# Would you trade Telfair for a high pick?



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Last year was the year of the point guard. This year, the highest-rated PG is probably UConn's Marcus Williams, who might not even go top ten. So what do you do if you're Atlanta, who really REALLY should've taken a PG last year, but have a pick no lower than #7? Wouldn't you be tempted to trade it for a young PG like Sebastian Telfair?

If you're Portland, would you do this? This way we might get Morrison AND a good player out of this draft...


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

NO, especially considering this draft is considered "weak" by the "experts". I wouldnt trade J.Jack for a top 15 pick either.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Although Telfair is probably valuable to some teams (ATL, NY, Toronto), I'm not sure that young point guards are that highly coveted this year, given the number that came out last season. Those young teams that drafted PGs last year are still drafting high this year, while older teams have proven PGs filling their depth charts, removing the need for a developing PG like Telfair. 

This draft may be weak, but do you really think a team would move a top 10 pick for Sebastian Telfair? Maybe I'm just drunk off of our development at that position...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Nope. Telfair is improving, and can still be a star. If we're going to take a chance on anyone, why not Telfair?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Perhaps anyone else other than Bassy, Jarrett, Martell and Victor 

I would love to get a 2nd high pick and a vet player in a trade


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

For Greg Oden in next year's draft, maybe. In this year's draft... definitely not.

If we're interested in getting a second high draft pick, I think the smart path to pursue is not a trade of a PG to Atlanta, but rather a trade of Z-Bo to the Bulls for the Knicks' pick. The Bulls will have enough cap space to absorb Zach's salary while sending back a cheaper player (Othella Harrington or Mike Sweetney?), and Zach is a much better interior scorer (their glaring weakness as a team) than anybody they could get in this year's draft or in this year's weak free agent market.

Could make a lot of sense for both teams.

Stepping Razor


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> NO, especially considering this draft is considered "weak" by the "experts". I wouldnt trade J.Jack for a top 15 pick either.


Me, neither. Now, Blake and our later picks, to move up and get a better second pick in the first round, that I'd do.

Is there a PG in this draft better than Telfair? I don't think so. I guess a good question would be, if Telfair were in the draft this year, based on his performance with the Blazers, where would he be picked? Would he be top 10? I have to say yes, especially to a team that needs a PG.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

I love the wording of the options in this poll by the way.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Stepping Razor said:


> For Greg Oden in next year's draft, maybe. In this year's draft... definitely not.
> 
> If we're interested in getting a second high draft pick, I think the smart path to pursue is not a trade of a PG to Atlanta, but rather a trade of Z-Bo to the Bulls for the Knicks' pick. The Bulls will have enough cap space to absorb Zach's salary while sending back a cheaper player (Othella Harrington or Mike Sweetney?), and Zach is a much better interior scorer (their glaring weakness as a team) than anybody they could get in this year's draft or in this year's weak free agent market.
> 
> Could make a lot of sense for both teams.


I agree, both on not trading Telfair for a pick in this draft as well as looking into dealing Randolph for the Bulls' top pick. They may be desperate enough for inside offensive presence to deal for Randolph. For us, it's a double-boon...dump his salary completely and get another lottery pick.

Of course, Chicago may see Randolph as a glorified (and overpaid) Sweetney.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I know Telfair had some nice flashes, but I still see him as a ball-dominating, streaky 2-guard in a point guard's body. Damon Jr. if you like. The few assists he does have are form over substance. He always looks for the big play rather than just running the team. I like his leadership, but we have enough young leadership with Jack and Webster.

Besides the flash factor, the only difference between Telfair and Damon is that Damon was a better shooter and rebounder. Given the Blazers have Jack (my starter) and Blake (perfect backup) I would trade him for a top seven pick. 

Come on guys, we are talking about adding Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay!!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

RPCity said:


> I love the wording of the options in this poll by the way.


LOL....yes there is no personal bias reflected in this poll at all...

:rofl:


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> I know Telfair had some nice flashes, but I still see him as a ball-dominating, streaky 2-guard in a point guard's body. Damon Jr. if you like. The few assists he does have are form over substance. He always looks for the big play rather than just running the team. I like his leadership, but we have enough young leadership with Jack and Webster.
> 
> Besides the flash factor, the only difference between Telfair and Damin is that Damon was a better shooter and rebounder. Given the Blazers have Jack (my starter) and Blake (perfect backup) I would trade him for a top seven pick.


I don't really agree with this, but there's a certain logic to it.



> Come on guys, we are talking about adding Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay!!


*This* is exactly why we should *not* do this trade. This year's draft just ain't that hot. Brandon Roy and Rudy Gay definitely are not worth dumping Bassy.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

meru said:


> If you're Portland, would you do this? This way *we might get Morrison AND a good player * out of this draft...


I think Zags might take offense to your implication here.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

No. Telfair has higher trade value. I'd send him to NY next year for a high pick.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Reep said:


> Besides the flash factor, the only difference between Telfair and Damin is that Damon was a better shooter and rebounder.


I disagree completely. Telfair is a better and more willing passer and a better decision-maker, even at 20. His shooting is not at Stoudamire's level, but shooting is usually the last thing to come for prep-to-pro players. Telfair is also a better and more willing defender. He's deficient there and may always be, but he's not the non-entity that Damon was.

Damon was a very talented guy who never could fit into a structured offense, in Portland. Telfair is a very talented guy who, so far, has shown he can fit into a structured offense. In my opinion, anyway. Therefore, I think Telfair is far more likely to leverage his talent at the NBA level and on good teams.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I agree, both on not trading Telfair for a pick in this draft as well as looking into dealing Randolph for the Bulls' top pick. They may be desperate enough for inside offensive presence to deal for Randolph. For us, it's a double-boon...dump his salary completely and get another lottery pick.


Yup yup. And if you combine this deal with the other long-rumoured salary dump -- say, Theo, Miles, Blake, and #30 to the Knicks for Jalen Rose, David Lee, and #21 -- the Blazers would be all set for a rapid rebuild. They'd have a real talented, super-young core (Telfair, Jack, Webster, Bargnani, Morrison, Khryapa, Lee, #21 and #31 picks in this year's draft, plus another likely high lotto pick in the strong 2007 draft) and loads of cap space next summer.




> Of course, Chicago may see Randolph as a glorified (and overpaid) Sweetney.


I obviously have no idea how Chicago's front office views Z-Bo, but I actually think that would be a team where he could really thrive. Chandler's length and defensive presence would cover for Zach's defensive frailties, and Zach's one truly exceptional skill -- offensive rebounding -- could really thrive in Chicago's let-the-young-perimeter-players-chuck-it-up offense. Surrounded by other offensive-midned players like Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, etc,. Zach wouldn't have to carry that team and I think he could really settle into a strong role there. 

Also, if the Bulls' pick ends up being, say, #3 or #4, I could easily see them deciding that no player they'd draft there would fit well enough with their team to make him worth the salary. Morrison, Gay, and Roy would all be redundant with their small army of young perimeter scorers. Tyrus Thomas is redundant with Tyson Chandler. I've read on the Bulls board that they don't like Aldridge. Hopefully, Portland has already taken Bargnani off the board. 

Anyways, maybe this is all a pipe dream but I think it's a slightly more plausible one than most.

Stepping Razor


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I agree, Minstrel. 

Sometimes when I first see Telfair on the court, I think, oh, no, he looks a lot like a poorer shooting $amon. Then he starts moving around, running the team, making effective passes, and simply SEEING THE COURT and seeing the game unfold, making passes, and setting up players and plays better than $amon ever did. One thing Scottie understood and Telfair seems to know, that $amon never did, is that the pass that leads to the pass for the assist is just as important as the pass for the assist. And as far as defense, at the end of the season I noticed Telfair was really busting his tail to use his quick feet to stay in front of and pester the man he was guarding. I don't think Telfair's defense is a bad as some people say it is. His defense and his shot will continue to improve.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Some misunderstandings:

1. Yes, some teams who drafted PGs last year will be drafting fairly high (but really, only Charlotte, unless Utah or N'Orleans fluke into the top 3), which is why I SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED on Atlanta, whose biggest need is PG, which won't be supplied by this draft.
2. I'm not suggesting that Portland should use the pick to draft a PG. That would be stupid. I'm not stupid. Remember that we have a logjam at PG, and Bassy himself has suggested one should be moved. It's only right that he should have that honor.

One advantage to having two high picks is that it lessens the blow of picking a project like Tyrus Thomas. You can also pick up a player like Brandon Roy (or, maybe reaching, but Shelden Williams sounds Ike Diogu-like to me, or better yet, a poor man's Emeka Okafor with better post moves) who's ready to contribute immediately.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I'd trade Telfair for Roy


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I think that I would consider moving Telfair for a top 5 or 6 pick. I'm not sure that Telfair's stuck in a Damon-like rut (he's got a lot of time to improve) but I don't see an innate ability to create shots for others and to run an offense efficiently like some here do.

I don't think that we should trade Telfair for the sake of doing so, by any means, but even in this weak draft there are prospects superior to Telfair.

Ed O.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

How is it possible that every draft is weak?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Tince said:


> How is it possible that every draft is weak?


It's not. There have been innumerable posts made on this subject (half by me, half by kmurph) about this draft and whether it's weak, but this year is the only year in recent history that is missing out on an entire year of prospects. Oden, Durant, Young and Julian Wright are all likely lottery picks and probably would have come out had the rule not been in place. Coupled with a lack of outstanding upperclassmen and a very very shallow pool of international prospects, this year's draft is weak.

But not every year is weak. Next year is almost certainly going to be fantastic.

Ed O.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Ed O said:


> It's not. There have been innumerable posts made on this subject (half by me, half by kmurph) about this draft and whether it's weak, but this year is the only year in recent history that is missing out on an entire year of prospects. Oden, Durant, Young and Julian Wright are all likely lottery picks and probably would have come out had the rule not been in place. Coupled with a lack of outstanding upperclassmen and a very very shallow pool of international prospects, this year's draft is weak.
> 
> But not every year is weak. Next year is almost certainly going to be fantastic.
> 
> Ed O.


 Since being on the message boards, here's the summary of what the board feels about the draft: 

This years draft is weak.

Last years draft was said to be weak with no superstars.

The LeBron draft was supposedly only 3 deep (James, Darko, Mello), then weak after that.

I can't say I know the board opinions before that, but it seems to me that there is a trend of under-estimating the draft. I just don't see this draft as weak as everyone else. I can understand people saying this isn't the best draft to have the #1 pick, but I think it's much deeper than people are giving it credit for.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I thought this draft was very weak, mainly based on the lack of H.S. players. But, when I compared it to the past ten or so years, I found several that I would consider weaker. It is on the bottom half of drafts, but I don't think it is the weakest draft of the last decade.

2000 seems especially weak to me. 2001, 2002 and 2005 (jury is still out) are all somewhat weak too. 

A lot of drafts look better after the fact because some mid-first players exceed expectations, so the draft looks better than it did on draft night. There is no doubt that 2006 will look better in a few years than it does now. The hard part is picking one of the one or two players out of this pack that are likely to make a name for themselves (Kobe, Nash, Clyde, Amare, Pierce, Diaw, Zach, Artest, Kirilenko, Dirk, Finley all went relatively low [>top 7]= were given little value before the draft).


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

hehe...

I agree the draft is weaker than it COULD be, but I don't think it is going to be an overall weak draft...

and that is all I am going to say, b\c Ed and I debated this ad nauseum in other threads...




http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=254241


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Reep said:


> I thought this draft was very weak, mainly based on the lack of H.S. players. But, when I compared it to the past ten or so years, I found several that I would consider weaker. It is on the bottom half of drafts, but I don't think it is the weakest draft of the last decade.


I think a lot of people would come to a simiar conclusion if they actually took the time to look at previous drafts. To me this draft would rank about 5th-6th in comparison to previous 10 drafts. If it had a clear #1a/#1b player it would be a very good draft IMO.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

This thread should be titled something like "The Mother of All Stirring The Pots Thread"...

Good grief - Telfair, Morrison, and the weakness of the draft are all mentioned.

Now can we throw in some comments about Trader Bob, Rasheed, Cheeks, and the Green Lantern?

:biggrin:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Tince said:


> I think a lot of people would come to a simiar conclusion if they actually took the time to look at previous drafts. To me this draft would rank about 5th-6th in comparison to previous 10 drafts. If it had a clear #1a/#1b player it would be a very good draft IMO.


I completely agree. Before last year, Blazer fans never looked into the draft with such intensity. But upon several months of mock draft perusing coupled with an intense tournament watching period, we're all subconsciously convincing ourselves that a SF/PF/C savior exists somewhere in the draft if we look hard enough. 

But if the scouts haven't found the studs yet, it's likely that the best players in this draft will be defensive gurus who can knock down jump shots like Tayshaun Prince, not all-stars. And those guys might not even be in the lottery...


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

yeah id trade him for a top 7 pick , i think jack is going to out work him and be far more consistent - not as flashy but better to helm the team.

if we take bargnani then we could pick up roy/foye/morrison/gay/jj with the extra pick

we would potentially be ending up with 2 starters. 

jack
roy
webster
bargnani
joel

thats a young lineup id actually LIKE to watch


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> It's not. There have been innumerable posts made on this subject (half by me, half by kmurph) about this draft and whether it's weak, but this year is the only year in recent history that is missing out on an entire year of prospects. Oden, Durant, Young and Julian Wright are all likely lottery picks and probably would have come out had the rule not been in place. Coupled with a lack of outstanding upperclassmen and a very very shallow pool of international prospects, this year's draft is weak.
> 
> But not every year is weak. Next year is almost certainly going to be fantastic.
> 
> Ed O.


That is if Young, Durant and Wright even come out after their freshman years...

Many players could have been top picks in the draft if they were coming out after high school, but they weren't as good as people made them out to be when they entered college...Brandan Rush is a prime example of that, Josh McRoberts as well...

Just look at how many freshman usually enter the draft each year...not too many.

and next year I don't see very many top prospects that aren't already committed to this years draft that are coming back...


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd rather keep Telfair because he has made some solid improvements this year and has been discussed to death before, has more upside than Steve Blake. Not to mention, he has stated before that he wants to be here and is proving to be a vocal leader.

I like what he brings and I think it's too early to give up on him unless we can get a superstar level player in return via a package deal including Telfair. Since I don't see that happening, I'd rather hold onto him and build around him and guys like Martell, Jack and possibly Khryapa or Outlaw.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

While initially skeptical of Telfair, he's grown on me. He's a better defensive PG than we've seen here since maybe Porter, he actually _finishes_ around the basket most of the time, both his passing and his shooting seem to be showing signs of improvement, etc. That said, the thought of getting someone like Aldridge or Morrison with our pick and someone like Thomas, Noah (if he changes his mind and comes out) Roy, or someone like that for Telfair seems worth it. Jack and Blake could certainly hold the fort at PG and if, for example, Roy were to come on board, I'm betting that he could be used periodically at PG as well, mostly for defensive purposes, perhaps with someone else (Miles, should he grow up and come around, or, failing that, perhaps Dixon) helping to initiate the offense. It just seems like we'd _both_ potentially be looking at a more balanced roster _and_ have a higher overall talent level, perhaps particularly on the defensive side.

I'm also all for moving Zach. If there's a way to do something like nab Aldridge with our pick, get Morrison for a package that'd be based around Zach, and land someone like Roy for a package based around Telfair, it seems like the potential of both the offense _and_ the defense would be higher. And really, the team wouldn't even be all that much younger than it is now, though there'd certainly be less NBA experience.

Then if they could just figure out a way to land the Green Lantern....


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> While initially skeptical of Telfair, he's grown on me. He's a better defensive PG than we've seen here since maybe Porter, he actually _finishes_ around the basket most of the time


I can't really agree with your first two points...

Greg Anthony and Kenny Anderson were better defenders. Jack is already a better defender.

Second, he really struggled finishing this year, almost a step backwards from last year. His three point percentage is the same as his two point percentage, and that refelcts the struggles I saw.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Absolutely. Jack will be the starting PG eventually and we are unlikely to get this kind of value for Telfair in a trade.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> Absolutely. Jack will be the starting PG eventually and we are unlikely to get this kind of value for Telfair in a trade.


I tend to agree....I would do it if we could then draft Morrison and Bargani.

Morrison will be just a good as Telfair in terms of value and Bargani could really be something special IMO. 

I had trashes Bargani quite a bit early on but have been doing quite a bit of research on him recently and am impressed with what I have seen. I'll fully admit my comments about him a few months ago are probably not accurate anymore in my mind.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well i see sa you warmed up to my idea of getting bargnani and morrison lol how the world turns, i would rather keep telfair and trade blake/TO.
'
pg- Telfair JJack
sg- webster, morrison, dixon
sf- Morrison, viktor Bargnani
pf- Zbo, Bargnani, viktor
C- SKinner, Ha, Bargnani


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> well i see sa you warmed up to my idea of getting bargnani and morrison lol how the world turns, i would rather keep telfair and trade blake/TO.
> '
> pg- Telfair JJack
> sg- webster, morrison, dixon
> ...


I have wanted Morrison from the start....Bargani I have just started to become interested in. What "idea" are you talking about??


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

the idea of draft both players i had a few day ago and some people laughed at the idea ive wanted bargnani longer than Ive wanted morrison,


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> the idea of draft both players i had a few day ago and some people laughed at the idea ive wanted bargnani longer than Ive wanted morrison,


oh I missed that....well as I said the more I watch Bargani the more I like him. Not 100% sold as I still want to see how he does against NBA competition at team workouts etc.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Tince said:


> I can't really agree with your first two points...
> 
> Greg Anthony and Kenny Anderson were better defenders. Jack is already a better defender.
> 
> Second, he really struggled finishing this year, almost a step backwards from last year. His three point percentage is the same as his two point percentage, and that refelcts the struggles I saw.


Absolutely with Anthony. I forgot about him, perhaps because he never really had the starting job. I'm less convinced with Kenny Anderson, though my memory might be wrong. Seems like Rice and others were regularly giving him a hard time about just letting guys fly by, though. And yes, Jack is better defensively than Telfair. Like Anthony, I suspect I missed him because I was only considering starts. Then, of course, there's Pippen. Regardless, unless Telfair's defense were really First (or perhaps even Second) Team stuff, which it clearly isn't, it's not a reason to keep him.

As for the finishing, okay, I concede that one, too. Mostly I was comparing him to Damon, who probably had a worse % inside of two feet than anywhere else inside of half court, and maybe even then. Back to Telfair's shooting, ESPN has him at 39.4% overall and 35.2% on threes -- the first roughly the same as last season the second up more than 10%.

Nonetheless, while I'm in no way ready to "give up" on Telfair, I'd move him for a top pick this year. The PG position is (somewhat sadly) probably the strongest position on the team in terms of depth and reshuffling to get better talent almost anywhere else in the line-up makes sense to me.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

If we trade Telfair then that basically means we'll keep Blake.

If we keep Blake and he does well, then that basically means that we'll lose him for nothing in free agency.

I think you only do this if you're sure Telfair isn't going to get much better. Otherwise, I think you lose on this deal.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> If we trade Telfair then that basically means we'll keep Blake.
> 
> If we keep Blake and he does well, then that basically means that we'll lose him for nothing in free agency.
> 
> I think you only do this if you're sure Telfair isn't going to get much better. Otherwise, I think you lose on this deal.


Wow, good points, BR. And for those about to bring up Jack, I'm not yet convinced he's going to be even as good as Daniels. While I actually place a pretty high value on Daniels, he's really not a starting PG, or even a starting G, period. Daniels' real value, it seems to me, is as the first guard off the bench for 20-some minutes a night, used primarily to make the opposing PGs work extra hard on offense and the opposing SGs chase him around on defense.

If Jack really _can_ become a legit. starting PG, great and, I'd be scared if HQ is willing bank on it at this point. Getting in the same situation with Blake that the team's in now with Joel....yuck.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> If we trade Telfair then that basically means we'll keep Blake.
> If we keep Blake and he does well, then that basically means that we'll lose him for nothing in free agency.


Would this be the worst thing in the world? I like how Blake played for us this season, but I don't really think he's irreplaceable, especially if he's the backup, which I hope he is. We've got him for another season, at least (and if our new GM does some major house-clearing, we'll have cap room to re-sign him anyway).



> I think you only do this if you're sure Telfair isn't going to get much better. Otherwise, I think you lose on this deal.


You only do this deal if you think you can improve the team by trading a young PG for another player available in the top 7.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> well i see sa you warmed up to my idea of getting bargnani and morrison lol how the world turns, i would rather keep telfair and trade blake/TO.
> '
> pg- Telfair JJack
> sg- webster, morrison, dixon
> ...


Boy, that's like the 3rd time you've come out to toot your own horn.

Congratulations, already.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I think the best "potential" would be to keep Jack and Telfair. But, I think that Telfair could draw a lot more in return than Blake, and I would guess that maybe a lot more than Telfair is worth. Since we don't need two starting point guards, and I (and a majority of the team) believes that Jack is the best PG, I think one should be traded. In the big picture, aren't the following both true: 

Jack and Telfair > Jack and Blake, 

Jack, Teflair and [return for trading Blake] < Jack, Blake and [return for trading Telfair]


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Reep said:


> I think the best "potential" would be to keep Jack and Telfair. But, I think that Telfair could draw a lot more in return than Blake, and I would guess that maybe a lot more than Telfair is worth. Since we don't need two starting point guards, and I (and a majority of the team) believes that Jack is the best PG, I think one should be traded. In the big picture, aren't the following both true:
> 
> Jack and Telfair > Jack and Blake,
> 
> Jack, Teflair and [return for trading Blake] < Jack, Blake and [return for trading Telfair]


Jack in 08, resigned Blake in 08 and [return for trading Telfair in the offseason of 06 in 08] < Jack in 08, Telfair in 08 and [return for trading Blake in 06]

This is a project-happy league right now, and the young vet Steve Blake sell might be an easier one than a project Telfair sell (especially if either were an addition to a Miles trade).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> I think the best "potential" would be to keep Jack and Telfair. But, I think that Telfair could draw a lot more in return than Blake, and I would guess that maybe a lot more than Telfair is worth. Since we don't need two starting point guards, and I (and a majority of the team) believes that Jack is the best PG, I think one should be traded. In the big picture, aren't the following both true:


the majority of the team believes that jack is the best PG?

since when? did I miss that post?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> the majority of the team believes that jack is the best PG?
> 
> since when? did I miss that post?


This was brought up in one of the chat MP3s (CSMN or JQ) where they talked to several players about who they put down for their starting lineup. I was surprised to hear that of those interviewed (no names were given) the strong majority put Jack as the first team point guard. The impression was the Jack is much more of a leader on this team than is obvious from watching on the outside. His teammates really seem to respect him and his game.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Jack in 08, resigned Blake in 08 and [return for trading Telfair in the offseason of 06 in 08] < Jack in 08, Telfair in 08 and [return for trading Blake in 06]
> 
> This is a project-happy league right now, and the young vet Steve Blake sell might be an easier one than a project Telfair sell (especially if either were an addition to a Miles trade).


Well, we won't know the first part until '08. The second part depends on who is trading. A team looking for a solid backup, who is in the playoffs now would likely lean toward Blake. A team looking to the future, or located in the NY area, would probably value Telfair more.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> This was brought up in one of the chat MP3s (CSMN or JQ) where they talked to several players about who they put down for their starting lineup. I was surprised to hear that of those interviewed (no names were given) the strong majority put Jack as the first team point guard. The impression was the Jack is much more of a leader on this team than is obvious from watching on the outside. His teammates really seem to respect him and his game.


I remember hearing that Darius, Zach and Ruben liked Jack, and not many other players.

I doubt that it was Courtside, so it was probably Jason Quick.

And I'm not sure I'd put ANY credence in anything Quick does, says, or thinks.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> I remember hearing that Darius, Zach and Ruben liked Jack, and not many other players.
> 
> I doubt that it was Courtside, so it was probably Jason Quick.
> 
> And I'm not sure I'd put ANY credence in anything Quick does, says, or thinks.


I wish I could remember who said it, but I'm sure they didn't interview Miles or Ruben about it as Ruben was gone and Miles never filled out the form. From what I see watching the games, and from reading interviews with Zach, I would guess that Zach favors Blake. So, I would guess it was several others who were asked.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> I wish I could remember who said it, but I'm sure they didn't interview Miles or Ruben about it as Ruben was gone and Miles never filled out the form. From what I see watching the games, and from reading interviews with Zach, I would guess that Zach favors Blake. So, I would guess it was several others who were asked.


you mean the end of the season things that the players were given, by the coaching staff?

provide a link, as I doubt the "majority" of the team thoguht that, especially if it's reported by the moron.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Reep said:


> Well, we won't know the first part until '08. The second part depends on who is trading. A team looking for a solid backup, who is in the playoffs now would likely lean toward Blake. A team looking to the future, or located in the NY area, would probably value Telfair more.


If Blake stayed and Telfair left, he'd likely resign because he can get more minutes here than on other teams.

RE Telfair's Value: 
Most teams in the NBA are in the playoffs. Those not in the playoffs have an abundance of young options at the PG position. Deron Williams on the Jazz, Paul on the Hornets, NateRob on the Knicks (who, btw, is much like Telfair), Monta Ellis on the Warriors, Greene and Dickau on the Celtics. Those with PG needs can go with a guy in the second around like Dee Brown.

If trading Telfair only assisted in dumping salary, why not just throw Blake in, then. Because I can't think of any teams that would move their top 7 pick for Telfair.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> If Blake stayed and Telfair left, he'd likely resign because he can get more minutes here than on other teams.
> 
> RE Telfair's Value:
> Most teams in the NBA are in the playoffs. Those not in the playoffs have an abundance of young options at the PG position. Deron Williams on the Jazz, Paul on the Hornets, NateRob on the Knicks (who, btw, is much like Telfair), Monta Ellis on the Warriors, Greene and Dickau on the Celtics. Those with PG needs can go with a guy in the second around like Dee Brown.
> ...



Nate Robinson is much like Telfair??

since when? I thought one of the things about Nate is that he's a SG in a REALLY small PG's body.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> provide a link.


It was either the CSMN chat or the Quick chat after these surveys. There is no link and I don't have the time to re-listen to them to prove my point. I remember hearing this because I was quite surprised when I heard it. Is it true? I don't know. Does it represent the full team voting? I don't know. Does it seem hard to believe? Not to me. Jack was the most consistant PG over the entire season. He is not a ball hog and keeps the offense moving. 

Telfair isn't a ball hog, but he certainly holds onto the ball a lot more than either Blake or Jack do. When Telfair comes up with the ball he is looking to make the killer assist, or looking to drive the ball. Blake and Jack are much more likely to make an immediate pass to get the ball moving. Which is better? I don't know. 

If I were a teammate, I probably would like the ball moving as much as possible and a PG who was a strong leader (not Blake). So, I would pick Jack.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Samuel said:


> If Blake stayed and Telfair left, he'd likely resign because he can get more minutes here than on other teams.


More minutes, maybe. More money, unlikely if he's been playing well, at least if BR's correct.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> It was either the CSMN chat or the Quick chat after these surveys. There is no link and I don't have the time to re-listen to them to prove my point. I remember hearing this because I was quite surprised when I heard it. Is it true? I don't know. Does it represent the full team voting? I don't know. Does it seem hard to believe? Not to me. Jack was the most consistant PG over the entire season. He is not a ball hog and keeps the offense moving.


I just listened to it (it was on a jason quick chat) and he said "from the players I * TALKED TO* most of them put Jarrett Jack"


not "most of the team".

there's a HUGE difference. He could've talked to 5 players, and if 3 of them agree'd, thats most. 

If he talked to Zach, Dorkius that skews things juuuuuust a tad.

Plus, if he asked Telfair and Blake, do you honestly think that they'd say themself?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Re: team picking Jack over Telfair (or Blake)

I remember reading somewhere (perhaps the Atlanta Journal-Constitution when Jack was declaring for the draft) that Jack's cellphone is legendary because he has _everyone's_ number in it. And this was NBA players before he was in the league. He's a popular guy. Now, I'm not saying this is the reason he got picked first, but it's worth noting that he's more well-known and well thought of than we might guess.

Remember also that Jack all year long said his ankle was bothering him. Now I hope it can get better with time and this isn't chronic, because if it is, we should keep Telfair. If it isn't, we have reason to believe he'll get a lot better next year.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> I just listened to it (it was on a jason quick chat) and he said "from the players I * TALKED TO* most of them put Jarrett Jack"
> 
> 
> not "most of the team".
> ...


I think you are really reaching here, but whatever.

So Telfair and Blake didn't pick themselves, but Jack did???? And, as I mentioned, Darius was not one surveyed. And how do you know he didn't talk to 10 players? It is a sample. And the result is not hard to believe. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this. 

Telfair, how did you get SMiLE's password?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> I think you are really reaching here, but whatever.
> 
> So Telfair and Blake didn't pick themselves, but Jack did????


how did you get that out of what I said? Thats a huge stretch there. Where did I say that Jack picked himself?



> And, as I mentioned, Darius was not one surveyed. And how do you know he didn't talk to 10 players? It is a sample. And the result is not hard to believe. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this.


how do you know Darius wasn't surveyed? Quick never mentioned who he interviewed. He ****ing interviewed him for gods sake. You don't think he asked that question?

Im having such a "hard time" with this because of the _source_. and the fact that a lot of it's just your own personal bias against telfair. 

If he talked to 10 or more players, he wouldn't have said "of those I talked to", because that implies you didn't talk to a lot. Because 10 of 14 isn't just a "those" type comment. thats 70% of the team, and something you'd say more concrete.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> how did you get that out of what I said? Thats a huge stretch there. Where did I say that Jack picked himself?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You said:



> Plus, if he asked Telfair and Blake, do you honestly think that they'd say themself?


The implication is that Telfair and Blake voted for Jack and that may be why Jack had more votes. I am just pointing out that I would guess all three would vote for someone other than themselves. If that is true and Blake and Telfair both pick Jack, then that says something too.

Regarding Darius, Quick talked to player about who they picked on their first team. Darius made no selection, and didn't care to as he sees himself out of here by next year. I think it is doubtful that he contributed.

Most of this is just speculation. The only thing we know is that Quick said the majority of those he talked to picked Jack. What that means is open to interpretation. I think it is a representative trend. You think the trend is meaningless. You are entitled to that opinion.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> The implication is that Telfair and Blake voted for Jack and that may be why Jack had more votes. I am just pointing out that I would guess all three would vote for someone other than themselves. If that is true and Blake and Telfair both pick Jack, then that says something too.


so? it might just mean that Blake said Telfair, Telfair said Jack, and Jack said Blake.

bfd.

it means nothing, because just because the PLAYERS want it, doesn't mean that it's best for the team. Hell, I bet at the start of the year most of the players would've wanted Miles starting.



> Regarding Darius, Quick talked to player about who they picked on their first team. Darius made no selection, and didn't care to as he sees himself out of here by next year. I think it is doubtful that he contributed.


did he say that in the interview?



> Most of this is just speculation. The only thing we know is that Quick said the majority of those he talked to picked Jack. What that means is open to interpretation. I think it is a representative trend. You think the trend is meaningless. You are entitled to that opinion.


you're trying to make the #'s look a lot more concrete than they probably are. It's an old trick to try to make things appear bigger/better than they are.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> you're trying to make the #'s look a lot more concrete than they probably are. It's an old trick to try to make things appear bigger/better than they are.


I have no interest in promoting any of the point guards. I'm just summing up the interview.

If you have such a hard time believing Jack would be first team, who do you think the players voted for? I assume you must have someone in mind if you have such a hard time believing it was Jack.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I don't have a hard time believing the players like a hard-nosed PG who defends well and comes hard to play every night.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> so? it might just mean that Blake said Telfair, Telfair said Jack, and Jack said Blake.
> 
> bfd.
> 
> it means nothing, because just because the PLAYERS want it, doesn't mean that it's best for the team. Hell, I bet at the start of the year most of the players would've wanted Miles starting.


So first his statement was based upon an unreliable source, then his inference was a "huge stretch", and now it all doesn't really matter because who cares what the he** the players want?

Why didn't you just say that at the very beginning??!?!?


----------

