# Sorry ping-pongers



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I know some of you "fans" were rooting hard for a Blazers loss last night, but it just didn't happen. Boo-hoo for you.

By the way, Brandon's on my side. Winning is more important than anything.



> The only downside to the Blazers' victory was that it may have knocked the Blazers back a bit when it comes to potential draft order.
> 
> Roy couldn't care less.
> 
> "As long as I'm on the court, I'm going to keep trying to hurt that lottery selection," he said. "I'm playing to win."


Keep it up, B-Roy. Keep sticking it to the "fans" who are hoping for a tank-job.:clap:

-Pop


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

it's not quite so binary, at least for me. in my order of preferences: 
#1. youngsters do really well but we barely lose. 
#2. youngsters do really well and we win. 
#3. youngsters do badly and we lose. 
#4. youngsters do badly and we win because of freakishly good games from veterans like Magloire and Udoka. 

we had a #2 last night, with Outlaw and Roy having stellar games. I'm happy.

how can any Blazer fan complain about our young players performing well? building through the draft isn't always just about getting great draft picks. 

it's about getting great young players who can perform well and give you hope for the future. that certainly happened last night.


----------



## ¹²³ (Jan 8, 2003)




----------



## rx2web (Jul 27, 2004)

I just admitted in the game thread that deep down I was quietly rooting for a loss and how it surprised me that I was upset that we were winning. But it was a good upset. I'll take every win we can get. I loved Brandon's quote last night about every minute he's on the court he's trying to ruin our Pin Pong chances. Love it. That's the right attitude. Hell, give us a 9-0 run to finish the season as these "Playoff" teams take the night off against us to rest for the playoffs or just plain overlook us. Give our young guys a chance to grow and put in some serious playing time. Lets just see some good basketball.

I saw elsewhere that people want a shorter season. Hell no. I want every moment of Portland Basketball I can get. The more of those being wins the better.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Yep, it's a bummer. That win bumped us above Philly, Seattle and Sacramento. So instead of having the 6th spot we now have the 9th spot.

If we keep winning we could very well end up falling behind Minnesota, New York and Indiana, leaving us in the 12th spot. *shiver*

Thank goodness we're going on the Texas swing and then playing Houston at home. Maybe some teams ahead of us will win some games and we'll be back in a respectable slot by this time next week.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> I know some of you "fans" were rooting hard for a Blazers loss last night, but it just didn't happen. Boo-hoo for you.
> 
> By the way, Brandon's on my side. Winning is more important than anything.
> 
> ...


If winning is "more important than anything", then Zach should never of had his knee surgery. He should have just kept playing until he was hurting the team by doing so - who cares how much permanent damage he would have caused - we have to win now! 

If winning is "more important than anything", we should trade Lamarcus, Roy, and Sergio for veterans who can help us win a few more games now! Who cares if they'll retire in a few years - we have to win now!

I could go on and on with more exaggerated examples, but you get the idea - winning is important, but you can't neglect the future to do so. If we win a few more games this season, it does very little for us (in fact I would argue it hurts us). On the other hand, there are 5 teams with 30 wins right now. Anyone who has ever taken a statistics class or done some nba lottery research knows what is at stake. Especially in a year with not one, but two franchise players to salivate over. It's fun to win now, but I believe the best thing for the blazers to do so they can win in the future, is to lose.

I also want to make it clear that just because I hope we lose doesn't mean I want the team to "tank". There is a huge difference between a fan wanting the team to lose and a team tanking. Let me let you in on a little secret - if I am rooting for the Blazers to lose, it doesn't actually affect the outcome of the game. But if Brandon Roy wants the Blazers to lose, thats a whole different story - and one that I don't support. Ideally we play hard, develop the youngsters, and lose at the buzzer.

Last but not least, I respect your decision to root for the Blazers to win the next 8 games - we're all entitled to our own opinions of what is best for the team. But please don't put quotes around the word fan when talking about me. Please don't create a thread every time we win to "stick it to me". And please, do not question my love for the team just because I view our road to success differently than you. 

chuck taylor


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> I also want to make it clear that just because I hope we lose doesn't mean I want the team to "tank". There is a huge difference between a fan wanting the team to lose and a team tanking. Let me let you in on a little secret - if I am rooting for the Blazers to lose, it doesn't actually affect the outcome of the game. But if Brandon Roy wants the Blazers to lose, thats a whole different story - and one that I don't support. Ideally we play hard, develop the youngsters, and lose at the buzzer.


Thank you for finding a way to put my feelings into words.


----------



## glazeduck (Mar 20, 2007)

Great reply Chuck Taylor. You hit all my points, just beat me to it.

And Pops, I have to agree with taylor, calling us "fans" is ignorant. Some fans want KG at any cost while others want to keep building w/ youth. Some liked Adam Morrison before last years draft, others saw him as extremely limited, some fans worship the ground Nate walks on, others would prefer alot of other coaches. The point is that each person has their own opinions about this team and, as long as those opinions are in the best interest to the team in their mind, then its not fair to question our fanaticism.

That said, its true that the win last night was a bit disapointing, especially with Philly and Charlotte winning, me personally, I don't see how much good can come from a meeningless win this late in the season against a team who clearly wasn't on OR trying very hard. Say what you want about Jeff Green, Brewer, Horford, Hibbert, etc. nobody in this draft is Oden or Durant, two young players that would come in and a focal point of both the offense and defense, be a face of the team, and be a tremendous building block to this dynasty that we're developing. To my knowledge, us "ping pongers" haven't questioned your desire for meaningless wins taking us out of contention for the top 2 picks, so why is it neccessary for you to question our fandom for having our opinions on how to help this team?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> If winning is "more important than anything", then Zach should never of had his knee surgery. He should have just kept playing until he was hurting the team by doing so - who cares how much permanent damage he would have caused - we have to win now!
> 
> If winning is "more important than anything", we should trade Lamarcus, Roy, and Sergio for veterans who can help us win a few more games now! Who cares if they'll retire in a few years - we have to win now!
> 
> ...


I too am sick of the "fan" bull****.

As if a few posters here are Websters and define what it means. Frankly, they can go take a long walk on a short pier.

As if a "fan" is only a mindless win junkie that only cares about that next fix. Maybe some fans are addicts. May feel good for a short time, but can be short sighted. What are the real goals? Addicts don't have long-term horizons. Champions do.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> Last but not least, I respect your decision to root for the Blazers to win the next 8 games - we're all entitled to our own opinions of what is best for the team. But please don't put quotes around the word fan when talking about me. Please don't create a thread every time we win to "stick it to me". And please, do not question my love for the team just because I view our road to success differently than you.
> 
> chuck taylor


thank you. i would probably just call the guy an idiot and move on, but kudos to you for being civil. 

i'm sick of these fairweather fans. that's right, fairweather fans. fairweather fans want wins, nothing but wins and can't see any positives for the team outside of winning. a true fan sees the bigger picture for his team. a true fan can see past the winning and losing. a true fan can tell what will be of benefits to his team in the long term, even if it means losing in the short term.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

BuckW4GM said:


> thank you. i would probably just call the guy an idiot and move on, but kudos to you for being civil.
> 
> i'm sick of these fairweather fans. that's right, fairweather fans. fairweather fans want wins, nothing but wins and can't see any positives for the team outside of winning. a true fan sees the bigger picture for his team. a true fan can see past the winning and losing. a true fan can tell what will be of benefits to his team in the long term, even if it means losing in the short term.




I can't believe this, but I agree with you. Part of the reason I scream about Zach so much I think. IMO we would simply be better long term without him. At this point if Portland won all of their games, it wouldn't matter. If we lost all of our games however we earn a better chance at getting a player that could litteraly turn the franchise around. I'd rather have that than 5 more wins at this point.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

While I am sympathetic to the desire for a higher draft pick, I can't condone tanking.

Besides, we are not talking about playing our way out of a top 2 pick. Even if we lose every game for the rest of the season, our odds of even a top 3 pick aren't that great. 

As a practical matter, is there really that great of a difference between the #6 pick and the #9 pick in this draft? With players like Conley and J Wright headed back to school, how many true impact players are in this draft?

Oden and Durant obviously. B Wright possibly. Horford.....maybe. Beyond those guys what you have is a pack of *useful* players with no star potential. For all the complaints about how bad the 06 draft was - Bargnani, LaMarcus, and Roy would likely be top 6 picks in 07!

The blunt truth is, even with the #5 or 6 pick we have a better chance of finding the next Roy than we do of winning the lotto!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> While I am sympathetic to the desire for a higher draft pick, I can't condone tanking.
> 
> Besides, we are not talking about playing our way out of a top 2 pick. Even if we lose every game for the rest of the season, our odds of even a top 3 pick aren't that great.
> 
> ...



The 6th pick is more valuable in trade than the 9th pick. It's just that simple. The player at 9 might end up to be light years better than the player at 6, or even 3 but the higher the pick, the better asset that chip is. And just for kicks and giggles, remember this. Brandon Roy was the 6th pick last year, and Patrick O'Bryant was the 9th pick. Last time I checked, O'Bryant was in the "D" league, and Roy was on his way to be a star. And the players that went in between 6 and 9??????? Foye and Gay.....Now do you still think there isn't that much of a difference?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> While I am sympathetic to the desire for a higher draft pick, I can't condone tanking.


True, but I don't think anybody has suggested tanking.



> Besides, we are not talking about playing our way out of a top 2 pick. Even if we lose every game for the rest of the season, our odds of even a top 3 pick aren't that great.


Not great, but significant. Had we lost against Utah, our chances of a top-two pick would have been around 15% at that position. Since we won, our current position gives us less than a 1% chance.

That's a lot of franchise-changing possibility difference.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

Rudy Gay was the 8th pick. Brandon was the 6th pick, Foye was the 7th, Gay 8th, O'Bryant 9th.

In the past ten years we've gotten some real quality number 9 picks.

O'Bryant
Diogu
Igoudala
Sweetney
Stoudemire
Rodney White
Przybilla
Marion
Nowitzki
McGrady.

While Sweetney, White and Przybilla certainly haven't lived up to expectations, the others (Diogu does well when given time generally, he's had some nice games, and O'Bryant is still a rookie in a system that doesn't really fit him so I won't pass judgement yet) are all-stars or borderline all-stars (Igoudala)

Compare this with the past 10 number six picks:

Roy
Webster
Childress
Kaman
Wagner
Battier
DerMarr johnson
Szczerbiak
Robert Traylor
Mercer

Either the six pick is generally cursed and the ninth picked is generally blessed, at least for the last decade.. I would feel quite comfortable with Pritchard picking 9th.

Or getting good value out of it at the trading table.

Edit: Well that's just not fair, MM. Editing your post without making note what you changed. Now my post correcting you looks odd.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Let me set you guys straight. We're not getting the #1 or #2 pick. It ain't happening. We could lose our last 8 games of the year and we're not sniffing it. Beyond that, it's a crap-shoot, and we've already proven we can move up in the draft if we want to. Our fate doesn't rest in the ping-pong balls. It rests in the wallet of Paul Allen.

And no win is meaningless. Wins build confidence. Wins get the attention of other players. That "culture" that Kevin Pritchard keeps talking about doesn't include losing for the sake of a few extra ping-pong balls in the draft lottery. And if you can't get behind that, then piss off. Move to Atlanta. I'm sure the Hawks would love to have a bunch of you down there, rooting for ping pong balls. It's worked wonders for them, hasn't it?

I'm never going to root for a loss. Let the players and coaches fight for wins, and let the owner and general manager fight for draft picks and free agents and trades. I'm all for winning. It makes your current assets more valuable, and it makes your potential assets more attainable. But putting your fate in a bunch of ping pong balls is bush league.

-Pop


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> And if you can't get behind that, then piss off. Move to Atlanta.


Wow, you really got me there. I am so moving. Hotlanta here I come.



> I'm never going to root for a loss. Let the players and coaches fight for wins, and let the owner and general manager fight for draft picks and free agents and trades. I'm all for winning. It makes your current assets more valuable, and it makes your potential assets more attainable. But putting your fate in a bunch of ping pong balls is bush league.
> 
> -Pop


So the San Antonio Spurs and their #1 pick Tim Duncan are "bush league"?

Are the Miami Heat and their #5 pick Dywane Wade "bush league"?

Are the Utah Jazz and their #6 pick traded for #3 pick Deron Williams "bush league"?

Are the Cleveland Cavs and their #1 pick LeBron James "bush league"?

Are the Denver Nuggets and their #3 pick Carmello Anthony "bush league"?

Are the Houston Rockets and their #1 pick Yao Ming "bush league"?

Man, the NBA is filled with bush league teams that were "rewarded" with being pathetic losers. Can't imagine how those losing teams turn things around by getting top talent out of the top of the draft. Don't they know that is "bush league" and is no way to build a team and create a culture of winning?

You are not "all for winning". You are all for getting a quick fix out of ONE ****ing game. The goal is to win a championship, and along the way entertain. If all you need is one win to get you through the day - you have problems.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

The Sebastian Express said:


> Rudy Gay was the 8th pick. Brandon was the 6th pick, Foye was the 7th, Gay 8th, O'Bryant 9th.
> 
> In the past ten years we've gotten some real quality number 9 picks.
> 
> ...


Wow, that's some pretty major domination the 9th pick has over the 6th there. That's surprising. I'd still rather have the 6th though, because that trend is not going to hold true in the long run, but it does illustrate how much of a crapshoot the draft is.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

If we win games, it means our young guys are becoming real good NBA players and it's a sign of how good our foundation already is.

If we lose games, we get a better shot at adding another great prospect to the mix.

There's something good about the outcome of about every game. Why is everyone getting so fired up about this issue? It's getting old.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

SodaPopinski said:


> Let me set you guys straight. We're not getting the #1 or #2 pick. It ain't happening.


you don't seem to be reading anyone's reply before yapping your ****. if we end up with the 5th worst record (and there's a decent chance we still will), the odds of us getting #1 or #2 is not "it ain't happening." but if you're Nostradamus..



> We could lose our last 8 games of the year and we're not sniffing it.


does it help you feel smarter stating your opinion as fact?



> Move to Atlanta. I'm sure the Hawks would love to have a bunch of you down there, rooting for ping pong balls. It's worked wonders for them, hasn't it?


not really for atlanta, but it's working out wonderfully for us.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Let me set you guys straight. We're not getting the #1 or #2 pick. It ain't happening. We could lose our last 8 games of the year and we're not sniffing it. Beyond that, it's a crap-shoot, and we've already proven we can move up in the draft if we want to. Our fate doesn't rest in the ping-pong balls. It rests in the wallet of Paul Allen.
> 
> And no win is meaningless. Wins build confidence. Wins get the attention of other players. That "culture" that Kevin Pritchard keeps talking about doesn't include losing for the sake of a few extra ping-pong balls in the draft lottery. And if you can't get behind that, then piss off. Move to Atlanta. I'm sure the Hawks would love to have a bunch of you down there, rooting for ping pong balls. It's worked wonders for them, hasn't it?
> 
> ...



Tell that to 


Houston
San Antonio
Orlando
Philly
New Jersey
and others who got the first pick and drafted a player that was the single reason they either won the finals or went to the finals. 

Now tell a team that was picking second in the LeBron draft that being first didn't matter. As someone pointed out earlier, if we had lost last night we would have had around a 15% chance at number 1. Now we are at less then 1%. 

Now let's say that in these last ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS GAMES that Brandon Roy tears his knee up. Was it still better to go for the win? I say shut him as many quality players down you can this last week or so and get the better odds at Durant or Oden. Or get that number 3-4 pick and use it as a piece to aquire an all-star type SF


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> If we win games, it means our young guys are becoming real good NBA players and it's a sign of how good our foundation already is.
> 
> If we lose games, we get a better shot at adding another great prospect to the mix.
> 
> There's something good about the outcome of about every game. Why is everyone getting so fired up about this issue? It's getting old.


Agreed. And it's not like what fans want has any effect on reality anyway, so what difference does it make if some of us want to win these last few games and some of us want to lose? Whatever is going to happen will happen regardless of our desires.

barfo


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> Agreed. And it's not like what fans want has any effect on reality anyway, so what difference does it make if some of us want to win these last few games and some of us want to lose? Whatever is going to happen will happen regardless of our desires.
> 
> barfo




I'm not so sure about that. I REALLY wanted Zach to go down with an injury.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Masbee said:


> So the San Antonio Spurs and their #1 pick Tim Duncan are "bush league"?
> 
> Are the Miami Heat and their #5 pick Dywane Wade "bush league"?
> 
> ...


You (and a few others) are COMPLETELY missing the point. Let me dissect your examples, one by one.

1) San Antonio getting Duncan wasn't the championship move. For their first, David Robinson, Avery Johnson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott played HUGE roles in that. All ... veterans. Not guys they got through the draft. For their next run, they hit gold with a couple late picks in Parker and Ginobli, and they were able to build around them with some vets like Horry.

2) D-Wade is a great player. There's no doubt. But they put themselves into the championship window with free agent moves and trades that netted them guys like Shaq, James Posey, Antoine Walker (as much as I hate to say it), Haslem, Mourning, etc. They got ONE good draft, then they moved into free agent and trade position. Get it?

3) Is Utah a contender now because of Deron Williams, or because of guys like Carlos Boozer, Mehmet Okur and other players they ACQUIRED? Getting younger didn't help them. A young talent or two is a piece of the puzzle. Not the whole thing.

4) Cleveland - lets look at their key players: Gooden (acquired from Orlando), Ilgauskus (been there since 97), Snow (acquired), Marshall (acquired). Other than Lebron, how have they built their team through consistent high lottery picks?

5) Carmelo is one drafted player. How many of the rest of their team were high draft picks? AI? Smith? Nene? Camby? Huh? What?

6) I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but Yao was their one big pick. From there, they ACQUIRED guys like Tracy McGrady, Shane Battier, etc.

Here's my point. We've had our draft. Just like all the teams you mentioned above. The common denominator of all those great teams you mention above is they moved on and utilized trades and free agency to bring in veteran talent to put them over the top. Constantly bringing in young, inexperienced amateur players is not the key. We got Brandon, LaMarcus and Sergio. Why do we need to fight for another top draft pick, and get even younger?

Whenever Nate talks about what this team needs, he always says "more veteran leadership." Are we going to get that from the draft?

See, what you guys are advocating is the LA Clippers of the 90's and early 2000's model. The Atlanta Hawks model. Constant high lottery picks. IT GETS YOU NOWHERE. You're mistaking those methods with the successful ones. You can't use examples like the Heat, the Cavs, the Nuggets, the Spurs, etc. They didn't build their teams through the draft. They have ONE franchise player they got in a high lottery pick. GUESS WHAT? We have TWO. The lottery is not our next step. Pay attention. Do your homework.

-Pop


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> You (and a few others) are COMPLETELY missing the point. Let me dissect your examples, one by one.
> 
> 1) San Antonio getting Duncan wasn't the championship move. For their first, David Robinson, Avery Johnson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott played HUGE roles in that. All ... veterans. Not guys they got through the draft. For their next run, they hit gold with a couple late picks in Parker and Ginobli, and they were able to build around them with some vets like Horry.
> 
> ...


Completely clueless.

I won't waste my time discecting your breakdown, just know:

No Wade. No Shaq.

No Yao. No McGrady.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Masbee said:


> Completely clueless.
> 
> I won't waste my time discecting your breakdown


Game, set and match. Thanks for playing. Go get some gatorade and do some light stretching.

-Pop


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Now tell a team that was picking second in the LeBron draft that being first didn't matter. As someone pointed out earlier, if we had lost last night we would have had around a 15% chance at number 1. Now we are at less then 1%.


It should be pointed that both the team that picked 2nd and the team that picked 5th in the LeBron draft have since won championships... while the team that picked 1st has not, yet.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

It seems to me that the biggest part of the disagreement is about wether Roy, Aldridge and Sergio are franchise players who can carry a team like Duncan, Wade , etc. I really like them, but I don't see them on that level. That said, as much as my head knows that losing would help, my heart won't allow me to root for it.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

SodaPopinski said:


> You (and a few others) are COMPLETELY missing the point.


and you're just plain clueless.



> 1) San Antonio getting Duncan wasn't the championship move. For their first, David Robinson, Avery Johnson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott played HUGE roles in that. All ... veterans. Not guys they got through the draft.


who was most responsible for that championship? that's right, Duncan. no one is claiming, as far as i have read, that building through the draft is the _only_ way to go. but it would improve your team a lot if you're in position to draft a very good player and don't **** it up.



> 2) D-Wade is a great player. There's no doubt. But they put themselves into the championship window with free agent moves and trades that netted them guys like Shaq, James Posey, Antoine Walker (as much as I hate to say it), Haslem, Mourning, etc. They got ONE good draft, then they moved into free agent and trade position. Get it?


i think everyone got it, except for you.



> Constantly bringing in young, inexperienced amateur players is not the key.


right.



> We got Brandon, LaMarcus and Sergio. Why do we need to fight for another top draft pick, and get even younger?


because i, and a few others, don't feel that core is enough. would be nice to add one more potentially stud to that core. this draft is an opportunity to do just that.



> Whenever Nate talks about what this team needs, he always says "more veteran leadership." Are we going to get that from the draft?


no, but why can't we add a vet and a young stud prospect? does Nate not approve?


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

gambitnut said:


> It seems to me that the biggest part of the disagreement is about wether Roy, Aldridge and Sergio are franchise players who can carry a team like Duncan, Wade , etc. I really like them, but I don't see them on that level. That said, as much as my head knows that losing would help, my heart won't allow me to root for it.


Roy is on that level. Aldridge will be a better version of Marcus Camby. Sergio a better version of Jason Williams. But Roy - he's a budding star. Do we go with that and build a TEAM around him with veterans and role players, or do we hope to go back to the draft and get another guy who has a ton of potential and face the same dilemma of the past? Who do we develop, and who plays second fiddle?

No thanks. I think Roy can be that guy to carry us to a championship, if we hand him the keys and work on getting him the best pit crew money can buy. We don't need another driver.

-Pop


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

andalusian said:


> It should be pointed that both the team that picked 2nd and the team that picked 5th in the LeBron draft have since won championships... while the team that picked 1st has not, yet.


That is interesting, although I'm not sure who's argument it supports. The way the Cavs are built, I don't ever see them winning a championship. Same with the Nuggets. It's also interesting to me that the team that picked 2nd won the championship with basically no contribution at all from that draftee, which I guess supports the anti-ping-pongers, although most championships are a direct result of a team getting a very great player in the lotto (Wade, Duncan, Kobe via a traded pick, Jordan, Hakeem ...).


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Whenever Nate talks about what this team needs, he always says "more veteran leadership." Are we going to get that from the draft?


Potentially. Even apart from the relatively veteran play of Roy, there's the thought that the pick might well be the Blazers' most valuable out-going piece to bring back more veteran help.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

BuckW4GM said:


> and you're just plain clueless.


Thanks for the tip, "Buck...Williams...for...General...Manager." Your alias just stripped you of your credibility. Love the Buck, but he has zero credentials. So the fact your advocating for him makes me less impressed with your advocacy for perennial ping pongs.

In all seriousness, gambitnut nailed it. The crux of the argument falls to whether or not we currently have "the guy." I think Roy is it, and if we decide to move up in the draft as far as we can to get another guy who could be "it", where does that leave us? If you're in the "Roy is a role player" camp, then I guess you'd want to fight for someone else with potential. If, like me, you're in the "Roy is a budding star" camp, then you probably want to see us hand him the keys and build around him with veterans and role players.

-Pop


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Roy is on that level. Aldridge will be a better version of Marcus Camby. Sergio a better version of Jason Williams. But Roy - he's a budding star. Do we go with that and build a TEAM around him with veterans and role players, or do we hope to go back to the draft and get another guy who has a ton of potential and face the same dilemma of the past? Who do we develop, and who plays second fiddle?
> 
> No thanks. I think Roy can be that guy to carry us to a championship, if we hand him the keys and work on getting him the best pit crew money can buy. We don't need another driver.
> 
> -Pop


From what I've seen of him, I don't think Roy would have a problem with being second fiddle if we manage to get Oden or Durant.

Has anybody here said they're going to root for us to lose next year if we don't get one of the top two picks this year? I don't think so. All of the people I've seen talk about it have said that there are some special players in this draft who are worth trying to get, but if we don't, we move on a try to win a championship without them. If we don't get Oden or Durant, I see us trying to copy Detroit's formula of winning without a true star. Aldridge is our Rasheed Wallace, Roy is our Rip Hamilton, Jack/Sergio is our version of Billups. Those are great. At the moment, Outlaw is the closest thing we have to Prince and Joel is our Ben Wallace. It would be good, IMO, if we could improve those positions. One we can get with the MLE, one we should draft. Obviously, Oden is the best Ben Wallace and Durant is the best Prince, but I think Hibbert would be a fine Ben Wallace. I just hope our Ben Wallace or Prince is still there when we pick.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

SodaPopinski said:


> Thanks for the tip, "Buck...Williams...for...General...Manager." Your alias just stripped you of your credibility. Love the Buck, but he has zero credentials. So the fact your advocating for him makes me less impressed with your advocacy for perennial ping pongs.


:yay: 

that's great. you'going after a nickname? i created this nick awhile back when Nash's contract was about to end. i hated Nash then, and i hate him even more so until he was let go. Buck was rumored to be in the running (however true that was), and i was "why not, better Buck than Nash." also, Buck was the president for the player union when he was playing and is a very smart man.



> If you're in the "Roy is a role player" camp, then I guess you'd want to fight for someone else with potential. If, like me, you're in the "Roy is a budding star" camp, then you probably want to see us hand him the keys and build around him with veterans and role players.


i'm in the camp that thinks that both roy and Aldridge have a fair chance of being stars, but also want to add another stud prospect in what is most likely our last chance for many years to draft high.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I like Roy a lot. I think he's got the potential to be a Paul Pierce level of player when he reaches his prime. Not Dwyane Wade good, but pretty darned good. 

would I willingly choose to build a contender around Paul Pierce and better versions of Marcus Camby and Jason Williams? not really. that's a good playoff-caliber core. maybe a second round team. not a championship team. 

even if we trade Zach for a decent small forward, we'd still only be about as good as the current Jazz. good, but not contenders. 

what we do with this year's draft will be the difference between us being a good playoff team and a contender in a few years. we probably won't be in the lottery next year, so it's our last shot at acquiring a future All-Star.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I just can't help myself.



SodaPopinski said:


> 1) San Antonio getting Duncan wasn't the championship move. For their first, David Robinson, Avery Johnson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott played HUGE roles in that. All ... veterans. Not guys they got through the draft. For their next run, they hit gold with a couple late picks in Parker and Ginobli, and they were able to build around them with some vets like Horry.


And they held a lot of those veterans out for the rest of the season so they could get the missing piece in Tim Duncan. They draft Duncan in 97 and they win the championship in 99. That sure seems like a missing piece to me.



> 2) D-Wade is a great player. There's no doubt. But they put themselves into the championship window with free agent moves and trades that netted them guys like Shaq, James Posey, Antoine Walker (as much as I hate to say it), Haslem, Mourning, etc. They got ONE good draft, then they moved into free agent and trade position. Get it?


Yes, we get it. It takes more than just the draft to make a contender. But that draft was the most important part. Had Miami really tried to win games down the stretch in 2000 they would have ended up the 8th pick instead of the 5th pick. And instead of being able to draft Wade they would have been looking at the likes of TJ Ford, Mike Sweetney, Jarvis Hayes, etc. 

The 2003 draft is a great example of a draft that was labeled as great when in reality it was just top heavy. Lebron, Carmello, Wade and Chris Bosh are all great players. There were some other good players and then most everybody else in that draft is mediocre at best.

Same thing could happen this draft. Oden, Durant, Brandon Wright and Al Horford could all end up being great players. And because we won a couple more meaningless games we've got the 9th pick instead of the 4th pick.



> Here's my point. We've had our draft.


Here's where my main disagreement is. I don't think the guys we've drafted thus far are good enough. 

We don't have that one super-star player that's going to eventually take us to that championship level. There's 3 or 4 of those guys available in this draft. Most draft's there's 1. If we can get in the 4-6 range we've got a good shot at getting one of those guys.

If we're in the 9-12 range we have virtually no shot.



> Just like all the teams you mentioned above. The common denominator of all those great teams you mention above is they moved on and utilized trades and free agency to bring in veteran talent to put them over the top.


But without those top picks to build around they had nothing. Miami without Wade is nothing. San Antonio with out Duncan is nothing.



> Constantly bringing in young, inexperienced amateur players is not the key. We got Brandon, LaMarcus and Sergio. Why do we need to fight for another top draft pick, and get even younger?


Because those guys aren't good enough. They are not super-stars. And I know Detroit won the championship without one, but the vast majority of championship caliber teams have a super-star.



> See, what you guys are advocating is the LA Clippers of the 90's and early 2000's model. The Atlanta Hawks model. Constant high lottery picks. IT GETS YOU NOWHERE.


No we're not. We're saying this is our last year to get a high pick because next year we expect to be playoff contenders.



> They have ONE franchise player they got in a high lottery pick. GUESS WHAT? We have TWO.
> 
> -Pop


And I disagree with this. Brandon Roy is not Dwayne Wade quality. Aldridge is not Duncan quality. They're both very good players and if we had a great player for the two of them to orbit I think we could be a championship contender.

But without that super-star we're going to be a one and done team for the next 10 years.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I have no idea if Roy will ever be as good as Wade - but it should be pointed out that they have very close statistical numbers for their rookie year.

Roy: 16.6 PPG, 4.0 APG, 4.4 RPG, 2.0 TO, 0.2 BPG 

Wade: 16.2 PPG, 4.5 APG, 4.0 RPG, 3.2 TO, 0.6 BPG

Amazing how close they are. Granted, Wade seems more athletic. I do not know if this is a good thing or bad - 

Good Argument - Roy is as good in his rookie year as Wade was without having to jump over people,
Bad Argument - Roy is not as athletic as Wade - so he will not progress as much.

I would say that the jury is still out on how good Roy will be - but it is not impossible that he will be very close to Wade as time goes on.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Let me set you guys straight. We're not getting the #1 or #2 pick. It ain't happening. We could lose our last 8 games of the year and we're not sniffing it.


Math begs to differ. I debated briefly and decided to trust math over "Popinski fury."



> And if you can't get behind that, then piss off. Move to Atlanta.


Do I have to move to Atlanta even if I don't currently live in Portland? Is this just a directive for Oregonians, like "Love it or leave it?"



> It's worked wonders for them, hasn't it?


For Cleveland? Yes, worked great. Good point.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

My whole opinion on the 'better lottery picks will result in a better team' is simple. LA Clippers. Yeah... it worked real well for them, constantly bringing in new, young tallent, with lots of potential... but always sucking, building a culture of losing.

Yeah, worked real good for them. We got a lot of young guys, some with a lot of potential yet to be realized, some with a lot of potential showing us what they got already. We don't really need more, we have a solid foundation. These guys need to learn to win, and if they learn to lose now, they will get stuck in that rut... all for a few more ping pong balls.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> You (and a few others) are COMPLETELY missing the point. Let me dissect your examples, one by one.
> 
> 1) San Antonio getting Duncan wasn't the championship move. For their first, David Robinson, Avery Johnson, Mario Elie and Sean Elliott played HUGE roles in that. All ... veterans. Not guys they got through the draft.


Hello? Are you now doing parody? David Robinson was not someone they got in the draft? Really? Tell me, guy, who _did_ select Robinson *#1* in the 1987 draft?



> 2) D-Wade is a great player. There's no doubt. But they put themselves into the championship window with free agent moves and trades that netted them guys like Shaq, James Posey, Antoine Walker (as much as I hate to say it), Haslem, Mourning, etc. They got ONE good draft, then they moved into free agent and trade position. Get it?


Wade is pretty easily their best player and was easily their best player last year. So, they used trades and previous drafts to put together a good supporting cast and dipped into the draft for a superstar who put them over the top? Sounds like you're arguing _for_ the plan espoused by fans who want to see Portland lose their remaining games.



> 3) Is Utah a contender now because of Deron Williams, or because of guys like Carlos Boozer, Mehmet Okur and other players they ACQUIRED? Getting younger didn't help them. A young talent or two is a piece of the puzzle. Not the whole thing.


And now we reach the point in our show where Popinski decides to argue a point no one has made. Nobody said one draft pick was "the whole thing." We have a group of good young players...we'd like the best chance at that toughest piece of the puzzle, the superstar.



> 4) Cleveland - lets look at their key players: Gooden (acquired from Orlando), Ilgauskus (been there since 97), Snow (acquired), Marshall (acquired). Other than Lebron, how have they built their team through consistent high lottery picks?


You mean, "Other than the one reason that Cleveland is at all relevant, how did they build through high picks?"



> 6) I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but Yao was their one big pick. From there, they ACQUIRED guys like Tracy McGrady, Shane Battier, etc.


Guess how they got McGrady? Trading top pick Steve Francis. Guess how they got Battier? Trading high pick Rudy Gay.



> Here's my point. We've had our draft. Just like all the teams you mentioned above. The common denominator of all those great teams you mention above is they moved on and utilized trades and free agency to bring in veteran talent to put them over the top. Constantly bringing in young, inexperienced amateur players is not the key. We got Brandon, LaMarcus and Sergio. Why do we need to fight for another top draft pick, and get even younger?


We got the supporting cast talent that all those teams put around their drafted stud. We don't have that young centerpiece superstar, the most important single piece to being a title contender. If you want to put it in terms of those teams, we got our Boozers, our Battiers, our Poseys, our old, declining Shaqs (in terms of overall ability, not age). We still need our Dwayne Wade, LeBron James, Tim Duncan.



> GUESS WHAT? We have TWO. The lottery is not our next step. Pay attention. Do your homework.


*laugh* We have TWO franchise superstars? Nobody who says something that absurd should be allowed, legally, to finish with a condescending comment. He/she has already embarrassed themselves enough.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> My whole opinion on the 'better lottery picks will result in a better team' is simple. LA Clippers. Yeah... it worked real well for them, constantly bringing in new, young tallent, with lots of potential... but always sucking, building a culture of losing.
> 
> Yeah, worked real good for them. We got a lot of young guys, some with a lot of potential yet to be realized, some with a lot of potential showing us what they got already. We don't really need more, we have a solid foundation. These guys need to learn to win, and if they learn to lose now, they will get stuck in that rut... all for a few more ping pong balls.


You are so right.

We don't need more young talent like Oden or Durant. What for? **** em. Let them go play for some other team. It's not like we have to play AGAINST them or anything if we don't get them. They don't matter.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

Masbee said:


> You are so right.
> 
> We don't need more young talent like Oden or Durant. What for? **** em. Let them go play for some other team. It's not like we have to play AGAINST them or anything if we don't get them. They don't matter.


Oh yes, we have a high probability of getting either of those guys even if we lost all the remaining games :lol: 

Teams who dwell in the cellar hoping against all odds they will land their savior year after year, are doomed to stay in the cellar, rotting away, grasping at straws. Those who appriciate the good players they have, and build a culture of winning around them, not feeble dreams, move ahead.

But hey, if you want to dream of being the Clippers, Warriors, and Hawks of old... Who am I to spoil your dreams of rooting for a perpetually mediocre team. :yay:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> Teams who dwell in the cellar hoping against all odds they will land their savior year after year, are doomed to stay in the cellar, rotting away, grasping at straws.


Bizarre. Nobody who argues your side of this debate chooses to argue what the other side is actually advocating. All of you make up arguments for the opposing side and argue those instead.

I guess that's easier.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Masbee said:


> You are so right.
> 
> We don't need more young talent like Oden or Durant. What for? **** em. Let them go play for some other team. It's not like we have to play AGAINST them or anything if we don't get them. They don't matter.


I don't think anybody is saying that. OTOH, I would hope nobody is suggesting that our entire rebuilding plan should be based on lucking into one of the top 2 picks in this draft. 

I would hope KP can find some wiggle room between those 2 extremes! :wink:


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

All right, I'll sacrifice myself to BlueDoggy and Popinski.

/rant on

I think the best thing for the Blazers would be to become the Clippers North. Top draft picks year after year, no chemistry, lousy management, oh and be sure not to ever pay any of those talented draft picks anything like what they're worth -- let 'em develop for a few years and move on to other teams. After all, we'll have a great new crew of young talent coming in year after year as long as the team keeps losing. Won't that be great? Man, I just can't wait for it.

/rant off

There, now they can at least honestly say one of us has taken that position...




...however sarcastically.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i am in the camp that this is the eal to get the super star to win a championship not just win games!!!!I want a championship to do so we need our roof since we have our walls and foundation for winning it all you need a complete house if that means losing all our upcoming games so be it.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Eal?


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Let me set you guys straight. We're not getting the #1 or #2 pick. It ain't happening. We could lose our last 8 games of the year and we're not sniffing it. Beyond that, it's a crap-shoot, and we've already proven we can move up in the draft if we want to. Our fate doesn't rest in the ping-pong balls. It rests in the wallet of Paul Allen.
> 
> And no win is meaningless. Wins build confidence. Wins get the attention of other players. That "culture" that Kevin Pritchard keeps talking about doesn't include losing for the sake of a few extra ping-pong balls in the draft lottery. And if you can't get behind that, then piss off. Move to Atlanta. I'm sure the Hawks would love to have a bunch of you down there, rooting for ping pong balls. It's worked wonders for them, hasn't it?
> 
> ...


Did you even read my response to your first post? You continue to make the same assumptions I tried to clear up.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Hello? Are you now doing parody? David Robinson was not someone they got in the draft? Really? Tell me, guy, who _did_ select Robinson *#1* in the 1987 draft?


...or Sean Elliott #3 in the 1989 draft?

STOMP


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

STOMP said:


> ...or Sean Elliott #3 in the 1989 draft?
> 
> STOMP


The Admiral in '87, Sean Elliott in '89, and then Tim Duncan almost 10 years later does not equate to "consistent high lottery picks" if you ask me. Meaning they did not build a championship team through two or three consecutive high lottery picks.

And I saw one person say "there are 3-4 superstar players in this draft." How do you know that? Outside of Oden and Durant, who is "can't miss"?

Brandan Wright? After one year in college?

Horford? Color me unimpressed when he couldn't even reach double-figures against an undersized Ducks front line.

Yi? Somebody cue up the grainy video of him dunking on 5-3 Chinese guys to a Jay-Z soundtrack. PROPER!

Noah? Maybe in the WNBA.

Jeff Green? His disappearing act against Ohio State worries me.

Corey Brewer? I like him, but I don't think he's star quality.

Roy Hibbert? You're reaching there.


Bottom line? This is a deep draft, but it's not the 2003 draft that netted Lebron, Carmelo, D-Wade and Bosh.

I'm just curious who people think is a "can't miss star" that the Blazers would even have a chance to get outside of Oden and Durant.

-Pop


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

SodaPopinski said:


> I'm just curious who people think is a "can't miss star" that the Blazers would even have a chance to get outside of Oden and Durant.


B. Wright and Horford.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> The Admiral in '87, Sean Elliott in '89, and then Tim Duncan almost 10 years later does not equate to "consistent high lottery picks" if you ask me. Meaning they did not build a championship team through two or three consecutive high lottery picks.
> 
> And I saw one person say "there are 3-4 superstar players in this draft." How do you know that? Outside of Oden and Durant, who is "can't miss"?
> 
> ...


So your point is Oden & Durant are the only can't miss stars? That remains to be seen, but if so, it seems like all the more reason for us to lose and increase our chances of getting one of them.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> And I saw one person say "there are 3-4 superstar players in this draft." How do you know that? Outside of Oden and Durant, who is "can't miss"?


Well, it's not really a question of a "can't miss" star (after Oden and Durant). It's a question of fishing in supposedly very talented waters and hoping you do hook a superstar. The higher you pick, the wider the pool of draftees you can select from. When you combine that with a very talented draft pool and hopefully good talent evaluation by Pritchard, we have our last, best chance to acquire that franchise superstar.

Nothing is guaranteed (after Oden and Durant, perhaps), but it would be nice to have the best chance at a franchise player.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Thanks for the tip, "Buck...Williams...for...General...Manager." Your alias just stripped you of your credibility. Love the Buck, but he has zero credentials. So the fact your advocating for him makes me less impressed with your advocacy for perennial ping pongs.


Buck Williams is a very smart guy. He was the head of the players union for a while and he is beloved by all in the Portland area. That counts for something. So he's got more than the zero credentials you gave him.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Bottom line? This is a deep draft, but it's not the 2003 draft that netted Lebron, Carmelo, D-Wade and Bosh.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> -Pop


Were D-Wade and Bosh considered that good going into the draft? I mean you might be able to say the same thing about this draft four years from now. Were they drafter 1-4? I'm just curious BTW.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

mgb said:


> Were D-Wade and Bosh considered that good going into the draft? I mean you might be able to say the same thing about this draft four years from now. Were they drafter 1-4? I'm just curious BTW.


They (James, Anthony, Wade and Bosh) went 1,3,4,5. The second pick was Darko Milicic. Wade and Bosh were considered very good prospects, but not blue chippers. Wade's status rose precipitously with a big NCAA tourney performance. But the draft was considered the Big Three (James, Milicic and Anthony) and then some good prospects.

So it's well within reason that a Horford or a Wright or a Jianlian could break out and be a top superstar in the NBA.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> They (James, Anthony, Wade and Bosh) went 1,3,4,5. The second pick was Darko Milicic. Wade and Bosh were considered very good prospects, but not blue chippers. Wade's status rose precipitously with a big NCAA tourney performance. But the draft was considered the Big Three (James, Milicic and Anthony) and then some good prospects.
> 
> So it's well within reason that a Horford or a Wright or a Jianlian could break out and be a top superstar in the NBA.


Is it also possible that Durant is the next Milicic? (No, I do not think he will be, but if we are making predictions based on that draft- we should do them all the way around).


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

andalusian said:


> Is it also possible that Durant is the next Milicic? (No, I do not think he will be, but if we are making predictions based on that draft- we should do them all the way around).


I'm not making one-for-one predictions, nor am I simply using that draft. Throughout draft history, superstars have been picked up outside the top three. All players like Wade, Bosh, Dirk, etc, show is that just because a player isn't acclaimed as a "can't miss" superstar doesn't mean he won't be one. There's a perfectly good chance that someone outside the "acclaimed two" of this draft will develop into a franchise player.

Also, Milicic is the only player I can recall scouts being unanimous about who failed. Other players that were pretty unanimously considered special players, like Ewing, Robinson, Duncan, Yao, James, Anthony, etc, panned out. So could Durant bust? Yes. But chances are he won't.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I know and I agree - I was just being silly. There is a chance there will be more than 2 superstars in this draft. For all we know - there might be one picked 27 in last year's draft...


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

There's also the point that, now that he's out of Detroit, Milicic may yet turn into a decent player. Granted, probably not near the player that the other four are but he may at least avoid a total flame-out.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> There's also the point that, now that he's out of Detroit, Milicic may yet turn into a decent player. Granted, probably not near the player that the other four are but he may at least avoid a total flame-out.



Darko sorta gets a bum wrap. He plays 24 minutes per game, and gets 8 and 5.5 along with almost 2 blocks per game. He also shoots a decent % from the field. He's not even close to the focal point of the offense either. Push those totals out to 40 minutes per game and make him the focal point and his numbers would be very good.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Darko sorta gets a bum wrap. He plays 24 minutes per game, and gets 8 and 5.5 along with almost 2 blocks per game. He also shoots a decent % from the field. He's not even close to the focal point of the offense either. Push those totals out to 40 minutes per game and make him the focal point and his numbers would be very good.


No, he still isn't very good.

He has improved for sure, going from awful to passable. He has a long way to go. PER (which adjusts for minutes played and pace) has Darko at 13.6 for this season. 15.0 is the average for all players.

Darko could be a valuable (non-star) big in the NBA with those numbers IF he can become an above average defender, which he currently is not, blocks aside.
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/Magic.htm

For comparison, our rookie big, also selected #2 in what was widely derided as a weak draft, 17.3.
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/Blazers.htm


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Masbee said:


> No, he still isn't very good.
> 
> He has improved for sure, going from awful to passable. He has a long way to go. PER (which adjusts for minutes played and pace) has Darko at 13.6 for this season. 15.0 is the average for all players.
> 
> ...


All of which tends to prove that good scouting/evaluation is at least as important as draft position.

Of course, Roy is an even better example.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

It's always sad when the person who starts the thread can't even come up with counterpoints to the critics of his own ideas...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

darko is still young and improving bigs take longer.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

And we beat the Rockets tonight to make a bad situation worse. We're now tied with the Knicks for the 10th spot. 2 meaningless wins have taken us from the 5th spot to the 10th spot. How depressing.


----------

