# OT: Telfair Done In The NBA, Perhaps?



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Wow.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

The author should have said that GMs will take a chance on a player as long as the have talent or potential. I still think he has enough potential that some team will take a chance on him.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Boston is kidding itself if it thinks it can get Telfair's contract terminated.


----------



## Aly (Jan 26, 2003)

Perhaps we could use a cheap point guard, Potential!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Aly said:


> Perhaps we could use a cheap point guard, Potential!


Telfair for Dickau? Salaries don't quite match, but otherwise, I'd do it. 

Of course, Telfair now has the jailblazer taint, so no way he's coming back here.

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sebastian is going to be 22 in June... he's younger than Acie Law, who will be a first rounder in the NBA draft.

While it's possible that Boston will make the mistake of cutting him, it's ridiculous to think that many teams will look at Telfair and the relatively MINOR troubles he's had off the court in his career so far, and decide not to sign him if he's a free agent.

He will have his choice of places to go, if he clears waivers.

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Sebastian is going to be 22 in June... he's younger than Acie Law, who will be a first rounder in the NBA draft.
> 
> While it's possible that Boston will make the mistake of cutting him, it's ridiculous to think that many teams will look at Telfair and the relatively MINOR troubles he's had off the court in his career so far, and decide not to sign him if he's a free agent.
> 
> ...


Atlanta would claim him, he would never clear waivers.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Telfair isn't done in the NBA. Boston can try to nullify his contract under the "detrimental conduct" clause, but from I've read it's very difficult to do that. Basically the team has to waive the player, then hope that the inevitable arbitration process sides with them, which it usually doesn't. Either way though, Boston can just go through that and eat Telfair's remaining $2.5 mil guaranteed next season. It sounds like that is their plan.

Even so, someone will pick him up. I agree with Ed that his incidents were relatively minor. IIRC, there have been three, all firearm related. The time he got caught with the pistol in the fancy handbag at Logan Airport (yes in Boston), the incident where someone got shot after stealing his jewelry, and now a simple unlicensed firearm possession charge. By NBA standards, that's not much.

I agree with the article writer too though, that Telfair's main problem is talent-related. If he was really good, nobody would be talking about waiving him. But he was disappointing in Portland and disappeared in Boston. What happened? While he was here, his game definitely looked raw, and I never saw real superstar potential in him, but he had some skills and seemed to be making steady progress in his development over time.

He will get picked up on waivers and get a chance somewhere to show that he can play. If he doesn't pick it up eventually he might be out of the league, but at his age he is going to be given a few more chances.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't really see why they'd waive him. They should be able to trade him for some scrub, and something is better than nothing.

barfo


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> I don't really see why they'd waive him. They should be able to trade him for some scrub, and something is better than nothing.
> 
> barfo


Not necessarily. If a team can get another player as good or better using the minimum salary and free agency, second round picks or any other of the readily available methods NBA teams have of filling up rosters, then said scrub has no real value. For sure, if they can find a team willing to send them a player that helps them more than the average waiver wire scrub in exchange for BAssy, they will take it, but if they do waive him it means no team was willing to do that. Boston might just prefer to have the salary off the books after this season and an open roster spot, in addition to being able to make the dramatic gesture of waiving Telfair to show the fans that they are serious.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Sebastian is going to be 22 in June... he's younger than Acie Law, who will be a first rounder in the NBA draft.


The difference being Acie Law is 6'3" and has demonstrated he has the ability to actually guard someone.



Ed O said:


> While it's possible that Boston will make the mistake of cutting him, it's ridiculous to think that many teams will look at Telfair and the relatively MINOR troubles he's had off the court in his career so far, and decide not to sign him if he's a free agent.


This incident might not be so minor. If Telfair ends up being charged with and convicted of a felony it means madatory jail time. Given that he's rich enough to afford a decent lawyer, that probably won't happen, but it is a possibility. Especially if some prosecutor in NY is looking to make a name for himself by getting a high profile conviction. At this point it's an unknown and givn the snail's pace of our court system, it's not likely to be resolved soon. If the possibility of a felony conviction with mnatory jail time is still lingering come October/November, I doubt if many teams will be lining up to offer Telfair a contract. 

It's not like he's any good. He was the 3rd string point guard on a second worst team in the NBA this year. He lost his job to a rookie who can't shoot. He also ended last season as the 2nd string point guard on the worst team in the league or possibly the 3rd stinger depending on how you rank Blake, Jack and Telfair at the end of the 2005-2006 season. Not exactly an impressive resume. He's been in the league three years now and hasn't shown much, if any, improvement. In some ways, he seems to have regressed. When he came into the league, he was all hype. Now that the hype has worn off most GMs know what he is - an undersized, shoot-first point guard who can't guard anybody.



Ed O said:


> He will have his choice of places to go, if he clears waivers.


I doubt if he'll have much of a choice. It's not like any play-off team is going to be making him an offer. At most, I expect one ot two bottom tier lottery teams may be desparate enough to make him an offer (Atlanta being the obvious one) - assuming he can get this issue resvolved an cop a plea to a misdemeanor before training camp opens. Of course, that assumes those teams haven't already addressed their point guard issues through the draft, trades or free agency.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> The difference being Acie Law is 6'3" and has demonstrated he has the ability to actually guard someone.


He has? He hasn't even worked out against NBA-level players, that I'm aware of. I don't think that an ability to guard Big 12 players is clear indication that he's capable of defending faster NBA players.



> It's not like he's any good. He was the 3rd string point guard on a second worst team in the NBA this year.


He's STILL younger than several first rounders this year, and I don't think that any NBA GM believes that Telfair won't improve.



> I doubt if he'll have much of a choice. It's not like any play-off team is going to be making him an offer.


I totally disagree. A playoff team will be in the best position to make him an offer. They can use him as the second- or third-string PG and hope that he improves.

Whether he will want to go to a team like Phoenix or a team like Atlanta would be up to him.

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Not necessarily. If a team can get another player as good or better using the minimum salary and free agency, second round picks or any other of the readily available methods NBA teams have of filling up rosters, then said scrub has no real value. For sure, if they can find a team willing to send them a player that helps them more than the average waiver wire scrub in exchange for BAssy, they will take it, but if they do waive him it means no team was willing to do that. Boston might just prefer to have the salary off the books after this season and an open roster spot, in addition to being able to make the dramatic gesture of waiving Telfair to show the fans that they are serious.


Well, if money is no object, then I agree. But if they trade Telfair rather than releasing him, then they don't have to pay his salary. I don't believe that waiving him releases them from the obligation to pay his salary, unless someone takes him off of waivers. Maybe someone would, but I don't know if Boston would be confident of that. If they waive him and no one picks him up, they are stuck with the salary and there is nothing more they can do about it. It's only a couple of million bucks, so it doesn't matter that much, but they might want to save it.

barfo


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> He has? He hasn't even worked out against NBA-level players, that I'm aware of. I don't think that an ability to guard Big 12 players is clear indication that he's capable of defending faster NBA players.


I said: "has demonstrated he has the ability to actually guard someone." I never mentioned NBA players. The fact that he has proven himself capable of guarding NCAA Div. 1 guards is more than Telfair has ever proven defensively.



Ed O said:


> He's STILL younger than several first rounders this year, and I don't think that any NBA GM believes that Telfair won't improve.


He may, or may not improve, the question is how much. I doubt if any GMs think he's going to get any taller, and that's one of his biggest problems. He'll always be a defensive liability and so far, he hasn't shown enough offensive prowess, or the ability to effectively run an offense well enough, to offset his defensive deficiencies.



Ed O said:


> I totally disagree. A playoff team will be in the best position to make him an offer. They can use him as the second- or third-string PG and hope that he improves.
> 
> Whether he will want to go to a team like Phoenix or a team like Atlanta would be up to him.


Phoenix doesn't need him and I doubt they want him. Remember, less than a year ago they basically gave away Rajon Rondo who beat out Telfair in Boston AND Sergio Rodriguez. If they didn't want either of those young PGs, (who are both significantly taller AND better than Telfair), why would they want Telfair and his potential legal problems? 

I still think he'll be lucky to hook on with a bottom tier lottery team. Young ineffective, undersized third string PGs who can't play defense aren't that hard to get, and based on his performance over the past three years, and his defensive liabilities, I see Telfair's upside as severely limited. He really hasn't shown any significant improvement after three years in the league. And it wasn't due to lack of PT like the young Jermaine O'Neal. Telfair was basically handed the starting PG spot in both Portland and Boston and promptly lost it in both places to much less hyped players who turned out to be far better. Two very bad team's have already given up on him. Think about that. Over the last two years he's proven incapable of holding down the starting PG spot on the worst team in the league one year and the second worst team in the league the next year. Why would a good team want him when the REALLY bad teams find him expendable?

BNM


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> Well, if money is no object, then I agree. But if they trade Telfair rather than releasing him, then they don't have to pay his salary. I don't believe that waiving him releases them from the obligation to pay his salary, unless someone takes him off of waivers. Maybe someone would, but I don't know if Boston would be confident of that. If they waive him and no one picks him up, they are stuck with the salary and there is nothing more they can do about it. It's only a couple of million bucks, so it doesn't matter that much, but they might want to save it.
> 
> barfo


They don't save any money if they trade him, other than the cost of filling up that roster spot with an equivalent scrub player, which can be less than $1 million for a year.

Assuming all they can get in trade for Telfair is a scrub, then by making that trade they save no money (assuming they get an expiring contract in return), have no extra roster spots, and have the best possible scrub from among the relatively small number of players offered in trade.

If instead they waive him, they have a chance at saving his whole salary if someone picks him up off waivers. Whether anyone does or not, they have an open roster spot, which they can either use to facilitate a trade in the summer, fill with one of the myriad scrub (and some not so scrubby) players available for around $1 mil or less, or they can leave the spot open for future roster flexiblity.

In the second case, they have more players to choose from to fill whatever needs they may have, more roster flexibility, the potential to save his whole salary minus the cost of a replacement, and in the worst case scenario they only end up paying the minimum salary more than they would if they traded Telfair. Unless they think Telfair won't get picked up off waivers and they can get a better player in trade for Telfair than they would in the free agent market, it makes sense just to waive him. And just thinking economically, if nobody is willing to take Telfair off waivers, why would anyone be willing to offer a better player than what's available in the free agent market? It's unlikely.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> They don't save any money if they trade him, other than the cost of filling up that roster spot with an equivalent scrub player, which can be less than $1 million for a year.


Well, it depends on whether they think that amounts less than $1 million are negligible, and whether there is someone they want available for less than $1 million. 



> And just thinking economically, if nobody is willing to take Telfair off waivers, why would anyone be willing to offer a better player than what's available in the free agent market? It's unlikely.


Because in a trade the other team gets rid of an equivalent amount of salary. If they pick him up off waivers, they are adding $2 million to their cap total. Assuming the other team has a spare part they don't need, that's a powerful incentive to try to make a trade rather than pick Telfair up off waivers.

barfo


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Ed O said:


> Sebastian is going to be 22 in June... he's younger than Acie Law, who will be a first rounder in the NBA draft.
> 
> While it's possible that Boston will make the mistake of cutting him, it's ridiculous to think that many teams will look at Telfair and the relatively MINOR troubles he's had off the court in his career so far, and decide not to sign him if he's a free agent.
> 
> ...


You seem to be the only one who thinks his off-court issues are minor. This is the THRID time he's been involved in a gun possession/shooting somehow. An NBA player, who is supposed to be a professional, high-integrity role model, is toting around deadly weapons, multiple times? I wouldn't call that minor, or him a professional.

He should be kicked out of the league.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

arrested multiple times....gun charges.....sound familiar ?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Wasn't the fact that he had a clean record one of the reasons the Blazers drafted him? Somebody messed up on that background check.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Wasn't the fact that he had a clean record one of the reasons the Blazers drafted him? Somebody messed up on that background check.


Not necessarily, zagsfan. The Blazers are not prescient. All they can do is check someone's past, not his future.

As to second amendment rights: Rights carry responsibilities. The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms includes a responsibility to observe relevant laws. The right given by a state to a driver's license includes the responsibility to keep the license current and to obey traffic laws.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Hey if BOS cut him, I would love to see POR pick him up...Like Ed said he is young...He certainly has some deficiencies he needs to work on...but not verymany kids at 22 don't.... 

It is amazing to me how people can write off a 20-22yr old kid just b\c he hasn't "lit up" the league...High School players, in particular, take time, often times MORE time than fans have patience for....Look at Outlaw, he would be a college senior...and after 4 years...He has actually begun to show something worthwhile....and yet with Outlaw as a CLEAR example, I still see some posters here (and elsewhere) already waving the towel for Martell Webster who just finsihed his second year at age 20?....

Patience...

As for Telfair, I still think the kid has the talent to be a good PG & he is young enough to warrant a shot with another team, and I love that to be POR...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Maybe Boston can trade him to Minnesota for the #7 pick in this year's draft...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> Well, it depends on whether they think that amounts less than $1 million are negligible, and whether there is someone they want available for less than $1 million.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have to keep in mind the number of available opportunities in each circumstance is finite. The world is littered in $1 mil (or less) NBA players, at every position. If I need a PG I can go get Jason Hart, or one of a dozen players like him. If I need a C I can pick up Luke Schensher, or one of a dozen players like him.

Of course, assuming Boston even wants to fill the roster spot left open by Telfair this summer, they would rather trade him than pay an extra mil if the player they get in return has equivalent value or greater than what they expect to be able to find in free agency, or greater than the value they place on an open roster spot. It's possible this will happen, but think about it. There are 30 teams in the league. Not all of them would even want Telfair. Of the ones that do, how many have an equivalent salary player they are willing to offer in return? Of those players, how many would even be useful to Boston? I don't know the answer, but it may well be zero.

And I really don't think it's safe to assume a team won't take Telfair off waivers, which would mean Boston comes out ahead if they waive him. Of course, they won't necessarily know for sure ahead of time, but they have to guess before hand. You say teams have a powerful incentive to trade rather than claim, but we can't really assume that either. Some teams may want to add Telfair but not give up anyone they already have, or not even have anyone that matches salary. Let's say Atlanta wants Telfair, do you think they would rather claim him off waivers or would they rather trade away one of the following players; Wright, Childress, Williams, Johnson, Smith. I think they'd balk at trading any of those for Telfair, but they'd take him if their only cost was the roster spot and Telfair's one guaranteed year.

Anyway, I don't know which will happen. You just seemed to ask out loud why Boston might waive Telfair, and I just wanted to explain that there is a possible, even probable, set of circumstances where it is a rational course of action. We'll see what actually happens.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Anyway, I don't know which will happen. You just seemed to ask out loud why Boston might waive Telfair, and I just wanted to explain that there is a possible, even probable, set of circumstances where it is a rational course of action. We'll see what actually happens.


Agreed. In fact, it would have made more sense if I'd asked why they'd waive him without *trying* to trade him first. 

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Telfair hasn't been completely useless in the NBA. This last year, he really regressed, but his second season in Portland was actually pretty decent, especially considering his age. These are his PERs, season by season:

2005: 9.7
2006: 13.0
2007: 8.6

15.0 is an average starter in the NBA. In 2006, he was within hailing distance of that. He showed inconsistent flashes of very good play, then lost his starting position when he missed time due to some oral surgery, as I recall. The team went on a sudden winning streak with Blake, and Blake was cemented as the starter (even though the team crashed back to normalcy soon after).

I think there will be various NBA GMs who will give Telfair a chance. He may need the right system to flourish, and he'll never be a defensive asset, but I could see a team like Phoenix taking a shot on him. If he does improve, he could take over for Nash when Nash retires (I think Leandro Barbosa's future is at SG) and he could thrive in a run-and-gun system.

In any case, he's too young with too many assets (speed, ball-handling, passing) to be given no more chances.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> Hey if BOS cut him, I would love to see POR pick him up...Like Ed said he is young...He certainly has some deficiencies he needs to work on...but not verymany kids at 22 don't....
> 
> It is amazing to me how people can write off a 20-22yr old kid just b\c he hasn't "lit up" the league...High School players, in particular, take time, often times MORE time than fans have patience for....Look at Outlaw, he would be a college senior...and after 4 years...He has actually begun to show something worthwhile....and yet with Outlaw as a CLEAR example, I still see some posters here (and elsewhere) already waving the towel for Martell Webster who just finsihed his second year at age 20?....
> 
> ...


:lol: delusion...yes lets invite the "jailblazer" moniker back to town. 

Quick and Crapzano would a frickin field day....and rightfully so. 

No way this happens. 

As for his stats....frankly I would rather have Dickau. At least he can hit a open jumper.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Telfair hasn't been completely useless in the NBA. This last year, he really regressed, but his second season in Portland was actually pretty decent, especially considering his age. These are his PERs, season by season:
> 
> 2005: 9.7
> 2006: 13.0
> ...


I agree with this, even though I have to point out that PER ignores defense, and Telfair is not a good defender. It also ignores the intangible of teamwork, and supposedly Telfair wasn't doing well at that either.

Still, after seeing him his second season, I'm really surprised he's floundered so mightily in his third. He is so young and he showed he does have enough skill to potentially be a real NBA player though, so some team will definitely bring him in for a look. But I kind of doubt it will be PHX. Telfair seems more like a Barbosa than a Nash to me.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> I agree with this, even though I have to point out that PER ignores defense, and Telfair is not a good defender.


That's true. Still, he was near-average among starters on the offensive end. If he can improve from that level, he can get by with sub-standard defense.



> But I kind of doubt it will be PHX. Telfair seems more like a Barbosa than a Nash to me.


I'm not sure he'll ever shoot well enough to be a shooting guard. I think his future, if he develops, is to become a play-maker akin to a smaller Jason Kidd: able to drive and make plays for others and also lead the break. Of course, he'll also need to become a better finisher at the hoop.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Telfair hasn't been completely useless in the NBA. This last year, he really regressed, but his second season in Portland was actually pretty decent, especially considering his age. These are his PERs, season by season:
> 
> 2005: 9.7
> 2006: 13.0
> 2007: 8.6


That 8.6 PER this year is bad for a rookie and absolutely horrendous for a third year player. It's a major step backwards in his development. And, keep in mind PER primarily evaluates offensive performance. It's no secret that Telfair is way below average defensively (and I'm being kind). So, he needs to be way above average offensively to compensate for his poor defense. As it is now, he's way below average both defensively AND offensively. Combine the poor on court performance and the off court issues and I can't see a lot of teams willing to take a chance on Telfair. Oh, someone will - even J.R. Rider got a 5th chance, but he had talent, not just potential. But I seriously doubt he's going to have teams lining up at his front door with contract offers if Boston cuts him.



Minstrel said:


> In any case, he's too young with too many assets (speed, ball-handling, passing) to be given no more chances.


I question the myth that Telfair is a good passer. Yes, he makes an occasional flashy pass, but there's a lot more to being a good passer than a highlight reel pass once every three or four games. And a no-look bullet pass off Joel's forehead into the 4th row, is not a good pass, it's a turnover. Telfair has not shown any ability to run an offense and make his team better. Jarrett Jack, while far less flashy, is a better, more consistent passer. And, if you want flashy, we have Sergio whose fancy passes actually result in easy points for his teammates - not turnovers and bruised foreheads. When the Blazers drafted Telfair my biggest concern was that he was the all time leading SCORER in the history of NY city high school basketball. He's always been more about his own scoring than creating scoring opportunities for his teammates.

And yes, he is quick, but NBA defenders learned long ago to back off and not let him penetrate - and when he does, he has trouble finishing in traffic. For these reasons the quickness that took people by surprise his rookie year has largely been negated.

At this point, he's widely known as an undersized, shoot first point guard who can't guard anybody and has legal troubles that could lead to jail time - but hey, he is still young. That's about the only thing he has going for him these days, and that alone isn't enough for most teams to show any interest. In addition to getting a new valid driver's license, he may also want to apply for a passport. I see a career playing overseas in his future.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> That 8.6 PER this year is bad for a rookie and absolutely horrendous for a third year player. It's a major step backwards in his development.


I noted that in my post.



> And, keep in mind PER primarily evaluates offensive performance. It's no secret that Telfair is way below average defensively (and I'm being kind).


Yes, I addressed that in dudleysghost's response to me. He is definitely below average defensively. However, he was close to average (among starters, not the entire NBA population) offensively at age 20.

Anyone who thinks he can improve from that level would see plenty of potential value in him, as a no-risk pickup. His regression on a team with no real plan and weak coaching and front office work is not necessarily fatal. If he can join a polished, professional team that can teach him the ropes and help him direct the talent that lots of scouts saw in him, improving to above average as a starter is not at all unlikely.

The point is, it's definitely untrue that Telfair has shown nothing in the NBA. He was clearly overmatched and should have gone to college, but he _did_ hold his own in his second season.



> I question the myth that Telfair is a good passer. Yes, he makes an occasional flashy pass, but there's a lot more to being a good passer than a highlight reel pass once every three or four games.


Yes, everyone knows this, yet plenty of scouts considered Telfair one of the best passing talents ever to enter the NBA. He's clearly raw and inconsistent. He'd benefit from a coach and a stable situation. Perhaps another opportunity would be the Spurs, where he could molded a bit like Tony Parker, a guy who uses his speed to create space for his passes and shots.

Most of your arguments are aimed at proving that Telfair is a bad player at the moment. I don't disagree. I don't find your points compelling if the purpose is to show that Telfair has no real talents that can be developed for the future or that he's proven to be completely useless forever more. I think he could quite likely carve out a Brevin Knight-like niche.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Most of your arguments are aimed at proving that Telfair is a bad player at the moment. I don't disagree. I don't find your points compelling if the purpose is to show that Telfair has no real talents that can be developed for the future or that he's proven to be completely useless forever more. I think he could quite likely carve out a Brevin Knight-like niche.


I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Brevin Knight came into the league a very good passer. As a 22-year old rookie he averaged 8.2 APG over a full 80 games. Telfair's career high is 3.6 APG over 68 games. Given his scorer's mentality, I just don't see Telfair making a huge leap in the assist department. Several times during his career Knight has averaged more APG than FGA. Telfair averages > 2 FGA per assist. That's what's earned him the shoot first moniker. Knight is a pass first PG who can lacks a consistent jump shot. Telfair is a shoot first PG who has an even worse jump shot and has yet to shoot above 40% from the field after three seasons in the league.

Yeah, Telfair is still young, but to date I have seen nothing that indicates he'll ever evolve into a pass first PG like Brevin Knight. It's not impossible, but I think it's highly unlikely.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Brevin Knight came into the league a very good passer. As a 22-year old rookie he averaged 8.2 APG over a full 80 games. Telfair's career high is 3.6 APG over 68 games. Given his scorer's mentality, I just don't see Telfair making a huge leap in the assist department. Several times during his career Knight has averaged more APG than FGA. Telfair averages > 2 FGA per assist. That's what's earned him the shoot first moniker. Knight is a pass first PG who can lacks a consistent jump shot. Telfair is a shoot first PG who has an even worse jump shot and has yet to shoot above 40% from the field after three seasons in the league.
> 
> Yeah, Telfair is still young, but to date I have seen nothing that indicates he'll ever evolve into a pass first PG like Brevin Knight. It's not impossible, but I think it's highly unlikely.


Brevin Knight had good coaching in a premier basketball program. Telfair went from hot-shot high school phenom to the NBA, and I never felt he was given a lot of developmental time or attention (I feel somewhat similarly about Webster). I could be totally off-base, as I don't see what happens behind closed doors, but I just never got the sense that Telfair was a priority.

You're right that his mentality will have to change. I think a strong, disciplinarian coach with a stable system could do that for Telfair. As long as he's an after-thought on the end of the bench, his talent (which was evident in high school) will remain raw and unfocused. And the NBA is just too difficult for unrefined talent to succeed. Not to compare Telfair and Kobe in magnitude of talent, but Kobe Bryant also needed to refine his talent to become a truly successful player. Most feel Del Harris failed to do that and Phil Jackson did. Telfair needs someone to help him in that way also.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I would rather have Dickau. At least he can hit a open jumper.


clearly you haven't watched Dicakau enough then...He is a 6'0 SG that CAN"T shoot consistently and is a horrible defender...

Delusion? hardly....I just find it amusing how so many fans give up on players when they are 20-22...What? You didn't expect EVERY HS kid to come in and be a star or signinficant player right out of the gate....did you?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> He is a 6'0 SG that CAN"T shoot consistently and is a horrible defender...


I'm sorry, we're you referring to Dickau or Telfair? Sounds EXACTLY like Telfair to me.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I'm sorry, we're you referring to Dickau or Telfair? Sounds EXACTLY like Telfair to me.
> 
> BNM


Sounds like both of them to me. The only difference is there is a small chance Telfair will improve; Dickau has reached his potential and it's all downhill from here.

I'd take Telfair, but I'd rather not.

barfo


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

barfo said:


> Of course, Telfair now has the jailblazer taint, so no way he's coming back here.


Correction: Telfair is now a Boston *Cell*tic.

Bada-BING!

PBF


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

barfo said:


> Telfair now has the jailblazer taint, so no way he's coming back here.


beat me to it


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> clearly you haven't watched Dicakau enough then...He is a 6'0 SG that CAN"T shoot consistently and is a horrible defender...
> 
> Delusion? hardly....I just find it amusing how so many fans give up on players when they are 20-22...What? You didn't expect EVERY HS kid to come in and be a star or signinficant player right out of the gate....did you?


While not consistent I agree...Dickau is clearly a much better shooter then telfair. 

Delusion definetly...do you honestly think there is a chance in hell our front office would bring him back here after all his legal trouble? :lol: That's a media and public relations disaster!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> While not consistent I agree...Dickau is clearly a much better shooter then telfair.
> 
> Delusion definetly...do you honestly think there is a chance in hell our front office would bring him back here after all his legal trouble? :lol: That's a media and public relations disaster!


Well by all means...POR should make sure John Canzano & Jason Quick approve before they make any such decision :worthy:


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Brevin Knight had good coaching in a premier basketball program. Telfair went from hot-shot high school phenom to the NBA, and I never felt he was given a lot of developmental time or attention (I feel somewhat similarly about Webster). I could be totally off-base, as I don't see what happens behind closed doors, but I just never got the sense that Telfair was a priority.


Yes, Knight was a four year starter at Stanford and came into the NBA much more ready to contribute (but much less hyped) than Telfair. I'm not sure I understand your statment that Telfair was never a priority. He was the Blazers first ever lottery pick. He was handed the staring PG job over the last 26 games of his rookie year and was the incumbent starter his second season, but was unable to hold onto his starting position. The starting PG job in Boston was also his to lose - which he did to a rookie who can't shoot. Telfair had ample opportunities to grow, develop and prove his worth. He was failed to take advantage of those opportunities. 

He has also had three coaches who are former PGs. Perhaps they aren't the greatest coaches in the world, but you'd think in three years playing for three different former PGs he'd have at least learned a LITTLE bit about running an offense. I think his shoot first mentality probably soured his coaches on his ability to play the PG position in the NBA. Which probably explains why he went from starter to bench warmer in both Portland and Boston. Coaches who are former PGs have little tolerance for PGs who can't run an offense. In their prime, Cheeks, Nate and Doc Rivers were all great distributors. All three also took pride in their defense - an area where Telfair has shown little ability and little interest in getting better. He's still just as weak defensively as he was when he came into the league three years ago.



Minstrel said:


> As long as he's an after-thought on the end of the bench, his talent (which was evident in high school) will remain raw and unfocused.


My point is that Telfair didn't start out in either Portland or Boston as an after-thought on the end of the bench. In both places he played his way into that position after being given the staring PG role. He's been in the league for three seasons. He still can't shoot (37.1 FG% this year), can't run an offense and can't guard anybody. Perhaps he hasn't had the greatest coaches, but at some point it's his responsibility to develop his game. I have no idea what his workout regime is like during the off season, but whatever he's doing (or not doing) isn't working. It's up to him to change that. If not, it's his loss and nobody's fault but his own. He's been given ample opportunities and squandered them all - at this point. The onus is on him to reverse that trend. Unfortunately, given his poor performance to date and his current off-court problems, those opportunities are going to be fewer and farther between. Again, nobody's fault but his own.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> I'm not sure I understand your statment that Telfair was never a priority. He was the Blazers first ever lottery pick.


Yes, but he was never treated like he was a key asset to develop, IMO. Cheeks and McMillian basically yanked him each time he made a mistake. Telfair was the first (and now will be the only, with the new rules) point guard to make the jump from high school to the NBA. It was obvious he was going to be raw and make a lot of mistakes as he adapted to the speed and intensity of the NBA. He wasn't really given that opportunity to learn and grow through mistakes. He was jerked on and off the court. Had the Blazers been gunning for a title or even a playoff spot, I could understand a shorter leash. Considering they had nothing to play for except the development of their young players, I think it was a poor way to handle Telfair.



> He was handed the staring PG job over the last 26 games of his rookie year and was the incumbent starter his second season, but was unable to hold onto his starting position.


Not at all true, IMO. He played well as the starting PG, especially considering his age and experience. He lost his job to "injury." Blake took over during the games Telfair missed due to an oral surgery. The Blazers happened to go on a short winning streak when Blake took over and Telfair never got his job back. Of course, that winning streak also coincided with Zach Randolph and some other player returning to the lineup AND that winning didn't last, as the team crashed back to their old losing ways. But Blake, illogically associated with team success, remained the incumbent.

That was the season Telfair put up a 13.0 PER. Not magnificent, but pretty credible for a 20 year old point guard. Blake put up all of a 14.0 PER...insignificantly better, hardly enough to suggest he was clearly superior to Telfair.

So, yes, I think Telfair was poorly handled in Portland. Not being a close follower of the Celtics, I don't really have a detailed knowledge of how he was handled in Boston. Considering his PER this previous season, he legitimately belonged on the bench. My contention is not that he's been deserving of starting his whole career, but that his development was not really made a priority, in Portland at least, and he _has_ shown the ability to play decently in the NBA. That, combined with his young age and the innate talent that most scouts saw in him, suggests to me that he's not a lost cause by any means.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> Well by all means...POR should make sure John Canzano & Jason Quick approve before they make any such decision :worthy:


We've already seen that fans and sponsors in Portland don't want to support players with questionable reputations...nothing left to debate here, Telfair coming back to Portland is a terrible idea. 

His upside is even close to being high enough to warrant the public relations nightmare this would be.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> His upside is even close to being high enough to warrant the public relations nightmare this would be.


You don't think that if he made a statement along these lines that Portland fans wouldn't embrace him?



> _"I'm overjoyed to be back in the city of Portland with the Portland Trail Blazers. From the day I was drafted I was excited to be a part of the city's rich basketball history, and even though I spent a season in Boston I really felt Portland was the place I was meant to be.
> 
> I've made some stupid mistakes off the court, and I'm sorry. I've learned from it all, and I think I'm a better, smarter person and I'm confident that--if you give me a chance--I'll make this city and this team proud.
> 
> ...


You don't think that would work?

As an aside: that drivel is SO easy to write it's pathetic 

Ed O.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

NYC has mandatory jail time for Telfair's charged offense. I believe the reports are indicating that, once again, the gun belonged to his girlfriend, which could result in guilty by association.

The drama isn't over yet - he could be doing some jail time. That would not make it easy for a comeback, unless he makes the jail squad.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Not at all true, IMO. He played well as the starting PG, especially considering his age and experience. He lost his job to "injury." Blake took over during the games Telfair missed due to an oral surgery. The Blazers happened to go on a short winning streak when Blake took over and Telfair never got his job back. Of course, that winning streak also coincided with Zach Randolph and some other player returning to the lineup AND that winning didn't last, as the team crashed back to their old losing ways. But Blake, illogically associated with team success, remained the incumbent.
> 
> That was the season Telfair put up a 13.0 PER. Not magnificent, but pretty credible for a 20 year old point guard. Blake put up all of a 14.0 PER...insignificantly better, hardly enough to suggest he was clearly superior to Telfair.


I bet if you said all that to Nate's face, he would just shake his head and maybe chuckle, because he knows there is a lot more to being a point guard than PER.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> NYC has mandatory jail time for Telfair's charged offense. I believe the reports are indicating that, once again, the gun belonged to his girlfriend, which could result in guilty by association.


There is no "guilty by association" for crimes that I am aware of.

Is this gun possession law strict liability? Or does he need to have intent? If he needs to have intent to have had the gun in his possession, then his denial of knowledge is important (if, perhaps, ultimately futile). If it's strict liability then it seems like it might be an open and shut case.

We'll see.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I can't believe it's been 3 years since the Blazers drafted Telfair. Time flies even when you're not having fun, apparently.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> There is no "guilty by association" for crimes that I am aware of.
> 
> Is this gun possession law strict liability? Or does he need to have intent? If he needs to have intent to have had the gun in his possession, then his denial of knowledge is important (if, perhaps, ultimately futile). If it's strict liability then it seems like it might be an open and shut case.
> 
> ...



For a felony, I'm pretty sure he has to have the intent. But give me a break with the "I didn't know the gun was there defense." Maybe it is enough to get the charge reduced, but here in Portland we have all heard the "I didn't know the gun was ther defense" from Telfair just one year ago. 

He knew the gun was there!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> I bet if you said all that to Nate's face, he would just shake his head and maybe chuckle, because he knows there is a lot more to being a point guard than PER.


Possibly so. It's still true that the team achieved nothing of import that season and would have better served to let Telfair learn and develop.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Possibly so. It's still true that the team achieved nothing of import that season and would have better served to let Telfair learn and develop.



What, and ruin our chance of trading Telfair to Boston. Thank god they limited his minutes to what they were and not completely expose him for the player he is. Nate could have blown the whole deal, not to mention lose respect from his team.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Remember............I always said Bassy would be a ......."Shoot First PG"...........or that he was a"Gunner"........HAHAHAHAHA! I don't know where I come up with this stuff!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Thank god they limited his minutes to what they were and not completely expose him for the player he is.


What kind of player he is is still uncertain. He was playing well that season.



> Nate could have blown the whole deal, not to mention lose respect from his team.


Unlikely, considering Blake wasn't good either and Telfair lost his job to injury not bad play.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> What kind of player he is is still uncertain. He was playing well that season.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlikely, considering Blake wasn't good either and Telfair lost his job to injury not bad play.



Maybe uncertain for you. But I'm certain, Nate is certain and I think Boston is certain. A couple more seasons and I think you will be ceratin too.

At the end of last season, the players took a poll on who the starting PG on the team should be this year . . . guess who came in last?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Maybe uncertain for you. But I'm certain, Nate is certain and I think Boston is certain. A couple more seasons and I think you will be ceratin too.


Sure, if he keeps this up, I will be. If he builds on the form he showed in 2005-06, then all this certainty won't mean much.



> At the end of last season, the players took a poll on who the starting PG on the team should be this year . . . guess who came in last?


Telfair did. That still doesn't mean that Nate would have lost respect for allowing Telfair to learn. He only lost his spot due to oral surgery, not because McMillian carefully studied the situation and made a change. So, if Nate's credibility rode on that, only a fortunately-timed toothache saved him.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> As an aside: that drivel is SO easy to write it's pathetic


Ed, the Blazers need you. Stop whatever you are doing and report to the marketing dept, One Center Court, Monday morning.

barfo


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Not at all true, IMO. He played well as the starting PG, especially considering his age and experience. He lost his job to "injury." Blake took over during the games Telfair missed due to an oral surgery. The Blazers happened to go on a short winning streak when Blake took over and Telfair never got his job back. Of course, that winning streak also coincided with Zach Randolph and some other player returning to the lineup AND that winning didn't last, as the team crashed back to their old losing ways. But Blake, illogically associated with team success, remained the incumbent.
> 
> That was the season Telfair put up a 13.0 PER. Not magnificent, but pretty credible for a 20 year old point guard. Blake put up all of a 14.0 PER...insignificantly better, hardly enough to suggest he was clearly superior to Telfair.


I think we're going to have to agree to disagree again - at the very least we remember the situation much differently. Yes, Telfair was injured, but if he had been playing well, or at least as good as Blake (or Jack), he would have retained his starting position. Fact was, Blake played better and won the starting role.

Keep in mind PER is largely a measure of offensive production. It only tells half the story. The one thing Telfair did more than Blake was score - 9.5 PPG vs. 8.2 PPG, which helped Telfair's relative PER rating, but Blake's 14.5 was still 11% better than Telfair's 13.0. So, Blake, who isn't known as a great offensive player was 11% better on the offesnive end and WAY better on the defensive end than Telfair. While Blake may not make the all-defensive team, he's an above average defender who can guard both PGs and SGs, as he did at times in Portland and has done a lot this year in Denver when paired with AI in the backcourt. Telfair hasn't shown the ability to guard ANYONE in the NBA. 

It also depends on what you want from your PG. Do you want a distributor who runs the offense and creates opportunities for his teammates, or do you want a "scorer" who looks for his own shot, turns the ball over more and can't play defense? Telfair averaged fewer assists per minute, more TOs per minute and took and missed more shots per minute than Blake. Probably the most telling stat is assist ratio - AsR. Blake's was 34.0 compared to 24.3 for Telfair. That means that on any given possession Blake was nearly 40% more likely to get an assist than Telfair.

To illustrate Telfair's reputation as a shoot first PG, consider this stat - FGA/A (field goal attempts per assist). For Telfair, this number was 2.36 his last year in Potland. Blake's was 1.53. While this isn't an official stat, it's one I like to use to define a shoot first PG vs. a distributor. Steve Nash, the ultimate distributor had a ratio less than 1.00 his first MVP season - he actually had more assists than FGA. This year, he was at 1.10. Once you get much above 2.00 you're in serious ball hog territory for a PG. Coincidentally, Telfair's cousin Stefan Marbury (most definitely a shoot first PG) was at 2.36 this year. And to reinforce the fact the Nate made the right decision choosing Blake over Telfair, this year Blake was even better at 1.24 FGA/A (1.17 after being traded to Denver) with an outstanding AsR of 38.0 (39.3 with Denver) which was 4th in the NBA this year right between Steve Nash (39.3) and Jason Kidd (37.6). 

FWIW, the all-time single season record for AsR is 52.95 - by none other than Nate McMillan. So, it makes sense he would prefer a distributor like Blake to run his offense over a shoot first PG like Telfair. McMillan also has a career FGA/A of 0.85 - definitely a distributor.

When you combine the fact the Blake was actually better offensively (14.5 PER vs. 13.0), had a much better AsR, and is a much better defender and it's easy to see that the real reason Telfair lost his starting job (or at least didn't regain it) had little to do with his injury. Blake was simply better at both ends of the court.

And that was further reinforced by their performances this year. Telfair has managed to play his way out of the starting line-up and off two of the worst teams in the league the last two years. He ended the last two seasons as the third option at PG for the worst and second worst teams in the league. Yes he's still young, but it's not like I'm the only one who's given up on him. People who know a lot more about basketball than me have written him off a a bust. He may yet prove them wrong, but he's going to have to get a LOT better to do so. Given his physical limtations and his shoot first mentality (a fatal flaw for a guy who has never managed to shoot better than 39.4% in three NBA seasons) I just don't see it happening.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> When you combine the fact the Blake was actually better offensively (14.5 PER vs. 13.0), had a much better AsR, and is a much better defender and it's easy to see that the real reason Telfair lost his starting job (or at least didn't regain it) had little to do with his injury. Blake was simply better at both ends of the court.


We're going to have to agree to disagree on most of this. Their differences in PER is pretty insignificant, IMO. I also don't agree that Blake was a "much better defender." Blake isn't a good defender, and is not a "much better" defender than anyone. Telfair is a poor defender and Blake, at best, is slightly less poor.

In the end, I think Blake was insignificantly better (at a much advanced age), and that was certainly not worth stunting the growth of what was, at the time, considered a core young player.

Amusingly enough, here are Blake's PERs prior to joining Portland and his Portland year:

Year 1: 10.9
Year 2: 8.4
Year 3: 14.5

Those numbers look surprisingly similar to these:

Telfair Year 1: 9.7
Telfair Year 2: 13.0
Telfair Year 3: 8.6

Of course, Blake was 5 years older each year. Clearly, Blake is an NBA player and Telfair never will be.



> And that was further reinforced by their performances this year. Telfair has managed to play his way out of the starting line-up and off two of the worst teams in the league the last two years.


I don't agree that he played his way out of Portland's lineup, but we obviously disagree on that. Regressing is always a bad thing, but I think it's not fatal when it happens on a directionless, tanking team. It's not a terribly good environment for a raw prospect to gain focus and direction.



> Yes he's still young, but it's not like I'm the only one who's given up on him. People who know a lot more about basketball than me have written him off a a bust.


Sure, and unless no other team gives him another chance, people who know more about basketball than us do not yet view him as a bust.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Clearly, Blake is an NBA player and Telfair never will be.


Obviously we don't see eye-to-eye on this (assuming you were being sarcastic, if not, maybe we do see eye-to-eye). So, I'll let their teams do the talking:

George Karl on Steve Blake:

"I don't think there's any question we're very interested in putting him on our team next year," Karl said. "He's been impressive, a lot better than I thought."

Wyc Grousbeck on Sebastian Telfair:

"I wanted to let you know that we have removed Sebastian’s nameplate from his locker in Waltham. The facts and circumstances of his case have not been determined but he does not have a Celtics locker and we do not anticipate that he will."

So, Denver, a play-off team, wants Blake back while Boston, the second worst team in the league, wants nothing to do with Telfair. Obviouly, George Karl thinks Steve Blake is an NBA player and Boston doesn't think Telfair, even at the young age of 21, is worth the trouble.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> For a felony, I'm pretty sure he has to have the intent. But give me a break with the "I didn't know the gun was there defense." Maybe it is enough to get the charge reduced, but here in Portland we have all heard the "I didn't know the gun was ther defense" from Telfair just one year ago.
> 
> He knew the gun was there!


You seem very certain of things. Fortunately the legal system doesn't work the way you seem to want it to...

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> You seem very certain of things. Fortunately the legal system doesn't work the way you seem to want it to...
> 
> Ed O.



I am certain Telfair knew the gun was in the car. Given everything you know about Telfair, are you not certain about it?

Without looking up the exact statues, I'm guessing the legal system , or should I say the prosecution, will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that that Telfair was in possession, either constructive possession or actaul possession of the firearm. I suspect that would be a relatively easy burden to meet if Telfair had a court appointed attorney. But he will retain a bulldog criminal defense attorney who will make life miserable on the prosecution. I suspect it will result in some plea bargin to a lesser offense or some diversion agreement depending on the specific facts of the case. maybe Telfair gets real lucky and the prosecution **** cans it at the grand jury stage.

But between you and me . . . we both know he knew the gun was there.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Possibly so. It's still true that the team achieved nothing of import that season and would have better served to let Telfair learn and develop.


That makes about as much sense as saying we should have let Martel play over Ime this season, since the team achieved nothing of import this year either. Do you think they should have done that too? I guess the idea of playing your best player to try to win games just doesn't carry weight with you.

Anyway, it seems like you're just remember last season wrong. I don't know how else to say it. You said that Telfair's surgery coincided with Zach coming back into the lineup, but Zach was never out of the lineup. Except for the last 5 games of the season, he only miseed 3 single non-consecutive games all year.

You say that Blake's a bad defender and seem to be saying that he and Telfair are thus equivalent in that category. That is just not true. That sounds like the same argument people used to justify Adam Morrison's bad defense before the draft, trying to paint really bad and average as somehow being equivalent. I'll say the same thing now I said then: Ummm ... no! Were you one of those people?

Blake isn't a superstar defender, but he is way better than Telfair, who is awful. There is a difference, and it's significant.

Then you point to each player's year-long PER as evidence that they were somehow equally effective (you ignored defense, but I've already covered that). This also is not true. For one thing, there are different ways of pumping up a PER. Telfair outscored Blake, but Blake out-assisted him, made fewer TOs, and shot a better FG% and 3pt FG%. The latter is what Nate wanted from his point guard; a guy who set up his teammates, defended (whether or not you choose to believe it) and didn't make so many mistakes.

You also overlook the fact that Telfair had a very up and down season in 05-06. Looking at it by month, you can see he had a decent November and March, a good April, and was pretty bad every month in between. He was shooting 34% in December before he went out with injury, and was shooting 33% in January after coming back, then 31% in February. Compare that with Steve Blake, who was a model of consistency in Dec to March. Are you really trying to argue that the guy with the higher A/TO and who was shooting a _>10% better FG rate_ shouldn't have been the one starting?

Telfair did lose his job because of injury, but that was only the proximate cause. The ultimate cause was that he was thoroughly outplayed by Steve Blake. Where Telfair's career goes from now is anyone's guess, but the reason he stayed out of the starting lineup after returning from surgery last year is clear, and rather than coming up with strange, implausible or untrue alternate explanations of why it happened, you should let Occam's Razor advise you. He simply played bad, and Blake played better.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree on most of this. Their differences in PER is pretty insignificant, IMO. I also don't agree that Blake was a "much better defender." Blake isn't a good defender, and is not a "much better" defender than anyone. Telfair is a poor defender and Blake, at best, is slightly less poor.
> 
> In the end, I think Blake was insignificantly better (at a much advanced age), and that was certainly not worth stunting the growth of what was, at the time, considered a core young player.
> 
> ...


I'll post more in the morning, but I wanted to point out one thing now. If I'm reading it right, Blake and Telfair have had pretty bad PERs all through their careers, except for one year, the same year, last year. What changed that year? I don't know about Blake for sure, but Telfair's coaches the other two years were Mo Cheeks, Kevin Pritchard and Doc Rivers. Nate is by far the best coach Telfair has ever had, and I suspect the same thing is true for Blake, at least at that point, what's his PER this year anyway? Telfair is still young enough that I hold out hope for him if he can stay out of jail and get a good coach.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

Telfairs value has dropped and Blakes has risen. Thats all I have to say.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Where did that girl (can't remember her handle for the life of me right now) who use to post here and gush about Blake and dis on Telfair go? 

I guess she was right all along.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Where did that girl (can't remember her handle for the life of me right now) who use to post here and gush about Blake and dis on Telfair go?
> 
> I guess she was right all along.


BBallChick, and I miss her. She was spunky and I felt less outnumbered when she was here.

southnc was another staunch Blake defender.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

soonerterp said:


> BBallChick, and I miss her. She was spunky and I felt less outnumbered when she was here.
> 
> southnc was another staunch Blake defender.


 lol - Terp fans are certainly loyal, aren't they! :biggrin:

I think Jack has done an excellent job in just his 2nd season, and was really looking forward to him & Blake manning the PG position, before that awful trade with the Bucks where neither team (or players) benefited.

Telfair is yet another case of someone who really would have benefited from the discipline & maturity of college. His problem, in addition to hanging out with the wrong crowd, is his poor defense and decision making. If he can get his social act together and find a good mentor, he is certainly salvagable.

BTW, I'm still convinced that BBallChick is Blake's wife.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Obviously we don't see eye-to-eye on this (assuming you were being sarcastic, if not, maybe we do see eye-to-eye).
> ...
> So, Denver, a play-off team, wants Blake back while Boston, the second worst team in the league, wants nothing to do with Telfair. Obviouly, George Karl thinks Steve Blake is an NBA player and Boston doesn't think Telfair, even at the young age of 21, is worth the trouble.


I think you're missing my point. Blake was just as bad as Telfair to start his career AND was much older to boot. Yet he's still managed to establish himself as an NBA regular. I'm certainly open to the idea that Blake has some qualities that make him a better PG, despite similar PER, but I don't think it's so significant that Telfair is highly unlikely to catch him in a few years.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> That makes about as much sense as saying we should have let Martel play over Ime this season, since the team achieved nothing of import this year either. Do you think they should have done that too? I guess the idea of playing your best player to try to win games just doesn't carry weight with you.


It depends. If those "best players" are ones who you expect to be core players on your next successful team, it's worth playing them. If those "best players" aren't blocking key young players, then it's worth playing them. If neither is true, in a season where you aren't contending for anything, then no, playing your best players to try to win games doesn't carry much weight with me. I think it's counter-productive for the future, in order to get a fairly meaningless short-term gain.



> Anyway, it seems like you're just remember last season wrong. I don't know how else to say it. You said that Telfair's surgery coincided with Zach coming back into the lineup, but Zach was never out of the lineup. Except for the last 5 games of the season, he only miseed 3 single non-consecutive games all year.


It may have been Miles, then. I do remember that one or two starters returned to the lineup, coinciding with Telfair leaving the lineup. It's certainly possible that I've gotten details wrong...I didn't record things and my memory isn't infallible. But I'm pretty sure the general idea was right.



> You say that Blake's a bad defender and seem to be saying that he and Telfair are thus equivalent in that category. That is just not true. That sounds like the same argument people used to justify Adam Morrison's bad defense before the draft, trying to paint really bad and average as somehow being equivalent. I'll say the same thing now I said then: Ummm ... no! Were you one of those people?


Considering I was one of Morrison's biggest critics, I doubt I was one of the people you mean. But you're incorrect that I consider bad defense and average defense as equivalent. I don't consider Blake "average." I consider him "bad." Telfair is also bad, probably worse. But I don't think Blake is good enough on defense to gain big points on Telfair.



> Then you point to each player's year-long PER as evidence that they were somehow equally effective (you ignored defense, but I've already covered that).


I didn't ignore defense; I've conceded his defense wasn't good from the start. My point was that he was close to being an average starter on offense, which is certainly showing some value at 20. If he never improved from that, he'd of course be a sub-standard player, defense factored in. But it seems perfectly reasonable that he'll improve, considering his age.



> This also is not true. For one thing, there are different ways of pumping up a PER. Telfair outscored Blake, but Blake out-assisted him, made fewer TOs, and shot a better FG% and 3pt FG%. The latter is what Nate wanted from his point guard


That's fine. I never blasted Nate as an idiot. I just think that *A.* it's untrue that Telfair has never shown the ability to be a legitimate NBA player and *B.* Portland didn't handle his development very well. I understand that head coaches are paid only to consider how best to win the next game, but there are long-term goals to keep in mind also.



> Are you really trying to argue that the guy with the higher A/TO and who was shooting a _>10% better FG rate_ shouldn't have been the one starting?


I'm arguing that the overall difference between them wasn't enough to justify not letting what was, then, a core young player develop. Yes, Blake had his advantages and Telfair had his (thus their similar PERs) and if Portland were in a close race for anything significant, I'd endorse playing the more consistent, experienced player. In a season where nothing was achieved by a few extra wins (if, in fact, Blake made even that much difference), I'm arguing that Portland would have been better off letting a raw talent learn the game.



> but the reason he stayed out of the starting lineup after returning from surgery last year is clear, and rather than coming up with strange, implausible or untrue alternate explanations of why it happened, you should let Occam's Razor advise you.


I think Occam's Razor suggests that if Nate felt Telfair wasn't performing, he wouldn't wait around for oral surgery to do the benching for him. Assuming he would counts as a "strange, implausible or untrue alternate explanation of why it happened."


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

What many of you need to also address is the intangibles of a player - the ability to lead, be a team player, good community liaison, carry-out the coaches instructions, protect other teammates, cover for those caught out of position, etc. That is where someone like Blake thrives and Telfair fails.

These are important traits in a team sport.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> I think you're missing my point. Blake was just as bad as Telfair to start his career AND was much older to boot. Yet he's still managed to establish himself as an NBA regular. *I'm certainly open to the idea that Blake has some qualities that make him a better PG*, despite similar PER, but I don't think it's so significant that Telfair is highly unlikely to catch him in a few years.


I think the qualities Blake has over Telfair are: maturity, decision making, work ethic and height. Telfair behaves immaturely both on and off the court with a selfish shoot first mentality and run-ins with the law. Likewise for his decision making - an important quality in someone whose job is running your offense. By all accounts, Blake is a gym rat who spends extra hours in the gym working on his game. Telfair seems to spend his extra hours clubbing (that's his right, but it doesn't help his game). Telfair came into the league with more innate ability and athleticism than Blake, but where Blake has improved the weaknesses in his game, Telfair's weaknesses have been exposed and he's actually regressed. Finally, Blake is 3" taller. Even if Telfair improves his maturity level, decision making ability and work ethic, he'll still always have this obstacle. Those are the reasons Blake is a valuable contributor to a play-off team and Telfair was a third stringer on the verge of being cut by the second worst team in the league.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

southnc said:


> What many of you need to also address is the intangibles of a player - the ability to lead, be a team player, good community liaison, carry-out the coaches instructions, protect other teammates, cover for those caught out of position, etc. That is where someone like Blake thrives and Telfair fails.
> 
> These are important traits in a team sport.


Quite true, but that's something you'd expect a 19- or 20-year old to struggle with and to need to learn by playing. I have no doubts Blake was more experienced and savvy, and that has value. Again, for a team contending for anything of value, I'd have started Blake over Telfair too. In a lost season no matter who started, I'd rather have developed the younger player, let him gain the benefits brought by experience.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

Nate Dogg said:


> Telfairs value has dropped and Blakes has risen. Thats all I have to say.


Blake's wasn't rising with the Bucks. I don't recall him even getting much playing time there. We wouldn't even be talking about him if he hadn't landed in Denver in an ideal situation.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> That makes about as much sense as saying we should have let Martel play over Ime this season, since the team achieved nothing of import this year either. Do you think they should have done that too? I guess the idea of playing your best player to try to win games just doesn't carry weight with you.


I'm not Minstrel, but I think that the team would have been better served to give Webster way, way more minutes than he got this year... Ime is a journeyman who's not going to be a part of the team's future, and the team was still terrible in spite of not making the investment in playing time with Webster.

I don't blame Nate for trying to win by using the mediocre older player rather than the sub-mediocre youngster, but that doesn't mean it was what was best for the franchise in the long run.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> I think the qualities Blake has over Telfair are: maturity, decision making, work ethic and height. Telfair behaves immaturely both on and off the court with a selfish shoot first mentality and run-ins with the law. Likewise for his decision making - an important quality in someone whose job is running your offense. By all accounts, Blake is a gym rat who spends extra hours in the gym working on his game. Telfair seems to spend his extra hours clubbing (that's his right, but it doesn't help his game). Telfair came into the league with more innate ability and athleticism than Blake, but where Blake has improved the weaknesses in his game, Telfair's weaknesses have been exposed and he's actually regressed. Finally, Blake is 3" taller. Even if Telfair improves his maturity level, decision making ability and work ethic, he'll still always have this obstacle. Those are the reasons Blake is a valuable contributor to a play-off team and Telfair was a third stringer on the verge of being cut by the second worst team in the league.


I don't really disagree with any of this, but I think all of them (outside of height) are related to age. If he's still immature (and the lack of work ethic goes along with that) in 2-3 years, he'll basically have wasted his chance to succeed in the NBA. But I think, like most people, he'll mature as he gets older. Decision-making can really only improve with experience. Observationally, his decision-making improved from his first season to his second. Not that he was a great decision-maker in his second year, but improved from the lost soul he was in his first season.

And yes, height will always be a problem for him. Not an insurmountable one for a point guard, but he does have to improve his decision-making and ability to finish at the hoop.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm not Minstrel, but I think that the team would have been better served to give Webster way, way more minutes than he got this year... Ime is a journeyman who's not going to be a part of the team's future, and the team was still terrible in spite of not making the investment in playing time with Webster.
> 
> I don't blame Nate for trying to win by using the mediocre older player rather than the sub-mediocre youngster, but that doesn't mean it was what was best for the franchise in the long run.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree with both Minstrel and Ed O...Telfair and Martell should have been given a lot more court time to develop, especially considering we went on to terrible records playing Blake and Ime.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

SLAM said:


> I agree with both Minstrel and Ed O...Telfair and Martell should have been given a lot more court time to develop, especially considering we went on to terrible records playing Blake and Ime.


 This is a complete generalization. Last year, the Blazers got on a good rhythm with Blake/Dixon back-court, until key injuries and the Patterson trade doomed that squad.

This year's club had less adversity, but is very young and inexperienced. Still, they did a pretty good job.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> This is a complete generalization. Last year, the Blazers got on a good rhythm with Blake/Dixon back-court, until key injuries and the Patterson trade doomed that squad.


You're kidding, right?

The Blazers were 18-35 at the time of the Patterson trade. They had gone 7-11 in the 18 games previous to that, but I don't think (a) they could have sustained that lofty .389 winning rate, nor (b) that a .389 winning rate is anything short or terrible.

Interestingly, our winning rate this year? .390.

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Instead of cracking each others' skulls over what might or might not happen, why don't we wait a few months and find out. I'm sure we can still find something to argue over. Right now it is "my speculation is right and your speculation is wrong". 

I do think we can generally agree that we are glad Telfair is no longer the Blazers' responsibility. And that Ainge got hosed.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm not Minstrel, but I think that the team would have been better served to give Webster way, way more minutes than he got this year... Ime is a journeyman who's not going to be a part of the team's future, and the team was still terrible in spite of not making the investment in playing time with Webster.
> 
> I don't blame Nate for trying to win by using the mediocre older player rather than the sub-mediocre youngster, but that doesn't mean it was what was best for the franchise in the long run.
> 
> Ed O.


The problem with your theory (and Minstrel's) IMHO is that you place too much of an emphasis on youth and the ability to develop. The only reason that people think Webster now or Telfair then was part of the "core" of the franchise was because of their potential and their perceived talent as evaluated at a MUCH lower level of play. The same tired argument gets trotted out that the only way to develop that potential is by playing on the court in live basketball games for a substantial number of minutes. I would dispute first of all the absoluteness of that argument that is presented - not necessarily by yourself or Minstrel. I've had this debate many times but to summarize - players can excel in practice and gain enough skills/talents to then break into the rotation.

Secondly, utilizing this theory, every new draft pick that comes in should get a large chunk of minutes because A) that's the only way they are going to improve and B) since they're typically younger they are automatically endowed with the ability to be better than the person who is currently starting at that position. When does that cycle end? Let's say we draft a SG who is currently a freshman in college (needless to say, I think we'd all be a little shocked at that). Do we start that person ahead of Roy because Roy is older, has four years of college under his belt, and therefore can never improve? 

Unfortunately, at some point people's personal valuations of talent and players has to come into play. Specifically in Webster's case I don't think starting every game this year and playing 48 minutes would've done anything. He's either just not getting it or getting extremely frustrated (again, IMHO). I'd rather have the rookies learn that the team strives to win, no matter how pitifully they execute that mantra, than that the team will play a younger player at your position because they have more potential to improve, they've flashed some talent now and then, and therefore they are a lock for the "core" of the team going forward.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

crandc said:


> Instead of cracking each others' skulls over what might or might not happen, why don't we wait a few months and find out. I'm sure we can still find something to argue over. Right now it is "my speculation is right and your speculation is wrong".
> 
> I do think we can generally agree that we are glad Telfair is no longer the Blazers' responsibility. And that Ainge got hosed.


At this point in time, hosed is too polite of a word.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Observationally, his decision-making improved from his first season to his second. Not that he was a great decision-maker in his second year, but improved from the lost soul he was in his first season.


I disagree with this completely. I was more impressed with Telfair's decision making and ability to run an offense during the last 26 games of his rookie season than at any point in his second year. That was the 26 games he started after Cheeks was fired. He was basically given the starting job and told it was his team. Even though he was playing with far inferior talent, he still managed to get his teammates involved and did a good job running the offense. Over those last 26 games he averaged over 6 APG and had three games with double digit assists - including the last two games of the season when he dished out 13 and 11 assists. In the two years since then, he's never managed more than 8 assists in any game. It was during this stretch that Telfair played his best ball and actually showed a glimpse of hope that he had the ability to develop into a quality NBA point guard.

For whatever reason, he came into his second season with a much more "score first, pass second" attitude. I don't know if this was simply him reverting back to his shoot first mentality, if he felt threatened or offended that the Blazers had acquired both Jack and Blake during the off-season, or if he just didn't see eye-to-eye with his new coach. Whatever the reason, his decision making and the ability to run an offense he demonstrated at the end of his rookie year seemed to vanish and he was once again a shoot first PG who did a poor job of distributing the ball to his teammates. I don't know what his PER was over those last 26 games as a starter, but given that his raw numbers were substantially better across the board (11.1 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 6.0 APG vs. 9.5 PPG, 1.8 RPG, 3.6 APG) than his second year, I would anticipate his PER over those 26 games was higher than the 13.0 he posted his second season. While his seasonal PER may be better for his second season, I think Telfair's performance actually peaked with those last 26 games of his rookie year.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I'm not Minstrel, but I think that the team would have been better served to give Webster way, way more minutes than he got this year... Ime is a journeyman who's not going to be a part of the team's future, and the team was still terrible in spite of not making the investment in playing time with Webster.


This is where I think the Telfair/Webster comparisons break down. Yes, they were both young, inexperienced high school kids, but they were very different players and very different people. Webster's biggest problem seems to be his lack of confidence. During his rookie year they sent him down to the D-League to work on his game and improve his confidence. After he rejoined the team, he was a totally different player, playing the best ball of his young career over the last month of his rookie year.

This year, his confidence seemed to have vanished and never returned. Putting him out there for 35 - 40 minutes a game to get abused by the best small forwards in the league on a nightly basis wouldn't have helped his confidence - if anything it would have undermined it further. Personally, I think some more time in the D-League would have done him more good than throwing him to the wolves in a sink or swim scenario as a starter in the NBA. Since neither happened, we'll never know for sure. 

My point is Telfair and Webster are very different players and very different people. What's best for one's development isn't necessarily best for the other. Unlike Webster, a lack of self-confidence has never been an issue for Telfair. 

BNM


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> It depends. If those "best players" are ones who you expect to be core players on your next successful team, it's worth playing them. If those "best players" aren't blocking key young players, then it's worth playing them. If neither is true, in a season where you aren't contending for anything, then no, playing your best players to try to win games doesn't carry much weight with me. I think it's counter-productive for the future, in order to get a fairly meaningless short-term gain.


So you still haven't said what the difference between playing Blake over Telfair and playing Ime over Webster is, if any. In any case, I don't think most coaches or players would be in favor of a plan that has the better players sitting in favor of worse younger ones. It may be better for the franchise in the long-run, but it goes against the whole ethic and meaning of sports.



Minstrel said:


> It may have been Miles, then. I do remember that one or two starters returned to the lineup, coinciding with Telfair leaving the lineup. It's certainly possible that I've gotten details wrong...I didn't record things and my memory isn't infallible. But I'm pretty sure the general idea was right.


Not Miles either. He went _out_ on Dec 2, before Telfair did, and didn't come back until February. It wasn't Joel Przybilla either.

You must be thinking of Theo Ratliff, who missed some games right before Telfair went out. He was an important part of the team back then, if healthy, so his return would have made the team noticably better. If you really want to argue that Nate confused the effect of adding Theo with the effect of changing point guards though, I think you are really out on a limb.



Minstrel said:


> Considering I was one of Morrison's biggest critics, I doubt I was one of the people you mean. But you're incorrect that I consider bad defense and average defense as equivalent. I don't consider Blake "average." I consider him "bad." Telfair is also bad, probably worse. But I don't think Blake is good enough on defense to gain big points on Telfair.


I'm glad you weren't part of the Morrisonite cult. Again though, you're simply not remembering it right if you don't recall Blake's defense being significantly better than Telfair's. You seem to dig in on stuff like this generally rather than give an inch, but in this case it's pretty obvious that you're incorrect. I don't know how else to say it. If you don't want to see it, which I'm fairly sure you won't, I guess it's of no consequence.



Minstrel said:


> I didn't ignore defense; I've conceded his defense wasn't good from the start. My point was that he was close to being an average starter on offense, which is certainly showing some value at 20. If he never improved from that, he'd of course be a sub-standard player, defense factored in. But it seems perfectly reasonable that he'll improve, considering his age.


You had ignored defense when you originally posited that the player's similar PER's somehow made them equivalent options. You also ignored my point about how Telfair's stats were a lot worse in the time in question, just before and after his injury, when he lost his starting job and didn't get it back. The fact that he played well and increased his year-long PER in March and April doesn't mean that he and Blake were performing similarly in December, January and February. I showed you the month by month stats, so you should be able to see exactly why Nate left Telfair out of the starting lineup after he came back from injury; he wasn't performing even close to as well as Steve Blake, on either end of the court, despite your protests to the contrary.

I agree with your point about Telfair maybe becoming a decent NBA player someday though. It's possible.



Minstrel said:


> That's fine. I never blasted Nate as an idiot. I just think that *A.* it's untrue that Telfair has never shown the ability to be a legitimate NBA player and *B.* Portland didn't handle his development very well. I understand that head coaches are paid only to consider how best to win the next game, but there are long-term goals to keep in mind also.
> 
> I'm arguing that the overall difference between them wasn't enough to justify not letting what was, then, a core young player develop. Yes, Blake had his advantages and Telfair had his (thus their similar PERs) and if Portland were in a close race for anything significant, I'd endorse playing the more consistent, experienced player. In a season where nothing was achieved by a few extra wins (if, in fact, Blake made even that much difference), I'm arguing that Portland would have been better off letting a raw talent learn the game.


Yeah, so Nate should have given minutes to the guy who was playing a lot worse just because he is younger ... 

There are different strategies to developing a player, you should be aware. It isn't just maximizing minutes. You have to put a guy in a position to succeed, and then gradually step up the responsibility as he shows he is ready. They tried putting Martel out there in the starting lineup last year, and he floundered. He actually got better after being benched and sent to the D-league. Telfair was floundering as a starter as well, but even so they continued to play him fairly consistent minutes coming off the bench, so I really don't know what you think they could have done differently.

In any case, another important aspect of development is character. This message is for Ed O too, if he reads it. If you give a young guy minutes over a better veteran player, you risk instilling a sense of entitlement in him and giving him an oversized ego. By many accounts, both Martel and Telfair already had and have this problem. By making the kid earn his playing time, you force him to take an honest look at the problems in his game and hopefully develop an ethic of presistent hard work towards improvement. It's a fine line to walk between letting a kid play and making him earn it, but I find it hard to see how Telfair or Webster have shown that they actually should get more minutes.



Minstrel said:


> I think Occam's Razor suggests that if Nate felt Telfair wasn't performing, he wouldn't wait around for oral surgery to do the benching for him. Assuming he would counts as a "strange, implausible or untrue alternate explanation of why it happened."


Occam's Razor suggests that Nate plays whoever he thinks will play the best. Duh. You're assertions that somehow Nate confused the effect of other player changes with the effect of changing point guards is a the implausible alternate explanation. The idea that Blake simply played better than Telfair did when he was finally given the chance is the simple one, and to most of Blazer fans, the fairly obvious one.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I think a good coach, when deciding who to play (other than the obvious 12th man/woman) will tell the players what he/she expects of them. Of course, that will be different for different players. IMO, the ones who meet expectations earn pt. 

For that matter, that is how a good manager functions in the workplace generally. 

So, either Bassy had 3 lousy coaches OR he was just not meeting their expectations. Which would probably be improvement, working hard, listening to coaches. Those are not really age things. Leadership, maybe, but listening to one's coach is something that should have been picked up in grade school.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> So you still haven't said what the difference between playing Blake over Telfair and playing Ime over Webster is, if any.


That's because there isn't any. I would much rather have had Webster been given time to develop than Ime to help the team win slightly more in a season where that slight extra winning wasn't a benefit.



> I'm glad you weren't part of the Morrisonite cult. Again though, you're simply not remembering it right if you don't recall Blake's defense being significantly better than Telfair's. You seem to dig in on stuff like this generally rather than give an inch, but in this case it's pretty obvious that you're incorrect.


You phrase your opinions as facts, and hope your bluster that the other person "is simply incorrect" will intimidate them, but it's not a compelling or novel tactic.



> You had ignored defense when you originally posited that the player's similar PER's somehow made them equivalent options.


Because I don't think defense is a significant differentiator between Telfair and Blake, as I've made clear. I didn't ignore defense in my overall evalauation of Telfair.



> You also ignored my point about how Telfair's stats were a lot worse in the time in question, just before and after his injury, when he lost his starting job and didn't get it back.


Because I found it irrelevant. Again, *if* the team were competing for something, the more consistent, experienced player would be preferable. Since they weren't, I think the player who was nearly as good on the offensive end and only a bit worse on the defensive end and had both more variability and more upside should have been given the time to develop. At that time, playing Blake definitely had no short-term gain (like making a run at a playoff spot) whereas playing Telfair could have had a long-term gain (allowing him to learn from his mistakes and become more consistent and savvy).



> There are different strategies to developing a player, you should be aware. It isn't just maximizing minutes. You have to put a guy in a position to succeed, and then gradually step up the responsibility as he shows he is ready.


Telfair had shown improvement from when he had been drafted. Linear improvement is rare, as there will usually be leaps forward and set-backs. For virtually everyone, though, improvement comes from playing against superior competition.

As for "entitlement," you never tell a player a position is his regardless. And point guard shouldn't have been his regardless. But he was playing better in his second season, which should have spurred further play time, not a benching.

In any case, I find that this debate is restating the same positions back and forth, not a progression of new ideas on either side. My original point was that Telfair has not shown himself to be a lost cause, which you agree with. How Portland should have handled him was interesting, but not for pages and pages. So, I'll leave last response to you and end my part in this discussion.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> In any case, I find that this debate is restating the same positions back and forth, not a progression of new ideas on either side. My original point was that Telfair has not shown himself to be a lost cause, which you agree with. How Portland should have handled him was interesting, but not for pages and pages. So, I'll leave last response to you and end my part in this discussion.


That's a good idea. 

Telfair in January (when Minstrel says he should have been starting because Blake wasn't playing any better):
20mpg, 6.8ppg, 33.8% FG, 2.8 asi, 1.6 TO

Blake in January:
29mpg, 10.0 44.7 FG%, 4.7 ast, 1.1 TO

Blake outplayed him. That's not me trying to intimidate, that's just a fact. You think Blake's defense wasn't significantly better than Telfair, you think Telfair was benched because of some confluence of other factors that fooled Nate into thinking Blake was better, despite the fact that Blake was shooting a full 10% higher FG% at the time immediately before and after Telfair's injury and all the guys you assumed had been out with injury actually weren't.

Minstrel, I've seen you do this before, where you refuse to budge no matter how obviously you are wrong. So yes, I agree this is pointless.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

We can argue PER until the cows come home but the facts are:

Stephen Jackson is facing trial over charges far more seriously than any Bassy may potentially face. Jackson was charged with actually firing a weapon, not merely having one. He has a history that involves a major role in and long suspension following the infamous Pacers/Pistons brawl.

They love him in Golden State.

He was the key piece of the January trade that turned the team. His teammates, coaches, the fans, the media, adore him. The same local sportswriters who to this day say "Jailblazers" on every possible and impossible occasion, no matter how untrue or irrelevant, praise Jackson to the skies. He has a little routine at every home game where a teammate pretends to frisk him at center court before tip-off. Hardy Har Har, really funny. The fans laugh and the media treat it as a big joke. Advertisers are joining, not leaving. 

So he fires a gun outside a strip club? Who cares? He can play. 

What it comes down to is if a GM thinks Telfair can play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Minstrel, I've seen you do this before, where you refuse to budge no matter how obviously you are wrong.


Again, substituting your typical "Anyone who disagrees with me is clearly wrong" rhetoric for good arguments. Your type of "debate" is as pointless as you try to paint mine. You've always been more about trying to subtly demean or undercut the other poster than making rational points on the topic. I used to be the same way, when I was 16 or so.  Now, I find that kind or argument a waste of time.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Again, substituting your typical "Anyone who disagrees with me is clearly wrong" rhetoric for good arguments. Your type of "debate" is as pointless as you try to paint mine. You've always been more about trying to subtly demean or undercut the other poster than making rational points on the topic. I used to be the same way, when I was 16 or so.  Now, I find that kind or argument a waste of time.


I thought you were done with this. I knew that was an empty threat lol.

Anyway, I know that's how you see it, that I'm circumventing the rational debate process somehow.

What I see is me showing you some pretty good statistic evidence, "rational points" if you will, on how thoroughly Blake outplayed Telfair in the time period in question, which you covered your eyes to because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

Besides that, I do think you are clearly wrong about Blake not being a better defender. There isn't an empirical evidence to show it, but it was obvious. Nate said it, and just about everyone besides you who has watched the team knows it as well, but you insist it isn't true. I don't what to say to someone who denies the obvious. It's like debating George Bush about the Iraq war.

Whether the team should have played Telfair, the inferior player, over Blake is a matter of opinion. I'll gladly give you that. That Telfair lost his starting job to a superior player though is a matter of fact. You can accuse me of using unfair rhetorical tactics if you want. I accuse you of being unable to see evidence to the contrary after you've staked a position, no matter how good the evidence is. I've seen you do it on multiple occasions now, and this is just one more example. I'm sure you'll assume I'm wrong about that as well. So be it.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

crandc said:


> What it comes down to is if a GM thinks Telfair can play.


You and I, and Ed O, definitely agree on that one.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> I thought you were done with this. I knew that was an empty threat lol.


Empty threat? How so? I said I was done arguing the Blazers' handling of Telfair. True to that, I didn't bother responding to your final strawman argument to me.

I never said I wouldn't respond to your potshot with one of my own. 



> What I see is me showing you some pretty good statistic evidence, "rational points" if you will, on how thoroughly Blake outplayed Telfair in the time period in question, which you covered your eyes to because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.


Wrong, the "time period in question" was the full season, within which I already acknowledged Telfair was inconsistent. You've changed the debate to January. Moving the goal posts to better suit you is a typical debate tactic, but not one that counts as "pretty good statistical evidence."

These transparent attempts to transform the debate are an example of why it's pointless to debate with you and why I'm not going to continue debating this issue (Telfair's handling by Portland) with you.



> You can accuse me of using unfair rhetorical tactics if you want.


I've never accused you of using "unfair" tactics. I've accused you of trying to frame your opinions as facts and disagreement with them as foolishness, instead of making good arguments. Which you continue with unabated in your latest post. Again, it's a juvenile tactic, but you're welcome to it!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Wrong, the "time period in question" was the full season, within which I already acknowledged Telfair was inconsistent. You've changed the debate to January. Moving the goal posts to better suit you is a typical debate tactic, but not one that counts as "pretty good statistical evidence."


You said Telfair was taken out of the starting lineup only due to injury. I've been saying all along that he was left out of the lineup when he returned from injury, in January, because he was outplayed by Steve Blake. Telfair was playing bad in December before his injury, and in January and February. Real bad. I showed you the numbers.

I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm referring specifically to the time period in question. You said Telfair lost his job only to injury and not because he was outplayed by Steve Blake. When Telfair went out in December, he had been playing badly. When he came back in January, he continued playing badly. Real bad. 33% FG bad. That's why he didn't regain his starting job.

You seemed to be relying on a year long PER rating as evidence that Telfair's play was somehow equivalent to Blake's. And even disregarding the pretty obvious flaw in using PER as a catch-all metric for how well a guy plays basketball, I showed you how using that year-long rating wasn't applicable to the question at hand, because Telfair's play was so uneven. If we had monthly PER values for him, the chart would look like a hockey stick. Telfair had a good March and a great April (and he was given the starting spot for the last 6 games), but he that doesn't change the fact that he was totally outplayed before that, just like his terrible play and Blake's good play this season doesn't have any relevance to the question of who if either was playing better when Telfair came back from his injury last season.

I really don't think it's that hard to understand, which leads me to believe that you just don't want to understand. You've staked your position, that Telfair's loss of starting position wasn't due to Blake playing better, and you're just not able to let it go.




Minstrel said:


> These transparent attempts to transform the debate are an example of why it's pointless to debate with you and why I'm not going to continue debating this issue (Telfair's handling by Portland) with you.
> 
> I've never accused you of using "unfair" tactics. I've accused you of trying to frame your opinions as facts and disagreement with them as foolishness, instead of making good arguments. Which you continue with unabated in your latest post. Again, it's a juvenile tactic, but you're welcome to it!


I was just going to accuse you of transparently trying to transform the debate. You can accuse me of being juvenile, moving goal posts or whatever you want all day, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence clearly shows Steve Blake kept the starting point guard job by outplaying Sebastian Telfair last year. You can say whatever you want about me, but I think it's evidence of the type of person you are that you refuse to see the obvious and instead try to so obviously obfuscate.

On one point I agree with you though, this is worthless. It's like debating Talkhard in the OT forum. But unlike you though, I mean it when I say I'm done with it. Have the last word, and enjoy a life of never having to change your mind to suit the evidence.


----------

