joel would re-sign then, especially considering that next year we'll probably be able to get a better one in the draft (since we're not going to be out of the lotto).*



*I know I said that we shouldn't take players one year, depending on who we can get next year. As in, I don't think we should've passed on Telfair because in 05 we could've drafted Paul. We didn't know if we'd be in the top 3-4 picks for Paul in 04, whereas this year we know that we'll be a top 7 or so pick next year. And there's a fair amount of big men to go for next year (Oden, McRoberts, Durant(altho he's probably more of a SF right now) Wright and Noah.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

So he's A Pau Gasol type player with an outside shot?

Pau
20.4 ppg 
8.9 rpg
4.6 apg
1.9 bpg

Nah I wouldn't want that especially if you add an outside shot to the repertoire.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

DimeTime said:


> Why is it that the votes go to the latest, hotest news story in the media? After the NCAA tourney it was all Morrison, now it's Bargnani. If Nash goes to Brazil, everyone will vote Splitter.


Maybe true for some. I've been most interested in Bargnani for several months and for clearly-stated reasons.

What veteran do you think is both available and worth trading a top-four pick for?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah i started being interested in bargs in december iirc


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> So he's A Pau Gasol type player with an outside shot?
> 
> Pau
> 20.4 ppg
> ...


since we're allowed to make unrealistic comparisons, I'll still take the guy who's compared to Bird over the others.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

If we have the #1 pick, I think we can get good value for it in a trade packiaging either Theo or Darius (to make up the salary matching). If we have to make the pick, take Aldridge.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

maxiep said:


> If we have the #1 pick, I think we can get good value for it in a trade packiaging either Theo or Darius (to make up the salary matching). If we have to make the pick, take Aldridge.


I hope we don't trade the pick unless we are just trading down a couple. Of course it would depend on who we are getting, but if it's just to get rid of Miles for a so so player I certainly hope it doesn't happen.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I don't see Bargnani as a Gasol type player and definitely not a Nowitzki type either....

I see a guy more along the lines of Kieth Van Horn or possibly a Rashard Lewis type player...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> I don't see Bargnani as a Gasol type player and definitely not a Nowitzki type either....
> 
> I see a guy more along the lines of Kieth Van Horn or possibly a Rashard Lewis type player...



What are you reasons?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> since we're allowed to make unrealistic comparisons, I'll still take the guy who's compared to Bird over the others.



I honestly think that Bargnani has a much better chance of being as good as Gasol than Morrison does of being as good as Bird.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> I honestly think that Bargnani has a much better chance of being as good as Gasol than Morrison does of being as good as Bird.


thats like saying I think 3 has a better chance at becoming 4, whereas 2.9 doesn't have as good of a chance to become 934,443,381


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> since we're allowed to make unrealistic comparisons


Unrealistic comparisons? Wasn't Pau Gasol _your_ comparison?

I'll take Pau with a jumper over Szczcesabdsccsdbiak.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Unrealistic comparisons? Wasn't Pau Gasol _your_ comparison?
> 
> I'll take Pau with a jumper over Szczcesabdsccsdbiak.


I'd take skerbiack with a lot more drive, ambition, and offensive arseonal over pau with a jumper. Pau is a softie.


----------



## Toxicity (Jul 21, 2004)

Hi guys, i've made a short mix on Bargnani:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/wqri60

Nothing too exciting but it's new footage so you can take a look.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> What are you reasons?


Well from what I have seen from videos mind you, and they are literally "best of" types of plays, which is a good and a bad thing...What I see from Bagnani is..

For a 6'11 guy he is a good outside shooter, in fact it seems to be THE strongsuit of his game IMO...Big guys who can shoot from the perimeter are a good thing to have IMO, so obviously nothing wrong with that...

He showed a good willingness to drive to the basket, and occassionally finished strong with a dunk, but more often than not he had floaters or lay-ins, I think that....

1) That he won't be able to drive as effectively in the NBA as he does in euroleague.... 
2) That he needs to become a stronger finisher or he WILL get his shot rejected a fair amount of time 
3) That he appears to be more of a straight line finisher, than a creative finisher...which again IMO, means more opportunities for his shot to get blocked...I didn't see many creative finishes from him...in fact several "highlights" showed him driving into traffic or a defender and just throwing the ball up...that is not a highlight IMO, that is a lucky shot that just happened to go in..

4) He has a VERY limited back to the basket game, which for a 6'11 guy who many project as a PF, is concerning...IF he plays PF particularly he will need to really devlop that aspect of his game, which looked to me to be very underdeveloped...

5) He is very skinny and will get manhandled by most NBA PF and as quick as he is will have a tough time defending NBA SF...So defensively I see him in a bind, he either gets pushed around in trying to defend post players or will have a tough time keeping up with the quicker and more athletic SF on the perimeter

6) He pulled down some nice rebounds, but I don't think he has a nose for it per se...His height will help him in this regard, but he will definitely get pushed around going for boards b\c of his slight build and therefore have more trouble rebounding in the NBA...Not saying he won't get boards, but I wouldn't expect him to be a good rebounder...

7) HE can run the floor well, which is good, and he appears to have good handles and appears to be a decent passer as well..

8) You have to wonder what (if any) effect the language barrier will have on his development

Those are all that I can recall from the 6-7 video clips I saw of him.....and I guess what concerns me the most about him is that he is...at least right now...a perimeter oriented player...the majority of his highlights, that I saw were of him draining outside shots...which like I said is a good thing, but for a potential #1 or top 3 pick, you want more than that, and I am not convinced that he he will excel in the other aspects...
That is why the Pau Gasol comparisons make NO sense to me...Pau has a very good back to the basket game IMO...Bargnani has displayed little in this aspect.

IF POR wants a big guy who can open up the paint by hitting shots from the perimeter (and Nate has alluded to this) & rebound a little...then they can go after a Kevin Pittsnogle, Nick Fazekes or Steve Novak...all of whom should be available aroud POR #30 pick...

So what POR is betting on by selecting Bargnani IMO is that he will bring a LOT more to the table, and I just don't see it...at least right now...Now I certainly think he is a better player than the three guys I listed above, but I don't seee Dirk Nowitzki or Pau Gasol in him...

I think Kieth Van Horn is a very good comparison, Van Horn was a high pick, whise outside shooting was his forte, he was a decent rebounder, and could drive to the hoop on occassion (I think Bargnani will be better than Van Horn in this regard)....

I listed Lewis b\c he is a much more athletic, a very good shooter, a better driver and finisher, who also has a mediocre (at best ) post up game....I see Lewis as the best case scenario for Bargnani...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> thats like saying I think 3 has a better chance at becoming 4, whereas 2.9 doesn't have as good of a chance to become 934,443,381



Agreed, just pointing that out.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> I'd take skerbiack with a lot more drive, ambition


Are you trying to tell us that Adam Morrison...refuses to lose? 

And Pau isn't soft. He's a pretty hard-nosed player and a good defender. I'd be very happy if Bargnani (or Morrison for that matter) were as good a defender as Gasol.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Are you trying to tell us that Adam Morrison...refuses to lose?
> 
> And Pau isn't soft. He's a pretty hard-nosed player and a good defender. I'd be very happy if Bargnani (or Morrison for that matter) were as good a defender as Gasol.


Pau is a good defender, but he's not "take over the game" player (I was going to say "hard" there, but with the clinton related post I just made, that felt dirty).

I'm not sure Pau has it in him to take over games, at least, anymore than Morrison (or Bargani) does.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

> I'd take skerbiack with a lot more drive, ambition, and offensive arseonal


I was a lot more impressed by Szczerbiak's game coming out of college than Morrison's. Wally's shot was at least as good, he was much more athletic, as well as being a far better rebounder and defender. I'll be surprised if Morrison has as productive a career.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

bargnani is only 5 pounds lighter than aldridge


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Would it be so bad to have a guy like Bargnani as an offensive foil to someone more clasically PF or C? If Portland finishes in the top 10 of the lottery next year, here are the guys available in that mold:

Oden, C
McRoberts, PF
Wright, PF
Noah, PF
Hawes, C
Horford, PF

Kevin Pritchard said this was a -7 draft: someone selected #7 next year would go #1 this year. I understand the importance of drafting BPA, but if all things are equal, it might not be so bad to have a guy like Bargnani around to play SF, PF or C (if he proves capable) if Portland is drafting someone next year with a more traditional PF/C game.

Just a thought.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Would it be so bad to have a guy like Bargnani as an offensive foil to someone more clasically PF or C? If Portland finishes in the top 10 of the lottery next year, here are the guys available in that mold:
> 
> Oden, C
> McRoberts, PF
> ...


I was thinking that thought as well. I was also hoping that we could convince Zach to go back to banging inside.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> Well from what I have seen from videos mind you, and they are literally "best of" types of plays, which is a good and a bad thing...What I see from Bagnani is..
> 
> For a 6'11 guy he is a good outside shooter, in fact it seems to be THE strongsuit of his game IMO...Big guys who can shoot from the perimeter are a good thing to have IMO, so obviously nothing wrong with that...
> 
> ...


Nice Analysis. A. Barg could play SF in the NBA and possibly develop into a 4. The Rashard Lewis comparison is a good one. His strong suit is that he has shown some athleticism, which gets him out of the Peja area. His shooting is better than Radmanovic, at least based on the Euroleague stats.

Likewise, I think you can obtain the same skill set in Fazekas at 30/31 that you do in Bargnani. That's why I would lean toward Aldridge at the 1/2 pick, because his package of skills is not available anywhere else in the draft: low post scoring, rebounding and defense. I would be very pleased with a draft of:

Aldridge
Fazekas
Maurice Ager/Denham Brown


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I tell you though, Aldridge concerns me. I really don't think that he will even be one of the 3 best players out of this draft 5 years down the road. I think he will probably have a long NBA career, but I think he will be an average starter at best, at his position.

Actually, I think Aldridge would be better suited to play C in the NBA, rather than PF. He is not as athletic as some people think he is IMO, particularly at the PF position, nor is he strong\aggressive enough....which to me is actually more concerning about him.

I think athletic NBA PF, will cause him problems, and I think tough\physical typr of players will cause him problems well. I think Aldridge is a Jow Smith type of impact player...mediocre and unspectacular, not the type of player you want to take at #1. 

I know POR needs rebounding help, but they neeed scroring help more IMO, and at #30/#31 there will be some good rebounding PF types that the team can draft, and IMO if Zach gave any sort of effort towards defensive rebounding or Pryzbilla\Theo weren't hurt for parts of the year, POR rebounding problem wouldn't be nearly as bad...

POR scoring diffrential was -9.5 ppg...That is by far the worst pt differential in the entire NBA, and the team scored 88.8ppg...The only team under 90ppg and a full 20ppg behind league leader Phoenix....

Aldridge does nothing to address these discrepencies, and he I seriously doubt he will be anywhere near Jermain O'Neal or Chris Bosh...far from it....

He scored only 5pts vs LSU's Thomas and Davis
He scored 4pts vs Kanasas' front line
He scored 9pts and 5pts respectively vs Texas A&M
He scored 12pts vs Memphis
He scored 9pts vs Oklahoma State

He had some good games too, against Duke, @ Oklahoma State, Kansas at home, Villanova, West Virginia (his best game of the year)

But for a guy who had ten games where he scored UNDER ten points, I don't see how you could NOT have some serious concerns, especially when you are considering the guy as a #1 pick...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> I tell you though, Aldridge concerns me. I really don't think that he will even be one of the 3 best players out of this draft 5 years down the road. I think he will probably have a long NBA career, but I think he will be an average starter at best, at his position.
> 
> Actually, I think Aldridge would be better suited to play C in the NBA, rather than PF. He is not as athletic as some people think he is IMO, particularly at the PF position, nor is he strong\aggressive enough....which to me is actually more concerning about him.
> 
> ...



Aldridge had 9 games under 10 points
Bosh had 3 games under 10 points

Aldridge had 20 games of 10 or more rebounds
Bosh had 11 games of 10 or more rebounds

Aldridge had 73 blocks
Bosh had 56 blocks

Aldridge shot 57%
Bosh shot 56%


I mean how could you draft Bosh that high with only 11 double digit rebound games.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

MM - 

But look at WHO he was playing when he scored under 10 pts...LSU, Kansas, Texas A&M. Memphis...I think when he is faced with athletic or aggressive post players he fades out of the game....

I don't know how anyone couldn't watch that LSU\Texas game for instance and NOT have some serious concerns about Aldridge...He was clearly outmuscled by Davis and nuetralized by Thomas' athleticism...In such a big game, with a lot at stake against top players and future NBA'ers...he was a complete non factor...and that IMO is troubling, and there is only so much blame you can throw on his teamates...as the team's so called "best" player, where was he? Where was his leadership? Why wasn't he demanding the ball? I don't know how anyone can ignore those important questions about him...

We are talking about a #1 pick here, and this is a guy who plays soft, can be outmuscled by aggressive post players and nuetralized by athleticism & who doesn't demand the ball, or apparently show any inclination to take matters into his own hands...

I am not saying that he won't be a decent NBA player, b\c he will...But I see "Joe Smith like" and I don't want to see POR make the mistake of picking another "Joe Smith" over the lAntonio McDyess, Rasheed Wallace, Jerry Stackhouse & Kevin Garnett's...

What I mean is, he is the SAFE pick, b\c he is big & b\c he will be a decent player, but he isn't the RIGHT pick for POR, nor will he be the best player to come out of the 2006 draft IMO...Picking Aldridge screams Need over Best Player Available, which is ironic for POR considering they have MANY "need" areas to address (namely scoring).

I just don't see it with this guy, If POR drafts him though...I sure hope I am wrong...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> MM -
> 
> But look at WHO he was playing when he scored under 10 pts...LSU, Kansas, Texas A&M. Memphis...I think when he is faced with athletic or aggressive post players he fades out of the game....
> 
> ...



There are two "safe" picks IMO. Morrison and Aldridge. Both will be good if not spectacular players and help their respective teams sooner than later. Bargnani, Thomas and even Gay to some extent are riskier picks with a higher possible payout. Bargnani and Thomas are young players that have size, athletic ability and drive, while Gay has the most talent of anyone in the draft but lacks heart...at least it's percieved he does. 

I still think Portland should draft Bargnani because he is big, athletic and scouts say he has passion for the game. Oh by the way he is the best young player in Europe.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Yeah i agree with you MM bargnani is a rare combo and aldridge style you can find in many pf born in the US.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> aldridge style you can find in many pf born in the US.


Exactly: Chris Bosh, Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett and Jermaine O'Neal come to mind. I would consider these guys pretty rare and all are cornerstones of their respective franchises. 

A lot will be determined by workouts. The concerns people have about Aldridge are based on how he was pushed around by Davis/Thomas in the LSU game and by Williams against Duke. LA has all the tools to be an elite player and a cornerstone for the Blazer franchise.

Bargnani has a lot of skills, but he is not a low post scorer and rebounder, which is what the Blazers need. He may develop into a Pau Gasol, but what I see is a more athletic Peja Stojakovic, which is pretty darn good, but let's not kid ourselves, A. Barg is a tall SF, not a PF/C.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

As long as Zach is on this team, the Blazers do not "NEED" a low post scorer and rebounder..

And I think that POR poor rebounding had a LOT more to do with injuries to Zach, Miles, Theo & Pryzbilla, the lack of a true b\u PF until Skinner arrived, and poor efforts by Zach in general put forth in the defensive rebounding area than it had to do with an "overall" weakness...

Is it a concern? Sure it is...This team has a lot of concerns\areas that need to be addressed, but rebounding IMO is certainly not at the top of that list...

When the team is DEAD LAST in scoring, is the only team to average a score of under 90ppg (88.8), is close to 20ppg behind the #1 scoring team in the NBA AND most importantly has the league's WORST scoring differential of -9.5ppg (That means POR is getting beaten ON AVERAGE by over 9pts per game), and the 2nd worst team in this area is at -6.4...You have major problems in this area..


Now you can say...well Webster will get better...Jack will get better...Telfair will get better...and they will...But expecting their improvement over the summer to "rectify" this problem is being VERY VERY optimistic IMO...

POR needs a scorer...you can worry about defense and rebounding later...Just ask Phoenix, whose rebounding is also lousy. POR rebounding differential was -4.69 per game, Phoenix was -4.08....Phoenix finished with the 3rd best record in the ENTIRE NBA (54-28), POR (21-61)was dead last in the league....

Do you still think rebounding is at the root of all of POR woes?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> As long as Zach is on this team, the Blazers do not "NEED" a low post scorer and rebounder..
> 
> And I think that POR poor rebounding had a LOT more to do with injuries to Zach, Miles, Theo & Pryzbilla, the lack of a true b\u PF until Skinner arrived, and poor efforts by Zach in general put forth in the defensive rebounding area than it had to do with an "overall" weakness...
> 
> ...



So JO, KG, Duncan are all low post players. We shouldn't add them if we even could if we still had Zach? 

Zach is a good scorer, but that's really all he is.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> So JO, KG, Duncan are all low post players. We shouldn't add them if we even could if we still had Zach?
> 
> Zach is a good scorer, but that's really all he is.


ad them, yes. but not in the draft.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

and there is no Jermaine O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Pau Gasol or Dirk Nowitzki in this draft..


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> and there is no Jermaine O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Pau Gasol or Dirk Nowitzki in this draft..


How can you say that. When they came out in the draft no one knew they were going to be as good as they are. 

Gasol's numbers in his league were poor. Said he was weak.....hmmmm

8 teams thought so much of Dirk that they passed on him

JO never got off our bench and was taken in the teens

Garnett was supposed to be good, but no one knew how good.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> How can you say that.


probably the same way that people say a certain mustachio'd kid from the inland NW is going to be worse than some italian paisano.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> probably the same way that people say a certain mustachio'd kid from the inland NW is going to be worse than some italian paisano.


 If we drafted someone as ugly as Morrison, I would be very unhappy.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

aldridge you can find in boone, Taigo, Oleksiy Pecherov, Aaron Gray...etc

actually if we are looking for an aldridge type player i would rather get a bigger veteran aldridge is skinny to be a banger!


----------

