# KP's Only Mistake



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

I think it may have been a mistake to trade Arthur. He's a top 5 pick SF that could have been a very vlauable player for us.

Outlaw has asthma and while I like his hops, his basketball IQ just doesn't seem to be there. Add to that, if Webster doesn't fully pan out this year I think his time will be over. And in either of those two scenarios, Arthur could have stepped right in.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

He was very valuable to KP. He helped get one of the guys he wanted. i don't know if I would call it a mistake just yet. Plus would this have been a trade that happened before the draft that (just like Bird) he couldn't have known Arthur would have been there? Plus look what he did before that trade over the last few drafts does he get a pass on one?


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Good point. Calling it a "mistake" is a bit harsh. Perhaps it may be better called a possible lack of best judgment.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

only time will tell my friend... 

Batum (if i remember right from what I read on here) is who he wanted and that is who he got. We don't really know the details on the trade just yet but I'm guessing it came down eariler then the pick and he might not have known Arthur would be there. He must have known (and possible pritch-slapped) the spurs were going to take Batum so he had to act. But more importantly we got JB.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I think this trade was set up and agreed upon before Houston made their selection at 25. If Pritchard had not agreed to pick and trade Arthur at 27 (if available), then Houston probably would have taken him and just dealt with the third team themselves.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Yes, I'm afraid Pritchard got "Pritch-slapped" himself on this one. It's exactly what happened to Bird with the Bayless pick. Pritchard could not have possibly known that Arthur was going to still be available at 27, but by the time the 27th pick rolled around the deal with Houston was already in place. In fact, I'm sure that Houston told us to pick Arthur. 

This is one we may regret, depending on how Batum works out. But having Arthur and Dorsey sure would have been nice.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Arthur has PF skills in a SF body. Batum has SF skills in a SF body. Batum > Arthur.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

In KP I trust.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jul 1, 2005)

Only time will tell. We will have to revisit this trade 3-4 years from now. Batum has high bust potential, but he is young and might develop quickly with the coaching he will receive here.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Here's why it's not a mistake.

First, Ed. O.'s point about how we couldn't have GOT Arthur unless we'd already made a deal with Houston. They only picked Batum to trade. If there was no trade, they would (probably) have picked Arthur. (And then San Antonio, despite what they apparently now say, would have taken Batum, and we would have had neither.)

Now, the only way to get Arthur in this scenario would be to promise a trade with Houston and then renege. Dangerous. That could get you blacklisted among GMs.

Therefore: not a mistake.

(Of course, the real problem was Houston being greedy. They wanted Greene, they should've just TAKEN him. But given that they also got Dorsey, who seems to have easily first round talent, and they can pay Greene less because he was picked lower, you can't argue with that.)


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Arthur isn't going to Houston, he's headed to Memphis for Donte Green anyway.

This next year I've got no doubt that this trade will look bad for the Blazers. Arthur is probably good enough to start for the Grizzlies at the PF or at the very least get significant playing time, while Batum won't see anything but D-League/garbage minutes unless 2 of Roy/Rudy/Martell/Outlaw are injured. 

I don't like this trade overall for us, but I will at least reserve judgement for 3-4 years from now given the situation. Batum is young and was projected as being a top 10 at points throughout the year, it's all a matter of development with him and we won't see that on court, whereas Arthur should produce right away.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

arthur is pf in my eyes


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

How can it be a mistake? It seems fairly obvious that Portland only drafted Arthur because Houston ALLOWED them too.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

meru said:


> First, Ed. O.'s point about how we couldn't have GOT Arthur unless we'd already made a deal with Houston. They only picked Batum to trade. If there was no trade, they would (probably) have picked Arthur. (And then San Antonio, despite what they apparently now say, would have taken Batum, and we would have had neither.)


That's a lot of speculation. Arthur had already slid a long ways, and he might have kept sliding right to us at #27. Not sure the Spurs would have taken Batum, either, if press reports can be believed. Let's face it. Pritchard got some of his own medicine on this one. He never even imagined that Arthur would still be around at #27, or even #26 or #25.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Dan said:


> In KP I trust.


:clap:

 IN KP WE TRUST

:cheers:


----------



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

I'd say it's too early to tell. Neither guy has played in the NBA yet. Arthur is more NBA-ready than Batum but he played PF in college and is projected as an undersized PF in the NBA. Even if he is able to become a SF in the NBA, his lack of ballhandling skills, lack of range on his shot, and his poor decision making don't make it sound like he'll become the kind of SF the Blazers need. If you read the strengths and weaknesses on his draftexpress profile, skill wise he sounds like an awful lot like like Darius Miles. Of course, Miles was a top 3 pick, and when healthy could be counted on to play like a top 3 pick about once every 4 or 5 games.

Dorsey is an undersized banger with no offensive game and zero upside. Not a bad enforcer type to have on the bench to come in and deliver an occasional hard foul, but with Oden, Aldridge, Przybilla, Frye and potentially Diogu in front of him in the rotation, he would see almost zero PT - if he even made the team.

I'm not sold on Batum. Only time will tell. He has great upside, but I'm not usually an upside kind of guy. Drafting based on upside gets you Andreas Bargnani and Nikoloz Tskitishvili. Of course, those guys were taken 1st and 5th. When you wiff on a pick that high it's a major setback. All Batum costs us was $3M of Paul Allen's money and a 2nd round pick. If he's a bust, at least the trade won't set the team back like a blown top 5 pick would.

BNM


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Tough call. I think both players slid well beyond where they should have gone due to last minute health scares that appeared to be false.

I like Arthur better as a prospect, but I'm just not sure he would have ever seen the floor in Portland, and Batum is probably going to be a pine jockey for a couple of years with intermittent minutes at best.

It will be interesting to see what shakes out in a few years, right now I'd call it a wash, with the potential to look like a miss by Pritchard.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

TLo said:


> Arthur has PF skills in a SF body. Batum has SF skills in a SF body. Batum > Arthur.


Exactly. Arthur is an undersized PF.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

In Blazer Prophet we ... lets be honest, you haven't exactly shown good basketball judgment according to your posts. 

In KP we trust.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Actually I still believe passing on CDR when he had slid really far, and Mario Chalmers both, was a big mistake. NJ cleaned up like a stray dog collecting the good scraps falling off the dinner table.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

KP is like Chuck Norris, he doesnt make mistakes!

Remove Chuck's name from these and add KP... and get a good laugh. :biggrin:



> When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
> 
> When Chuck Norris sends in his taxes, he sends blank forms and includes only a picture of himself, crouched and ready to attack. Chuck Norris has not had to pay taxes ever.
> 
> ...


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Batum's talented AND we can stash him in Europe for the future instead of having to pay and play him this year. I think that was a big factor in KP's decision-making process.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> Tough call. I think both players slid well beyond where they should have gone due to last minute health scares that appeared to be false.


You just reminded me of Bill Simmons's best line from his draft diar:



> Should we really worry about Darrell Arthur's kidneys when we just sent Michael Beasley's liver to South Beach?


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

When the Larry Bird goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Kevin Pritchard.

:clap2:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Yes with Aldridge, Frye, & Diogu we clearly needed another PF.....
:krazy:

Not to mention Outlaw's ability to slide to PF or Raef for that matter, or Freeland, who is still hoping for a roster spot...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Yes with Aldridge, Frye, & Diogu we clearly needed another PF.....
> :crazy:
> 
> Not to mention Outlaw's ability to slide to PF or Raef for that matter, or Freeland, who is still hoping for a roster spot...


Actually I absolutely hate it when Outlaw "slides" to PF, because he does not do a good job of anything but scoring.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

We never had Arthur. Pritchard cut the deal, and convinced Houston to play along, in order to get Batum. If he hadn't, both Arthur and Batum would have been gone (clearly Houston liked Arthur, since they dealt for him and San Antonio has been known to covet Batum for a long time). So Arthur was never, and could never have been, Pritchard's to deal. Pritchard's deal-making simply left San Antonio out in the cold.

The second point is that it is very arguable whom the better prospect is. Both have been talked about as lottery talents. Batum actually fits Portland's roster better. Some experts consider him to be a better prospect than Gallinari, who went in the lottery.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think you are confusing Arthur with Anthony Randolph... Arthur is neither a SF nor a top 5 pick talent.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

We NEVER had Arthur. 

Houston was going to pick him at 25 unless we promised to take him at 27 and trade them Arthur AND someone else to give them an incentive to take Batum at 25 so San Antonio wouldn't take him ahead of us.

So, in reality, KP was a genious with this move, imo. If he truly was high on Batum and wanted him. 

Best GM in the NBA hands down!


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

All things being equal, I would have rather had Arthur than Batum- assuming we weren't committed to trading him when we picked him.

That said, i'll have to assume that either 1) we weren't free to keep him or 2) Batum looked very good when we worked him out.

I don't think position really matters when we're talking about players that would either be 3rd string SF or PF. 

Hopefully Batum develops quickly enough to become our backup small forward- so that we're free to trade either Webster or Outlaw for our veteran piece next year.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Balian said:


> In Blazer Prophet we ... lets be honest, you haven't exactly shown good basketball judgment according to your posts.
> 
> In KP we trust.



Ouch! That's an uncalled for insult. But I;ve learned on message boards to take cheap shots from classless posters. It comes with the territory.


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

valuable as in assets not players because he wouldn't get minutes pass webster/outlaw


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

You have to realize that SAS was planning on taking him, and that's a good sign he'll be ok. SAS has a good track record of picking the right international players to invest in.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

When did Darrel Arthur become this surefire prospect? When ESPN showed him waiting in the green room? What makes him anything more than an undersized version of Frye?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> Ouch! That's an uncalled for insult. But I;ve learned on message boards to take cheap shots from classless posters. It comes with the territory.


Yeah. That seemed not only rude but... random.

We all have opinions and predictions that turn out to be wrong, but I (for one) never thought you were any worse than the rest of us, BP 

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I have higher expectations for BP because after all . . . he is a prophet. :biggrin:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Why is everyone so enamored with Arthur? He's a 6'6" PF in a SF's body. He's not really great at doing anything in particular and he's not an upgrade over any of the PF's we currently have, even including Diogu.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> Ouch! That's an uncalled for insult. But I;ve learned on message boards to take cheap shots from classless posters. It comes with the territory.


I don't know, kind of a drop in the bucket insult. Considering you acted as though you have "people in the know", who have insider information. Nothing specific, just information that there was a trade in the works. Well duh! If you were seeking attention fine, but you've made a couple of "in the know" type predictions that were either blatantly obvious or just wrong.

Not to lay it on to hard on you BP, but I get a kick out of the people who say they have some kind of insider information on something and yet 95% of the time its malarkey.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Why is everyone so enamored with Arthur? He's a 6'6" PF in a SF's body. He's not really great at doing anything in particular and he's not an upgrade over any of the PF's we currently have, even including Diogu.


I have inside information that Arthur is really 6-10 and ready to kick *** in the NBA. :biggrin:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Why is everyone so enamored with Arthur? He's a 6'6" PF in a SF's body. He's not really great at doing anything in particular and he's not an upgrade over any of the PF's we currently have, even including Diogu.


Let's see: he rebounds above his size, works hard at both ends, runs the floor well, and needs only modest improvement on his jumper to play SF. 

IMHO, there is a 50/50 chance he winds up a better SF than Outlaw, Webster, or Batum. Of course, that means there is a 50/50 chance he winds up an undersized backup at PF. Substantial risk....but potentially a nice reward for the 27th pick!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Let's see: he rebounds above his size, works hard at both ends, runs the floor well, and needs only modest improvement on his jumper to play SF.
> 
> IMHO, there is a 50/50 chance he winds up a better SF than Outlaw, Webster, or Batum. Of course, that means there is a 50/50 chance he winds up an undersized backup at PF. Substantial risk....but potentially a nice reward for the 27th pick!


He doesn't have any SF skills. He's too slow, doesn't have any kind of ball-handling abilities and has no range to his shot. There's nothing about his game that makes me think that he could make the switch to SF. 

There's a reason why he fell to 27. It didn't have to do with his liver or whatever, in which blood tests came back negative. It was because he's the definition of a tweener, with no real skills to play the 3 and not big enough to play the 4.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Yea, i don't see him as a SF at all. Definitely an undersized PF.. which can still work for him though.

But yea, either way, we couldn't have gotten him anyway.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Darrell Arthur reminds me of the Antawn Jamison SF/PF type.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

B-Roy said:


> Darrell Arthur reminds me of the Antawn Jamison SF/PF type.


Antawn Jamison was a 22 and 10 guy in college with a much more diversified skill set.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

hasoos said:


> Actually I absolutely hate it when Outlaw "slides" to PF, because he does not do a good job of anything but scoring.



He defends finesse forwards like Dirk very well too. I like Outlaw at PF. My only issue is his defensive rebounding.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

From articles and ratings, I surmise that many experts like Arthur, and few prefer Batum. Pritchard picked him out, praised him, and targeted him. He says that's his method, rather than picking the best player available. That's why John Nash picked Telfair.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

The skeptics among us may not believe him, but Pritchard _has_ now explained it in interviews that, as Ed and others said, Arthur never really was the Blazers' -- had the deal not already been in place, neither Arthur nor Batum would have been there when the Blazers made their pick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hector said:


> From articles and ratings, I surmise that many experts like Arthur, and few prefer Batum. Pritchard picked him out, praised him, and targeted him. He says that's his method, rather than picking the best player available. That's why John Nash picked Telfair.


What?

Nash was notorious for targeting and selecting someone well ahead of time, irrespective of BPA. That led to Telfair and then Webster... 

Pritchard, on the other hand, has said he selects with BPA in mind. I think that the team just likes Batum more than Arthur.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hector said:


> From articles and ratings, I surmise that many experts like Arthur, and few prefer Batum. Pritchard picked him out, praised him, and targeted him. He says that's his method, rather than picking the best player available.


No, Pritchard selects BPA based on his own ratings, not BPA based on mock drafts. That's exactly what a GM should do. For poor GMs, it leads to Telfair and Webster. For good GMs, it leads to Aldridge and Roy.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

A week ago I read that Pritchard said his method is different from most, that he targets a player instead of drafting the best player available. To find that post and show it here, I think I'll type "target" into the search field.

http://www.basketballforum.com/search.php

Aaaaggghhhh!!! You can't search anymore!!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Hector said:


> A week ago I read that Pritchard said his method is different from most, that he targets a player instead of drafting the best player available.


As I recall it, it's more like he targets the BPA. He's talked a lot about the dangers of picking for need rather than BPA, especially at the top of the draft. He's also talked some about using the end of the draft to cover needs. Obviously, it's ideal when your BPA also happens to fill a position of need, as seems to have been the case with Bayless.

Edit: And as Minstrel says, Pritchard picks his target from his own rankings, not some publically agreed upon list.


----------

