# The Bayless Doubters Thread



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I'm not so sure about this guy. Will he fit in? He's not a PG, and he doesn't seem to be a winner. Yes, I know, ridiculous athleticism, great scorer, but we don't need him for that. Can he defend?

(I know, I should be crucified for doubting the great KP, but there you go. I actually think Rush would've been better for us. Shock horror!)


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

I'd take Webster and Outlaw over Rush.

Bayless is a perfect fit next to Roy. We don't need a PG that sets everyone up - Roy does most of that.

Need a guy that score from the 1 position, but also handle the ball a little. That's Bayless.

Perfection.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Will Bayless start right away? Is he going to be our championship point guard?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

what's the alternative at the point? Blake/Jack?

Crowd Rush in so we have to deal Martell or Outlaw?


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Jack is gone. Bayless, hopefully, will impress in the summer league and we start him.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

It's a terrific pick. I agree with RoyToy, he'll fit very well in the lineup with Brandon.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Love this move. Bayless gives us shooting and speed at the PG spot. No question he was the 2nd best PG in the draft. This is a steal.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

It is probably the best outcome for Portland outside of Rose, Beasley, and perhaps Westbrook.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

I think he'll still come off the bench in 2008-09 behind Blake since he's a low lottery freshman, but I anticipate that he'll be the guy we're looking to start someday (once he earns it). I'm really happy he (practically) fell into our laps.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

bayless is light years better than jack
diogu is probably=#13 or so

we win


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Entity said:


> I think he'll still come off the bench in 2008-09 behind Blake *since he's a low lottery freshman*, but I anticipate that he'll be the guy we're looking to start someday (once he earns it). I'm really happy he (practically) fell into our laps.


Myabe in actual draft position, but did he "deserve" to go at 11? Not if most mocks leading up today's draft are to be believed.

Love this trade for him too ... unbelievable


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

nikolokolus said:


> Myabe in actual draft position, but did he "deserve" to go at 11? Not if most mocks leading up today's draft are to be believed.
> 
> Love this trade for him too ... unbelievable


You're right. He'll probably still come off the bench his first year, but I think we ought to feel really good about this.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

He rated much higher in Hollinger's system than Mayo or Westbrook.http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf...lumnist=hollinger_john&page=DraftRater-080622


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

No need to doubt this. Portland wanted to add speed, athleticism, and shooting to the 1. They did that ... big time. We don't need a traditional point guard on this team. In the starting line-up we'll have both Roy and now Bayless, who will both be capable of playmaking in both transition and the half court. We all would be pretty excited about acquiring Monta Ellis. I think we just did and for just the #13, Jack, and McBob. Fantastic.

Hight fg%. High ft%. Hight 3pt%. Second to only Rose in Assists for assists/game by a 1st-round draft pick. Highest TS% of his class in this draft for a PG. 2nd Highest PER of his class of all the first round PGs.

The numbers support this pick. Bayless may very well be the 2nd best guard in this draft after Rose. And he should fit in chemistry-wise.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Entity said:


> You're right. He'll probably still come off the bench his first year, but I think we ought to feel really good about this.


The main reason Blake will be starting for at least the 1st half season isn't Bayless. It's Oden. Nate going to have Blake on the floor in the 1st quarter to teach Greg.

Who plays in the 2nd half of the 4th quarter is who's played best that particular game.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

think monta ellis


would you take monta ellis??

i know i would

roy can can open guys just as good as the average startin point if not better

blake/bayless/sergio
roy/rudy
outlaw/webster
la/frye/diogu
oden/pryz/raef


that rotation is nice

not to mention we have 2 extra spots which is nice to have


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Count me in the minority -
*
We didn't need another 19 year old kid. *We need a 25-7 year old PG vet. Maybe the plan is to have Bayless lead the second unit and use cap space next year for the PG of the future,* but I don't see this kid taking us to a championship level.*


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Love this pick. We didn't need a PG by definition who needs the ball in his hands to be effective.
We needed a combo guard, and this guy fits the ball. He's not short either at 6-3, and he can shoot the 3. It's a perfect pick.
Considering what we gave up, what a great move that sets us up for MANY MANY years to come. I love the Blazers!


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Stevenson said:


> Count me in the minority -
> *
> We didn't need another 19 year old kid. *We need a 25-7 year old PG vet. Maybe the plan is to have Bayless lead the second unit and use cap space next year for the PG of the future,* but I don't see this kid taking us to a championship level.*


that's a really dumb line of thinking though.

you want the better player. if a 25-27 year old pg is better than bayless, then yes i agree that you'd rather have him. i don't see a pg in the league better than bayless though that you could get for that package.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Good interview with Bayless and Katz:

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3460562&categoryId=2459788


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fcqe9UXkc8o&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fcqe9UXkc8o&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

damn he got hops! and the j and quickness with pretty good handles...perfection


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Bayless on the break with Outlaw and Aldridge on the wings, and Oden following behind... watch out.


----------



## Short Bus Ryder (Jun 8, 2007)

Another great drat for the Blazers. 

By the way, Bayless great, I'm in love with PG's that can dunk. Great at the rim ability sets up so many things.


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

I NOTICED SOMETHING: watching videos of him, i noticed that he only drives with his right hand and doesn't dribble with his left hand at all. Yes he can finish with either hand around the rim via layup but its gonna hurt him if he can't dribble with both hands. His handles are not that great for a guard to start with.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

whatsmyname said:


> I NOTICED SOMETHING: watching videos of him, i noticed that he only drives with his right hand and doesn't dribble with his left hand at all. Yes he can finish with either hand around the rim via layup but its gonna hurt him if he can't dribble with both hands. His handles are not that great for a guard to start with.


Well, good thing Brandon Roy can do everything with both sides.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

I quote Kevin Pritchard...

"I think we got the 4th best player in the draft".

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Im pretty sure that means he slated Bayless above Russell Westbrook and assumed we had no chance at him. I can only think the 3 players ahead of Bayless are Rose, Beasley and Mayo.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Most of you guys admit that you don't watch much college ball at all. Yet, your always quick to criticize players.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

Stevenson said:


> Count me in the minority -
> *
> We didn't need another 19 year old kid. *We need a 25-7 year old PG vet. Maybe the plan is to have Bayless lead the second unit and use cap space next year for the PG of the future,* but I don't see this kid taking us to a championship level.*



not to mention the only guys we could have got had huuuuge contracts such as hinrich or tinsley...which arent huuuge upgrades over this guy

and we arent winning a championship this year...so why not get a young guy to grow with us

we werent gonna nab a all star point man without giving up outlaw...and even then i guarantee we give up raef too so we lose cap opportunites for next summer...hinrish and tinsley were the only 2 points i saw us getting and tinsley is injury prone and hinrich is overpaid

we will be betetr next year

even the experts were saying we will be better regardless of experience levels

i like bayless+outlaw>>>>>overpaid/borderline all star point+webster


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O_Z2UjU6xQI&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O_Z2UjU6xQI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



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

Stevenson said:


> Count me in the minority -
> *
> We didn't need another 19 year old kid. *We need a 25-7 year old PG vet. Maybe the plan is to have Bayless lead the second unit and use cap space next year for the PG of the future,* but I don't see this kid taking us to a championship level.*


So you would rather have Jack and Rush?

lol


----------



## LittleAlex (Feb 14, 2008)

Stevenson said:


> Count me in the minority -
> *
> We didn't need another 19 year old kid. *We need a 25-7 year old PG vet. Maybe the plan is to have Bayless lead the second unit and use cap space next year for the PG of the future,* but I don't see this kid taking us to a championship level.*


This trade was a much about dumping Jack as it was about getting Bayless, maybe even more. The fact that we were able to get rid of Jack without having to deal Webster or Outlaw is HUGE. If Bayless never plays one second of basketball, this was a good deal for Portland. Ike is the icing on the cake.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

LittleAlex said:


> This trade was a much about dumping Jack as it was about getting Bayless, maybe even more. The fact that we were able to get rid of Jack without having to deal Webster or Outlaw is HUGE. If Bayless never plays one second of basketball, this was a good deal for Portland.


I must say, that is a very strange way of looking at this trade. You'd think Jack was some kind of albatross around our neck, dragging us down to hell.


----------



## ROY4MVP (Dec 26, 2007)

Talkhard said:


> I must say, that is a very strange way of looking at this trade. You'd think Jack was some kind of albatross around our neck, dragging us down to hell.


He had possibly the worst decision making skills of any PG in the last 5 years lol. I honestly wished this would happen before the draft and cheered like crazy when the deal went down.


----------



## Baracuda (Jan 10, 2007)

Why did Bayless slip to #11 if he was the 4th best player in the draft?


----------



## LittleAlex (Feb 14, 2008)

Talkhard said:


> I must say, that is a very strange way of looking at this trade. You'd think Jack was some kind of albatross around our neck, dragging us down to hell.


Not down to hell no. But he did personally lose us 3 to 5 games last year with horrid crunch time unforced turnovers. Not having to cover my eyes at the end of games when he got passed the ball is going to do alot for my mental health. It actually got to the point where I supprised when Jack didn't screw up. As hasoos can attest, I got pretty good at predicting the exact moment Jack would do something horrid.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Baracuda said:


> Why did Bayless slip to #11 if he was the 4th best player in the draft?


Circumstances

Rose was going one, and Beasley and Mayo were going two and three

At four Bayless was the pick, but Durrant knew Westbrook, so Seattle caved to their star and drafted him

At 5 Memphis took a player that Minny wanted so they could get Mayo

At 6 the Knicks took a player who's father was friends with their coach

At 7 the Clippers missed and took a worse player , but a good player none the less

At 8 the Bucks have Williams and Sessions, and were after a Scott Skyles guy

At 9 Charlotte got Pritch-slapped into tthinking we were trading with them to get Augustin

At 10 NJ needed a big and had Harris


That's why he went 11

Ask yourself why Roy went 7th? Or why Kobe went in the teens?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I must say, that is a very strange way of looking at this trade. You'd think Jack was some kind of albatross around our neck, dragging us down to hell.


That's because he damn near was. What, did the republican party steal your memory or something in order to keep you in line?:biggrin:


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Ask yourself why Roy went 7th? Or why Kobe went in the teens?


Roy went 6, but otherwise - a pretty good assessment of the situation. But, it should be noted that I am not 100% sure that DJ is really worse than Bayless - DJ is much more of a pure PG and it seems that the Cats are ready to look for someone better than Felton - so they might have just liked DJ better - and he would probably be a better pure, pass-first PG anyway. Portland is just lucky that with Roy - we do not need a pure, pass first PG.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Baracuda said:


> Why did Bayless slip to #11 if he was the 4th best player in the draft?


Where a player gets drafted has absolutely no effect on how a player will play on the court, other than possibly pissing him off and giving him the 'prove everyone wrong' motivation that seems to make players better. Players drop all the time in the draft, teams fall in love with potential, draft on need instead of BPA, and every year 2-3 guys skyrocket as workout warriors.

B.Roy went 6th, and Rudy Gay went 8th two years ago, you think the teams that selected Bargnani, Morrison, T.Thomas, S.Williams, and Foye wish they hadn't picked Roy or Gay? 

KP has said he believes we got the 4th best player in the draft, I'd say his track record of evaluating talent at the top of the draft is pretty impeccable at this point, so idk where this 'he went at 11, what's wrong with him' stuff is coming from.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

It has been a LONG time since we had great athleticism at the 1-spot, and I'm really excited about it. 

With Bayless, we can have GREAT athleticism at all 5 positions:

Bayless = great athlete at the 1
Roy = when he wants to be, is a great athlete at the 2
Outlaw= crazy athlete at the 3
LMA = extremely athletic, and faster that almost anybody else at the 4
Oden = absolute freak athlete at the 5

Teams are going to struggle to match that athleticism.

:yay: :yay: :yay:


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

blazerboy30 said:


> It has been a LONG time since we had great athleticism at the 1-spot, and I'm really excited about it.


Just don't think for a minute he'll live up to the Robert Pack legacy...


----------



## Baracuda (Jan 10, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> Circumstances
> 
> Rose was going one, and Beasley and Mayo were going two and three
> 
> ...





Jayps15 said:


> Where a player gets drafted has absolutely no effect on how a player will play on the court.....


Thanks guys. Thanks for the breakdown MM. I understand the various reasons players slip, I'm just wondering if KP got HIS guy or not. Is Bayless who the Blazers wanted? 

MM: Did the Blazers lead Charlotte to believe they would make a deal for DJ? Was that the first "Pritchslap"? Indy the next?


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Baracuda said:


> Thanks guys. Thanks for the breakdown MM. I understand the various reasons players slip, I'm just wondering if KP got HIS guy or not. Is Bayless who the Blazers wanted?
> *
> MM: Did the Blazers lead Charlotte to believe they would make a deal for DJ? Was that the first "Pritchslap"? Indy the next?*


To be honest I think Charlotte tried to pull a Pritch-slap of their own and it backfired. From what I've heard it sounded like there might have already been a deal in place with the Pacers, take a PG at 11 and trade him + pieces for 13 and pieces so that the Pacers could move back and pick up better value after they addressed their PG need with TJ Ford. For Portland, with Sacramento ahead of us needing a PG it was assumed the best PG prospects would all have been taken and we would have been left without at the 13th spot, so making a prearranged deal with Indiana would get us a prospect at the position we needed while only moving minor pieces.

I think Charlotte saw this coming, maybe heard some chatter about it, and about how the Blazers had brought in guys like Augustin and Westbrook and seemed really high on both. They figure they can do what Kevin did back in the 2006 draft. There was supposedly a prearranged deal between Minny and Houston to send Brandon at 6 to Houston for Foye at 8, but Pritchard got the 7th pick via trade and took Foye, forcing the T-Wolves to send Brandon to us to get the guy they were really after in Foye. So Charlotte figures they'll leapfrog Indiana and take the guy they believe that we want 1st and then extort a higher price out of us in return. But I guess the smoke and mirrors paid off, allowing a better talent in Bayless to drop and have the original deal with Indiana still go through.

So I'd say Charlotte probably Pritch-slapped themselves:lol:


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Actually I think even if Charlotte was attempting to "pritch-slap" us, they didn't exactly strike out with Augustin; Felton has reportedly been on the market for a little while, and DJ is still a helluva pg prospect, he's just always going to struggle on the defensive end IMO.

Whatever the case the blazers came away with a guy I think we can all be pretty damned happy with (hopefully).

Now what do we do with Sergio's sulking arse?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

I'll admit, I think I may be a doubter. Or at least an I'm-not-convinced-er. I watched a LOT of Arizona hoops this season.

Good: Bayless is athletic as hell. He can shoot. He can score. He can handle the ball. He moves very well off the ball, which is good. I love that he gets to the line a LOT and connects on his free throws with a high percentage. He's a hustler and he seems like a nice kid. Also, we got rid of Jack, and his bad turnovers and his impending cap hold next summer. We also cleared another roster spot for somebody by ditching McBob. These are all good things.

Bad: He doesn't play good defense. He doesn't look to pass as much as I'd like. He doesn't rebound the ball well. He reminds me a little bit of Stephon Marbury. 

I hope he can overcome these potential problems. 

I watch a LOT of basketball, but I don't do this for a living, so I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably wrong to be at all concerned. I'm guessing he blows up at summer league and scores a ton from the get go. We'll be tough enough on the interior to get away with below average defense from the PG spot, so it'll probably work out. And with Roy as the primary playmaker, maybe we don't even need a pure PG at all. I don't know.

Anyway, I just wanted to give my perspective about why somebody might be a doubter.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Fork, it makes sense with what you are saying.

You are definitely right that he isn't a pass-first PG. To me, he seems like a VERY smart kid (which seperates him right away from Stephan Marbury imo) and will do what is needed on the team. He had to play PG on Arizona when thier PG went down, he can do it, and will play great off the ball when Roy runs the offense. The fit is absolutely awesome.

Defense, i understand the problem also. But i think most of it is the fact that he really wanted to save energy for the offensive end. The guy has all the tools (except for long arms) to be a good defender. He is smart, quick, strong, big. He will turn into a nice defender, imo.

He reminds me a lot of Monte Ellis. I'm sooo happy with this pick. I honestly don't th ink i could have been happier unless we somehow got Rose without giving up our big 3, or WEstbrook fell all the way to #13 (not have to trade for him). I'm really happy with this draft.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

LittleAlex said:


> This trade was a much about dumping Jack as it was about getting Bayless, maybe even more. The fact that we were able to get rid of Jack without having to deal Webster or Outlaw is HUGE. If Bayless never plays one second of basketball, this was a good deal for Portland. Ike is the icing on the cake.


This whole premise is just ridiculous. Sorry. But it's ridiculous.

That the team would be SO EAGER to get rid of Jack as to give up other value to get rid of him? It makes no sense. Jack is owed $2m this year and that's it. The team can extend a qualifying offer next year, but they are under no obligation to do so.

If the team had REALLY wanted to just get rid of him, they could just cut him and only cost themselves $2m (less whatever he signed for; he might have even been picked up on waivers so the team would owe him nothing). Trading Webster/Outlaw just to get rid of Jack would have been insane.

Ed O.


----------



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

Wow how can you guys be doubting lol

Us Blazer fans are the most picky and unhappy of any fan base!!!!!


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Bayless compares very favorably to Mayo, a guy a lot of people on here were willing to move much more pieces for.

Bayless: 19.7ppg, 4apg, 3topg, 2.7rpg, 1spg, FG:45.8%, 3pt:40.7%, FT:83.9%
Mayo: 20.7ppg, 3.3apg, 3.5topg, 4.5rpg, 1.5spg, FG:44.2%, 3pt:40.9%, FT:80.3%

At the combine Bayless measured in at 6'1.75" without shoes, 6'3.5" wingspan, 8'1" standing reach, 204lbs at 4.7% body fat. Compared to Mayo's 6'3.25" without shoes, 6'6" wingspan, 8'3.5" standing reach, 200lbs at 6.3% body fat. That's not giving up much size at all, Bayless is a quarter inch taller than Derrick Rose who everyone raves about having great size at the PG.

Mayo and Bayless got just as far as each other in the Pac-10 tourney and the NCAA's. Outside of Mayo's defensive prowess I don't see a huge difference here, and when you consider that Mayo's a full year older I'm not seeing a huge difference in projected talent.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Seriously. What an AMAZING pick up.


----------



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

Jayps15 said:


> Bayless compares very favorably to Mayo, a guy a lot of people on here were willing to move much more pieces for.
> 
> Bayless: 19.7ppg, 4apg, 3topg, 2.7rpg, 1spg, FG:45.8%, 3pt:40.7%, FT:83.9%
> Mayo: 20.7ppg, 3.3apg, 3.5topg, 4.5rpg, 1.5spg, FG:44.2%, 3pt:40.9%, FT:80.3%
> ...


Great post!


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Jayps15 said:


> Bayless compares very favorably to Mayo, a guy a lot of people on here were willing to move much more pieces for.
> 
> Bayless: 19.7ppg, 4apg, 3topg, 2.7rpg, 1spg, FG:45.8%, 3pt:40.7%, FT:83.9%
> Mayo: 20.7ppg, 3.3apg, 3.5topg, 4.5rpg, 1.5spg, FG:44.2%, 3pt:40.9%, FT:80.3%
> ...


Bayless and Rose are both 6'3, but Bayless is a little heavier: Rose weighs 196 lbs., Bayless weighs 204 lbs. When you look at Rose in action, he seems like a more muscular player, but Bayless is actually a bigger guy. Interesting, eh?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

meru said:


> Just don't think for a minute he'll live up to the Robert Pack legacy...



Phooey! 

Robert Pack this and Robert Pack that. How come no one ever mentions the immortal TR Dunn! :biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I'm excited about Bayless because he is so altheltic. So I don't know if I'm a Bayless doubter as much as I think the Blazers need a true PG and it doesn't sound like Bayless is.

I hope he works but I don't see a backcourt of Roy, Rudy, and Bayless working out as well as others do. For me, all this is based on hearing Bayless isn't a true PG . . . I have seen very little of him . . . and got to admit his highlight reel is fun to watch.

I think this cake batter has some lumps in it . . . but let's bake it and see what we got.


----------



## Tucsonian (Jun 27, 2008)

Hi all, I've been a consistent reader of this forum in the past, and am a huge Blazer fan but first-time poster. Anyway, being from Tucson, I've seen a lot of Jerryd. To get a true context of the statistics and his game, you really need to know what happened at UofA this past year surrounding their basketball program. It was a year filled with complete chaos, as his coach Lute Olsen sat out the year due to an impending divorce. It really was a soap opera with numerous distractions. He was by far the most talented player on the team, and got very little support. His production declined late in the year as teams forced other players on his squad to beat them (ie. Budinger, Hill, Wise). Other teams knew if they could stop Bayless, they had a good shot at winning the game.
This was an absolute steal for the Blazers. What I can tell you about Jerryd:
1) He is an absolute winner, a fierce competitor and hates losing. You could really see this at the end of the year - a very disappointing year from UofA standards.
2) He is a Big-Time shot maker and clutch. He wants the ball during crunch time.
3) He is a willing defender and got some good instruction under interim-coach Kevin O'neill (who is known as a defensive-minded coach).
4) He is an assassin on the offensive end, demonstrates toughness and is an intelligent player.
5) He is very tough-minded and will sacrifice playing hurt for the good of the team, if necessary (ie. all he wants to do is win).
6) He is extremely quick for his size and can really get to the rack and finish.
7) He is a willing passer and a total team player. There were times Kevin O'Neil would just tell him to "go" during games, meaning take over because the coach thought he was deferring too much to teammates and not being assertive enough offensively. Check out his assist numbers compared to Mayo and Westbrook and I think you'll find he stacks up very favorably, especially when Nic Wise was hurt and Bayless assumed point guard responsibilities.
8) Finally, he is a leader. His on-court demeanor exudes confidence - which translates to his teammates.
It's my opinion that Jerryd is the best basketball player to come out of the UofA since Shawn Elliot. The one negative I observed this past year was that if calls didn't go his way, he would chirp at the refs a little. However, I'm sure this is something that can be overcome. 
Needless to say, as a lifetime Blazer fan, I am absolutely stoked to get him. He is a franchise point guard, assuming he stays healthy and should lead us to a championship.
It's a good day to be a Blazer fan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I really like Bayless, and he'll fit in very well on this team. He isn't going to need to be a phenom passer with two terrific big men being able to do their thing in the post (LMA, Oden), and Roy is great with the ball so Bayless can play a bit to his strengths and play off ball at times. He isn't going to need to be Chris Paul for this team, and we have great post defense to catch him if he blows a D coverage. 

All in all, the kid is very talented and I'm extremely excited to see this team next year (oh yeah, and for NBA 2k9  )


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

One point that nobody has raised yet:

Rose, Westbrook, and Mayo played for schools with stable programs and good coaching staffs. Gordon and Bayless played for schools where the coaching was in turmoil. (Gordon lost his coach at midseason, Bayless just before the season began) 

For that reason alone, you have to expect Bayless and Gordon to be less polished. The situation slowed their development, but it didn't subtract from their talent. Give Bayless a couple of seasons to make up for his lost development time, and he is going to be darn good!


Oops, Tusconian beat me to it! Nice first post.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Hi all, I've been a consistent reader of this forum in the past, and am a huge Blazer fan but first-time poster. Anyway, being from Tucson, I've seen a lot of Jerryd. To get a true context of the statistics and his game, you really need to know what happened at UofA this past year surrounding their basketball program. It was a year filled with complete chaos, as his coach Lute Olsen sat out the year due to an impending divorce. It really was a soap opera with numerous distractions. He was by far the most talented player on the team, and got very little support. His production declined late in the year as teams forced other players on his squad to beat them (ie. Budinger, Hill, Wise). Other teams knew if they could stop Bayless, they had a good shot at winning the game.
> This was an absolute steal for the Blazers. What I can tell you about Jerryd:
> 1) *He is an absolute winner, a fierce competitor and hates losing. You could really see this at the end of the year *- a very disappointing year from UofA standards.
> 2) *He is a Big-Time shot maker and clutch. He wants the ball during crunch time*.
> ...


****ING AWESOME POST! Repped. Welcome to the board my good man.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I just realized this. Bayless is almost the spitting image of a younger, smaller Brandon Roy. The professional manner in which they act. Their all-around game. Gym rat. Wow. Bayless fits in so well. After thinking about this move, Portland picked quite possibly the best option in the draft if taking all aspect into consideration!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> This whole premise is just ridiculous. Sorry. But it's ridiculous.
> 
> That the team would be SO EAGER to get rid of Jack as to give up other value to get rid of him? It makes no sense. Jack is owed $2m this year and that's it. The team can extend a qualifying offer next year, but they are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> ...


You are making a bad assumption Ed O. You are assuming dumping meant dumping for salary reasons. I can assure you since I know him, he is talking about dumping him because the is not a good player who loses you games. Addition by subtraction.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

If Bayless is so great, then why did we try and get TJ Ford?

Bayless was our 4th choice, behind Mayo, TJ Ford, and Augustine.

That said, I will be happy to admit I was wrong a year from now.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Stevenson said:


> If Bayless is so great, then why did we try and get TJ Ford?
> 
> Bayless was our 4th choice, behind Mayo, TJ Ford, and Augustine.
> 
> That said, I will be happy to admit I was wrong a year from now.




No, he wasn't

Mayo was not a choice because he doesn't fit our precious culture
When Ford was on the table,KP had no idea Bayless would fall in our laps
Augustin was a smokescreen the entire time. KP said so himelse when Wheels interviewed him


he said Bayless was 1a option. I assume either Westbrook, or more likely Beasley or Rose was the other option


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Because Ford has much more experience, yet still fits in, age-wise? That's my guess.

How do you know that they prefererred Augustin or Mayo?


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

My bad, I meant Westbrook and Rose.

But the point, I suggest, is still valid - Bayless was far from our first choice.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Stevenson said:


> My bad, I meant Westbrook and Rose.
> 
> But the point, I suggest, is still valid - Bayless was far from our first choice.


How do you know this? According to MB, Bayless was our first choice. Everything else was a smokescreen.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think your point is valid. You're comparing apples to oranges. If Portland preferred Ford to Bayless, it's because of his experience level. If we're talking about adding a rookie point guard, then yes, Bayless was their first available option, at least according to Pritch.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> My bad, I meant Westbrook and Rose.
> 
> But the point, I suggest, is still valid - Bayless was far from our first choice.


I think from who we worked out, the list went Westbrook, Augestin, Alexander. (But that easily could have been a smokescreen)

But we know that KP probably thought Rose was better than Westbrook, right? Yet he wasn't 1st on our list. So i think that list was from realistic players/players we worked out.

KP stated that he thought Bayless was the 4th best player in the draft. So I'd say that he would probably be our 2nd or 3rd choice overall in the draft, after Rose and MAYBE Beasly, but ahead of Augestin and Westbrook, imo.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

hasoos said:


> You are making a bad assumption Ed O. You are assuming dumping meant dumping for salary reasons. I can assure you since I know him, he is talking about dumping him because the is not a good player who loses you games. Addition by subtraction.


That wasn't the assumption Ed was making. Ed was saying that if Portland wanted to "dump Jack" (for any reason, chemistry, making teammates play badly, etc) they could easily have done so just by cutting him. His salary was small enough that it wouldn't have hurt in any real way.

So, there's no way they were basing a trade around around dumping Jack. Jack simply doesn't make enough that a deal is necessary to unload him. He can be cut and sent down the road, if the team _really_ hated him.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I don't believe for a second that Pritchard wouldn't have loved to acquire OJ Mayo. Remember he said Bayless was the fourth best out of this draft. 1,2, and 3 being in front.

I can't believe Westbrook went 4th, he is going to struggle a lot. Sonics made a bad move by not going with Bayless with that pick.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> That wasn't the assumption Ed was making. Ed was saying that if Portland wanted to "dump Jack" (for any reason, chemistry, making teammates play badly, etc) they could easily have done so just by cutting him. His salary was small enough that it wouldn't have hurt in any real way.
> 
> So, there's no way they were basing a trade around around dumping Jack. Jack simply doesn't make enough that a deal is necessary to unload him. He can be cut and sent down the road, if the team _really_ hated him.


At the same time, why dump him by cutting him when you can fool somebody into giving something up for him. Just like many other crappy players that have been sent down the road. We got something for them when we could. Same thing here. Most young players have some value around the league, even if they have played badly their first few years.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Totally agree, Samb. 4 was way too high for Westbrook, and i'm really happy we didn't try to make a move for him. HE should have been like 9-12, imo.

Westbrook is still my favorite player in the draft (even though i'm liking Bayles more and more) though.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Stevenson said:


> My bad, I meant Westbrook and Rose.
> 
> But the point, I suggest, is still valid - Bayless was far from our first choice.


Being behind Rose as an option is meaningless. Rose was the top prospect in the draft and likely unattainable. It's like saying Bayless was behind Chris Paul and Deron Williams. So what?

Outside of Rose, it's extremely possible that Bayless was Pritchard's top choice. The fact that he talked up Augustin so much argues _against_ Augustin ever being of interest to Pritchard. Unless he's remarkably stupid, he wouldn't raise the stock of someone he was interested in.

As for Westbrook being ahead of Bayless, that's pure speculation backed up by nothing really. He may have been, but there's no evidence that Pritchard liked him better. For most of the draft, Bayless has been higher regarded in general. It's not at all unlikely or surprising that Pritchard liked Bayless the best of any point guard in the draft after Rose.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

hasoos said:


> At the same time, why dump him by cutting him when you can fool somebody into giving something up for him.


Yes, that's exactly the point. The idea was not to "dump Jack" and he cooked up a deal just to accomplish that. The idea was to get the player Pritchard wanted. I'm sure he was happy to give up Jack, since Jack has been unproductive, as the throw-in to move up from pick value 13 to pick value 11.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Thank you, Minstrel, yes.

I'm not arguing the Blazers weren't actively shopping Jack, but I am arguing that it's silly that the team would have ever given up value in the form of picks or other players just to be rid of him.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sorry to use a post like this but, Ed, would you mind clearing a little space so PMs can get through? 

(There should be a site mechanism to alert someone that you'd like to PM them, but their PM box is full.)


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Well, apparently ESPN does not think anyone got "Pritch slapped":

"Indiana Pacers 

* Grade: A*

Round 1: Brandon Rush (13), Roy Hibbert (17)

Round 2: None

Analysis: To evaluate the Pacers, you have to take a step back a day to see how everything unfolded. They traded the chronically injured Jermaine O'Neal and a second-round pick for T.J. Ford, Rasho Nesterovic, Maceo Baston and the No. 17 pick. That means they added a starting point guard coming off a career year, significant cap space in 2009 and a prospect.

Then Indiana swapped No. 11 and Ike Diogu for No. 13 and picked up a solid backup point guard, Jarrett Jack, and a local hero, Josh McRoberts ...

Kudos to president Larry Bird and general manager David Morway for one of the most sophisticated rebuilding efforts I've seen."


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Yea. Indiana did not need Bayless at all. They got their man, and a little extra for helping us out. Everything turned out well (even though all the indiana fans really wanted Bayless) for both teams!

Couldn't be happier.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Stevenson said:


> Well, apparently ESPN does not think anyone got "Pritch slapped":
> 
> "Indiana Pacers
> 
> ...


The thing about a Pritch-slap is it takes a few years to materialize. Besides, just like other posters have pointed out, Indiana was picking Bayless for the Blazers. They had no intention of drafting a point guard. They already traded for TJ Ford.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The ESPN grades seem a bit inflated. I have not (and do not plan to) see the average grade, but there were a LOT of A's handed out.

As for Pritch-slapping: if Bayless lives up to his potential, it could be a big mistake for the Pacers. I gotta say that this might be ridiculous, but the Ike acquisition for Jack and McRoberts is one I would have made straight-up, so getting the 11 for the 13, too, makes it even better.

Not to put too much on Diogu, but he can really score the ball.

Ed O.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

All I am saying is that, yes, Bayless seems like a good player and it was a good move. BUT. This is not the same as getting LMA for Tyrus Thomas, or Roy for Foye. Its a fine, simple trade that helped both teams.

I trust KP too, but lets have some perspective here.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> My bad, I meant Westbrook and Rose.
> 
> But the point, I suggest, is still valid - Bayless was far from our first choice.


My understanding is that the Blazers draft order (BPA) was:

Rose, Beasley, Mayo, and then Bayless.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

LittleAlex said:


> This trade was a much about dumping Jack as it was about getting Bayless, maybe even more. The fact that we were able to get rid of Jack without having to deal Webster or Outlaw is HUGE. If Bayless never plays one second of basketball, this was a good deal for Portland. Ike is the icing on the cake.



Wow, I'm late to this thread and others have already addressed this but I find this line of reasoning absurd. As Ed says, if he's really _that_ bad (and he's _not_, however much there are holes in his game), just cut him.

It'll be interesting to revisit threads like this in even six-months time.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> All I am saying is that, yes, Bayless seems like a good player and it was a good move. BUT. This is not the same as getting LMA for Tyrus Thomas, or Roy for Foye. Its a fine, simple trade that helped both teams.
> 
> I trust KP too, but lets have some perspective here.


We don't know that.. We had no idea what LaMarcus was until he recovered from his injury midseason and played a few games, and realized he was a gem. People thought it'd take two, three years for his development, and now he's a beast entering his third year.

It's hard to tell what Bayless is until we actually see him play.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

Ed O said:


> The ESPN grades seem a bit inflated. I have not (and do not plan to) see the average grade, but there were a LOT of A's handed out.


The average grade he gave was B+. I wondered the same thing as you and calculated it last night. On a 4.0 system, his average grade was 3.222, closer to B+ (3.33) than B (3.0). He gave one team an A+ so I valued that at 4.33. He avoided criticism from those who post a lot. He gave the Lakers an A for their one pick, no. 58 out of 60.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Go to Draftexpress, they know what they're doing.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I gotta say that this might be ridiculous, but the Ike acquisition for Jack and McRoberts is one I would have made straight-up, so getting the 11 for the 13, too, makes it even better.


It's not ridiculous. I made the same argument on the NBA Draft forum. I think Jack is a capable backup, but I'd still prefer Diogu. Not only can he score efficiently, he rebounds quite well, also. His size limits his defensive value, but a young big man who can score and rebound is far from inconsequential. I'd take him over a point guard who's okay in a few aspects, but does nothing particularly well.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Stevenson said:


> All I am saying is that, yes, Bayless seems like a good player and it was a good move. BUT. This is not the same as getting LMA for Tyrus Thomas, or Roy for Foye. Its a fine, simple trade that helped both teams.
> 
> I trust KP too, but lets have some perspective here.


You certainly may be right. On the other hand it could be exactly like LMA for Tyrus Thomas, or Roy for Foye. Only time will tell. But I think a lot of people have projected great things for Bayless. Most people see Rush as just being solid. But you never know....


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

The first thing I would say, is I am very glad we got Bayless. I think he will be a great addition to our team. However, I don't think we will start barring injuries this year. Few rookies start and are effective. I think he will struggle, but playing the other teams second string should help some, because he has a lot of natural athletic ability. I also think the same Rudy. He probably will struggle a lot this year and not even be close to starting either. As Blazer fans we have a lot to be excited about, but too many people seem to think Bayless, Roy and Rudy will be this great combo this year. I doubt the three of them will get a ton of playing time together. Bayless and Rudy will have to improve their 'D' and make good decisions. Very difficult for rookies. Look at the growing pains of Parker and Ginobili? We should be hopeful, but realistic.


----------

