# Further proof that Bayless was KP's Guy



## Driew (Oct 20, 2007)

EDIT: WHOOPS in the thread title meant "that" instead of the..sorry a little tired.



> Heading into draft night, the player we targeted was Brandon Rush. There was a sense publicly that we were targeting D.J. Augustin, but because of the trade talks involving Jermaine O’Neal which centered on trading for an established point guard, we were actually focused on Brandon. In the end, we were fortunate to get two established point guards in T.J. Ford and Jarrett Jack.
> 
> *As the 11th pick approached, we spoke with Portland and consummated the deal, contingent on the player they wanted being available as long as it was not Brandon Rush. Jerryd Bayless was their guy, and when he was not selected by New Jersey with the 10th pick, we finalized the deal and selected Bayless for Portland.*


source: http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/column_morway_080712.html

BTW--Here's the Pacers press conference with 4 of the 7 players they got including Jack--is it just me or does Jack look upset that he's in Indiana? I sort of feel for the guy--but not really...


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Further proof the Bayless was KP's Guy*

It was a good deal for both teams. Indiana had no use for Bayless with Ford there, and got more value out of their pick, while we got another young stud.
I'd still rather have our side though..

And it's different seeing Jarrett with Indy but him and TJ seem to be good friends already. Both Jack and Josh probably did like it in Portland a lot. I'd cheer both on again when they play here this season.


----------



## Driew (Oct 20, 2007)

*Re: Further proof the Bayless was KP's Guy*



alext42083 said:


> I'd cheer both on again when they play here this season.


Same--I hope Jack gets a great ovation when he comes back to the Rose Garden.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Driew said:


> EDIT: WHOOPS in the thread title meant "that" instead of the..sorry a little tired.


Fixed!


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

i think it's more likely westbrook was kp's "guy", but there was no reasonable way to get him.


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

crowTrobot said:


> i think it's more likely westbrook was kp's "guy", but there was no reasonable way to get him.


Doubt it. Russell Westbrook = Jarrett Jack. We would more likely have traded the pick than take Westbrook.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

i think its more of Bayless was KPs pipe dream. The odds he would fall to 11 were slim.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I have to echo what a few others have said about Jarret, I really hope he gets some love when the Pacers come to town next year, booing him would be bad form and utterly classless -- the guy gave everything he had for us, unfotunately it just wasn't quite enough. I wish Jarret all the success in the world, playing for Indy.


----------



## Short Bus Ryder (Jun 8, 2007)

Bayless is great (alot to learn, but...) and I don't know if Larry would have the comments watching him play right now.

As far as Jarrett, He was a great kid, brought alot to out team that someone will have to step up and replace, his intensity, heart and drive was possibly the best on the team. Did'nt always make the greatest decisions on the court (stepping out of bounds) but he did give it all. I will always root for Jack, like I do Ime. 

Out team had to move on to improve, but these guys are missed.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Driew said:


> EDIT: WHOOPS in the thread title meant "that" instead of the..sorry a little tired.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is only "further proof that Bayless was KP's guy" AFTER a certain - unknown - point in time during the draft.

Skipping the top three picks of Rose, Beasley and Mayo, that I very much doubt KP would have passed on had he been able to obtain them for cheap assets somehow, we don't know when KP was targeting Bayless.

Was it after the 3rd pick? 4th? 8th?

Based on the evidence presented in the story, Bayless could have been KP's 3rd (or whatever) choice for all we know.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Masbee said:


> This is only "further proof that Bayless was KP's guy" AFTER a certain - unknown - point in time during the draft.
> 
> Skipping the top three picks of Rose, Beasley and Mayo, that I very much doubt KP would have passed on had he been able to obtain them for cheap assets somehow, we don't know when KP was targeting Bayless.
> 
> ...


Maybe giving up Rush for Bayless was the only way to get someone to take Jack, and dumping Jarrett was the only goal of this draft? :whoknows:


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> Maybe giving up Rush for Bayless was the only way to get someone to take Jack, and dumping Jarrett was the only goal of this draft? :whoknows:


I think KP was really looking to trade Jack but I don't think KP wanted Rush at all. I do think he was targeting Bayless but I have a idea he would have also liked any of the first 3-4 picks. I'm not sure but I have a feeling he liked Westbrook as much or more then Bayless but it would have taken way to much to get him. I liked Westbrook and thought he should be the pick if we could get him but now I think Bayless is going to be a lot better then Westbrook. I now think Bayless is going to be a lot better then I originally thought.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Maybe giving up Rush for Bayless was the only way to get someone to take Jack, and dumping Jarrett was the only goal of this draft? :whoknows:


That's silly, Jack doesn't represent a large contract. We could have eliminated him from our team whenever we wanted, since his contract was so small we could have cut him. The goal was to obviously upgrade our biggest weakness which was the point guard position. We did that.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> That's silly, Jack doesn't represent a large contract. We could have eliminated him from our team whenever we wanted, since his contract was so small we could have cut him. The goal was to obviously upgrade our biggest weakness which was the point guard position. We did that.


By drafting another very good *SG*?

I'd say we weakened it further by completely ignoring it.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

MARIS, Bayless will mainly play point on our team. He might not be apure PG, but we got exactly waht we need.

Honestly, what do we need out of our PG spot? Seriously.. what do we need? ability to dribble it up the court, call the play, pass to Roy to be the playmaker, be able to play off the ball, defend PGs? KP wanted to get more athletic in the backcourt also. I mean.. come on... that just SCREAMS Jerryd Bayless (who is EASILY one of the top 4 players in this draft, imo).


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> MARIS, Bayless will mainly play point on our team. He might not be apure PG, but we got exactly waht we need.
> 
> Honestly, what do we need out of our PG spot? Seriously.. what do we need? ability to dribble it up the court, call the play, pass to Roy to be the playmaker, be able to play off the ball, defend PGs? KP wanted to get more athletic in the backcourt also. I mean.. come on... that just SCREAMS Jerryd Bayless (who is EASILY one of the top 4 players in this draft, imo).


MARIS does not know what MARIS talks about. It's best to just ignore him.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> MARIS, Bayless will mainly play point on our team. He might not be apure PG, but we got exactly waht we need.
> 
> Honestly, what do we need out of our PG spot? Seriously.. what do we need? ability to dribble it up the court, call the play, pass to Roy to be the playmaker, be able to play off the ball, defend PGs? KP wanted to get more athletic in the backcourt also. I mean.. come on... that just SCREAMS Jerryd Bayless (who is EASILY one of the top 4 players in this draft, imo).


If that's all YOU (not we, just you) need, then fine for you.

The duties you just described are basically those of a SG when his PG is being double-teamed or denied the ball.

KP's style of PG's are expected to push the pace, get the defense on it's heels, draw defenders in order to get shooters open, have outstanding court vision, be able to create shots for others, thread the needle in traffic, hit the 3, and defend against similar PG's.

I am sure KP and Nate, former PG's, are looking for *quite a bit more*.

That is why Bayless was their second choice that they settled for since their first choice deal fell through.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> If that's all YOU (not we, just you) need, then fine for you.
> 
> The duties you just described are basically those of a SG when his PG is being double-teamed or denied the ball.
> 
> ...


Bayless can do this, and is only getting better at all of them being he is 19 years old.



> That is why Bayless was their second choice that they settled for since their first choice deal fell through.


link? i remember them saying they hit a home run with Bayless.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

You know, Maris, it'd be easier to take you seriously if you'd somewhat more regularly admit it when you might have been wrong about someone or something. Kingspeed, for example, frequently makes similarly bold and/or absurd statements but I can recall several times when he eventually conceded that, for example, Harris might be a better player than he'd been giving him credit for being.

Speaking of such things, (while also returning us to the thread topic), I'm ready to concede, Jay (and others) that the Blazers may well have simply gotten lucky with Bayless. MB's guess about how it all went down seemed reasonable to me and made sense at the time with other things I was hearing and reading, but _since_ they've been able to talk about it, both Pritchard and McMillan have made comments that now lead me to think they really hadn't expected Bayless to still be there -- part of why they weren't stressed about trying to get him in. I'm now inclined to think that they really had been targetting Westbrook and/or Augustin and were amazed that Bayless actually feel to them. My guess is they expected Bayless to go either where Westbrook went or where Augustin went and that they had a deal in place with the Pacers to select whichever PG (or combo guard) of the three was there at 11 for them.


----------



## Driew (Oct 20, 2007)

MrJayremmie said:


> i think its more of Bayless was KPs pipe dream. The odds he would fall to 11 were slim.


Well after the draft KP said he had the top 15 picks correctly guessed on his mock draft--so I'm guessing he knew Bayless would slip to 11 because KP said after talking to everyone the day before the draft that Bayless wasn't on their radar or something to that extent.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

thats right, i remember him saying that. Well once he expected Bayless to slide (and he knew that the wild card was Charlotte at #9) i think that he was his #1 target because he had him ranked 4 overall.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Maybe giving up Rush for Bayless was the only way to get someone to take Jack, and dumping Jarrett was the only goal of this draft? :whoknows:


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Agreed, 2k. Jack's not so bad that he's negative value and, even if he somehow were, they could just cut him. It's a pretty absurd theory.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> By drafting another very good *SG*?
> 
> I'd say we weakened it further by completely ignoring it.


Seriously, we already have a pretty good SG in Steve Blake; right?


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I sort of think of KP getting Bayless as the equivalent of ordering up a really nice hamburger, and the waiter screws up and you "accidentally" get fillet mignon and lobster. 

I think the plan to get Bayless really didn't emerge until the eleventh hour (so to speak), until it occurred to KP that Bayless had a chance of slipping to an amenable trade partner.

Frankly I think the "plan" before the day of the draft was hoping that Augustin was going to be available -- Oops! Darn they got stuck with Jerryd :wink:


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> Frankly I think the "plan" before the day of the draft was hoping that Augustin was going to be available -- Oops! Darn they got stuck with Jerryd :wink:


I gotta say I totally disagree. I don't think Pritchard would have ever settled for Augustine's tiny body. Pritchard has shown that he really doesn't gamble on guys with less than stellar NBA bodies. Batum has exceptional length, LaMarcus has great length, Roy has good size, Pete is very big for a point guard. I would take Bayless over Augustine any day.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Sambonius said:


> I gotta say I totally disagree. I don't think Pritchard would have ever settled for Augustine's tiny body. Pritchard has shown that he really doesn't gamble on guys with less than stellar NBA bodies. Batum has exceptional length, LaMarcus has great length, Roy has good size, Pete is very big for a point guard. I would take Bayless over Augustine any day.


I didn't say KP preferred DJ to Bayless, I'm saying I don't think Bayless being a possibility revealed itself until very late in the game; that's all.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I thought originally KP was hoping DJ would make it to the 11th pick, but now I'm not so sure. If what the Pacers said is true then he wanted Bayless.

Nate said that when a deal fell through to bring a vet here they instead got the best player in the draft. I wonder if he meant the entire draft or just available at the 11th?

I do think Bayless is more of a off guard right now than PG. I have seen some nice passes on fast breaks, but as PG he didn't do well. Against the Suns we didn't do well until Kopenen took over as pg. Kopenen got 5 assists to Bayless 1, but then again Bayless didn't have the luxury to pass to a player of his caliber.

Either way he should fit in well with the Blazers since he can bring the ball down the court and is efficient on the fast break as well as being able to play against the other teams PG on D. Plus with the scorers we have on our team he might suddenly become a distributor as well.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> I gotta say I totally disagree. I don't think Pritchard would have ever settled for Augustine's tiny body. Pritchard has shown that he really doesn't gamble on guys with less than stellar NBA bodies. Batum has exceptional length, LaMarcus has great length, Roy has good size, Pete is very big for a point guard. I would take Bayless over Augustine any day.


Not to speak for Nikolo, but I don't interpret that post as claiming that Pritchard would have _preferred_ Augustin so much as Pritchard having targetted Augustin presuming Bayless would already have been removed from the board.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> I would take Bayless over Augustine any day.


I think you misunderstood... I think the consensus among a lot of us, based on what we've read and heard, is that Pritchard was expecting to trade with Indiana (#11 for #13) to get the best available PG. Common sense was that the player would likely be DJ Augustin, because mock drafts all over the place had Bayless taken in the top 5. But, when Bayless dropped (something Pritchard has since said he predicted), then he happily asked Indiana to choose him. Makes sense to me, although I don't know that I have drunk quite enough of the "Pritchard is Perfect" kool-aid to buy that he nailed the draft perfectly in the "mock" he had going.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> as PG he didn't do well. Against the Suns we didn't do well until Kopenen took over as pg.


I think i have a different perspective on that. I feel that we didn't do that well until Bayless decided he needs to score to keep our team in the game. I think that played a much bigger factor than Koponen playing PG because Kope was playing horribly at SG and at PG he'd have Bay to pass to.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> I think i have a different perspective on that. I feel that we didn't do that well until Bayless decided he needs to score to keep our team in the game. I think that played a much bigger factor than Koponen playing PG because Kope was playing horribly at SG and at PG he'd have Bay to pass to.


I completely agree -- I think it's far too early to say how Bayless will pan out. We've gotta see him with better players around him before we'll even start to have a decent perspective on it.

Besides, I define a player's position based on who he's defending. Bayless will almost certainly be a scoring PG, with Roy (or Fernandez) initiating a lot of the offense, but I don't think he's incapable of setting guys up. In fact, he might prove to be something of a wizard in that regard, given the way defenses will end up collapsing on him. But if he's defending the guys like Parker, Nash, and Paul, then he's a PG, at least from my perspective, pretty much regardless of his role and/or skill set on offense. After all, a center is "supposed" to score from the low block and Przybilla hardly ever does that, but he's still a center.


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

Jack and McBob looked hella pissed!!!!


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

World B. Free said:


> Jack and McBob looked hella pissed!!!!


I wouldn't say pissed; McBob is back in his home state, but Jack does look pretty disappointed or resigned to his fate.

I know trades are part of the NBA landscape and these guys get paid a helluva lot of money for their efforts, but it's got to sting a guy's pride a little to know they were no longer "wanted."


----------

