# Dare I say it... do we trade Telfair?



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

one of the options might just be to keep Chris Paul and trade off Telfair...

I do enjoy Sebastian a lot...

but sorry I just do not buy the fact that Milwaukee will not take Bogut, or that the Hawaks will not take Wiliams, thus leaving Chris Paul

Is Paul better or worse than Telfair? Do we keep both?

What can we gain my keepig both 5'-11" tall PG's..... competition at a position is a good thing... but in this case it seems like a waste of a very high pick...

I am sure there are other options, but it seems the consensus is to take the big three in the top 3... do we dare take another? or ?


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Maybe there is another player the Blazers are thinking of going for at #3.


----------



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

my vote would be to trade telfair and keep paul, but its tough to tell without hearing what the offers are...maybe we could get way more for the 3rd pick than telfair?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> one of the options might just be to keep Chris Paul and trade off Telfair...
> 
> I do enjoy Sebastian a lot...
> 
> ...


If Williams and Bogut are gone at our turn, we should just take Green OR draft Paul and trade him for the rights of Green and cash considerations and or a future pick. Telfair is way to valuable and I think he is a much better prospect than Paul. Just my opinion...


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

my dad says its still green i hope so


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

um, no. 

why don't we not give up on a player just because of another flavor of the month?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

so say it goes as I say... Bogut goes #1, Williams #2

what do we do with Telfair and Paul at PG Hap?

both short, both apparently will have good careers in the league

I guess we can play both 24 mins a game. I am not worldy on their talents, but it seems neither can switch to SG and score decently (volume shooting not allowed )

I guess that would give us good depth at the PG spot, but we may have to break it up a few years down the road if they both demand the time... so why not do it while the iron is hot... now?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> so say it goes as I say... Bogut goes #1, Williams #2
> 
> what do we do with Telfiar and Paul at PG Hap?
> 
> ...


you trade Paul.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I think Paul is overrated. And Telfair may be underrated. So I would definitely deal Paul. He'd bring back the most value, and I still think Telfair will be the better player.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> you trade Paul.


Exactly. 

Telfair is proven, at least to a certain extent. If it comes down to Paul at #3, we trade him + somebody for a SG.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

If it comes down to Paul or trading the pick then you either trade down and draft green, or draft him at #3. 

John Nash was on the FAN earlier tonight and was asked a question about how the teams strategies might change now. He said that the player they liked at 5 will be there at 3. This leads me to believe the team likes Gerald Green.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

No Thanks. :biggrin:


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

You people are crazy! Telfair is proven!? Yeah right, Chris Paul is a much better player than Telfair. There is a reason Paul is going to be picked top 5 and Telfair was picked 13 by the Blazers, which even then was a reach! Paul and Telfair are born one month apart from each other so I don't think age is a concern. As for Telfair having NBA experience, I think that really doesn't matter. Chris Paul is a much better shooter than Telfair will ever dream of becoming. If Telfair and Paul both went 4 years in college, there is no doubt in my mind that Paul would have separated himself from Telfair. I believe Marvin Williams is the best player in the draft followed by Pual, so if Williams is gone we pick Paul unless we trade the pick! Bogut is overrated IMO. He didn't played against good competition and whoever picks him will be making a big mistake. I really hope that the Bucks are dumb enough to take Bogut and the Hawks take Paul because they need a PG. That would leave us with Marvin Williams, he will be ROY if he gets playing time, we need to trade Darius Miles, I'm tired of his act!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Absolutely rediculous. Telfair has great leadership qualities, is YOUNG, lighting quick, played GREAT when he got the green light AND YOU WANT TO TRADE HIM?

Absolutely not. 

If Williams is gone, draft Green at #3. End of story.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

So we draft another HS player?! If Williams and Paul are gone by our pick then we trade the pick! I don't want to keep bringing this up but Chris Paul is much much much better than Telfair, Telfair gets the hype because he's Marvury's cousin and is from NY!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> So we draft another HS player?! If Williams and Paul are gone by our pick then we trade the pick! I don't want to keep bringing this up but Chris Paul is much much much better than Telfair, Telfair gets the hype because he's Marvury's cousin and is from NY!


or he gets it because he's actually that good.

You'll notice that Zach Marbury doesn't get the hype.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

SolidGuy3 said:


> So we draft another HS player?! If Williams and Paul are gone by our pick then we trade the pick! I don't want to keep bringing this up but Chris Paul is much much much better than Telfair, Telfair gets the hype because he's Marvury's cousin and is from NY!


He played VERY solid for us last season and will only get better. IF we compare Telfair in 3 years to what Paul is RIGHT now, it'll be a fair comparison....

I don't mind drafting HS players because right now we have a YOUNG and EXCITING team.

Our main focus is to solidify the SG spot. I think Gerald Green is probably the top prospect at that position, so I would draft him. If Williams was available, I would probably take him though since either him or outlaw can go at the 2-spot. 

I just think its rediculous to draft a PG when we already have a young, competent, motivated PG with leadership qualities, who has a few years to mature still in terms of his game....


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Trade Telfair.....no thanks.I would take Bassy over anyone in this draft,so trading him in favor of Paul is laughable imo.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Remember that we used a first round draft pikck on a SG last year! We haven't even given Monya a chance! Monya was picked ahead of Khryapa for a reason, he's better than him. He need to give Monya a chance. I think Monya can be a Ginobili type player in the league.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Remember that we used a first round draft pikck on a SG last year! We haven't even given Monya a chance! Monya was picked ahead of Khryapa for a reason, he's better than him. He need to give Monya a chance. I think Monya can be a Ginobili type player in the league.


um...viktor was drafted before monia.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Remember that we used a first round draft pikck on a SG last year! We haven't even given Monya a chance! Monya was picked ahead of Khryapa for a reason, he's better than him. He need to give Monya a chance. I think Monya can be a Ginobili type player in the league.


Uh.... :whofarted: We had BACK TO BACK PICKS! Saying theres a reason one was drafted higher then the other is a total moot point when they went back to back to the same damn team.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Remember that we used a first round draft pikck on a SG last year! We haven't even given Monya a chance! Monya was picked ahead of Khryapa for a reason, he's better than him. He need to give Monya a chance. I think Monya can be a Ginobili type player in the league.


As do I, but apparantly he is still a bit raw...i'd like to see him backup at the SG spot for a while....him and Khryapa as our backup 2/3's for whoever is starting....not a bad thing...

All I can say is THE BLAZERS ROCK!!!!!

I am SO excited for this young core of players we have!!!!


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Well, Portland has the #22 and #23 picks so it was a toss up. Monya can be our SG of the future. Most people had him ahead of Khryapa.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Well, Portland has the #22 and #23 picks so it was a toss up. Monya can be our SG of the future. Most people had him ahead of Khryapa.


I think this year, Monya will basically will have the Role we THOUGHT Richie Frahm could have taken...sporadic minutes, hit some long distance shots, relieve the starting SGs, etc...

But I hope he's going to be great..he's still like 19 or 20....we have to be patient..


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Anyways, I don't think the Blazers would select Green. Nash is on the hot seat and needs to improve our teams record and try to contend for the playoffs in a year or two. He was quoted as sayiing that Green was a small forward and not a shooting guard.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Xericx said:


> I think this year, Monya will basically will have the Role we THOUGHT Richie Frahm could have taken...sporadic minutes, hit some long distance shots, relieve the starting SGs, etc...
> 
> But I hope he's going to be great..he's still like 19 or 20....we have to be patient..


Actually Monya is 22. He's like a 4 year senior.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Actually Monya is 22. He's like a 4 year senior.


Touche'

http://nbadraft.net/profiles/sergeimonya.asp

:clown:


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

Draft paul and keep him. You can always trade telfair or paul before the deadline. take the best player possible. I think we will get Williams ATL needs a PG or a Center not a SF so does Mil.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

BlazerFanFoLife said:


> Draft paul and keep him. You can always trade telfair or paul before the deadline. take the best player possible. I think we will get Williams ATL needs a PG or a Center not a SF so does Mil.


Uggh...I DON'T Want to see anymore 2 PG backcourts EVER!!!!

:curse:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If Paul is the best available player, you draft him. You can trade him to somebody (say, Utah) for a slightly lower pick and some extra goodies. If that doesn't pan put, keep him around to compete with Telfair. If they both turn out to be studs, you can always make a deal down the road.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> If Paul is the best available player, you draft him. You can trade him to somebody (say, Utah) for a slightly lower pick and some extra goodies. If that doesn't pan put, keep him around to compete with Telfair. If they both turn out to be studs, you can always make a deal down the road.


I don't like it...it will mess up the chemistry....personally, I have the utmost confidence in Telfair, from what I've seen...he seems like his head is on straight, and I don't think we need him to be trying to fight Chris Paul for the starting PG spot...

Green appears to be very good with a high ceiling...and if Marvin Williams were available...we should take it. 

Right now, we have so much young talent, I think we just need to start filling holes, and our most obvious one is the starting SG spot. We absolutley need a SG.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Anyways, I don't think the Blazers would select Green. Nash is on the hot seat and needs to improve our teams record and try to contend for the playoffs in a year or two. He was quoted as sayiing that Green was a small forward and not a shooting guard.


I'm not sure that the Blazers just picking up the option to keep him for 1 more year really qualifies as being on the hot seat. That said, believe almost none of what GM's say at this time of year.

I'm really hoping we have the chance to take Williams at #3 if he isn't there I wouldn't be opposed to taking Green at #3.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

Also watch out for Deron he has lost 20 pounds and is looking to sneek into the top 3.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If we were to make a deal, trading with the Bobcats for the 5th and 13th picks would not be bad.......assuming that Bogut and Williams are gone at #3.

It would stave off any controversy over drafting Paul, we would still have a shot at Green, and some solid players will still be around at 13.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> If we were to make a deal, trading with the Bobcats for the 5th and 13th picks would not be bad.......assuming that Bogut and Williams are gone at #3.
> 
> It would stave off any controversy over drafting Paul, we would still have a shot at Green, and some solid players will still be around at 13.


I would think that even if Paul was on the board, Green would be gone by #5...the Hornets need a SF type player that can help carry their franchise...perhaps green maybe too similar to JR Smith? Who knows....they DO need PG help too, but Dickau and Speedy were competent last year...Dickau did GREAT.

http://www.nba.com/hornets/roster/index.html


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

if the team trades Telfair, it makes the team look even shakier than before. They've basically ridden this kid's potential, given him the keys, and now they trade him for a PG who might be as good as him?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

IF POR traded the #3 (Paul) for the #5 and #13, then they better be prepared to answer whom they are going to draft if Gerald Green is gone, and chances are likely that he would be, and you cannot gurantee Green at the time you trade the pick, for if you make a contingent trade then NO selects Green, then you are left with Chris Paul....

But I am not entirely convinced that POR is as high on Green as many here are....Perhaps it is the other HS player....Martell Webster, whom POR rates higher? or another player we haven't even thought of...who really knows?


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Nash loves Telfair. I can't imagine him drafting Paul now unless it's to trade him immediately.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

What we SHOULD do is stop speculating. (Of course, that would kind of destroy the point of the board.) Who knows whether or not a player's stock will suddenly rise, a la Luke Jackson last year? Green obviously needs to be worked out, same with Deron Williams. If it looks like Green is ranked above Paul, then taking Green makes sense. If we WANT Green, taking him always makes sense - it's just a question of whether or not we can get something extra as well by swapping picks. But if things stay as they are, I say take Paul. He's not "flavour of the month" to use Hap's phrase, he's proved himself over at least the last two years, and he was a better high school player than either Green or Telfair (I believe, although if someone wants to prove me wrong, go ahead). We can trade him later, as OldManGrouch said.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I definitely think that some workouts will help this matter out tremendously. As for how it stands now, if Marvin Williams is there, take him and see what he can do and respond accordingly. Outlaw, Miles and Khryapa are talented enough to draw trade interest and versatile enough to accomodate Williams for playing time.

As who to pick if both Bogut and Williams are gone... It's still hard for me to say. See how Green's workouts go and maybe take a chance on him if he shows flashes of brilliance. But as it stands, we absolutely do not trade Telfair in some blockbuster on draft night if it means taking Chris Paul with the 3rd pick (unless it nets us an unrealistic player like Dwyane Wade or Amare Stoudemire). Telfair showed that he has a promising future ahead of him while Paul is an unproven player at the NBA level.

The beauty of it all is that I'd much rather be in this predicament than having the 5th or 6th pick in the draft. Yeah, baby!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> IF POR traded the #3 (Paul) for the #5 and #13, then they better be prepared to answer whom they are going to draft if Gerald Green is gone, and chances are likely that he would be, and you cannot gurantee Green at the time you trade the pick, for if you make a contingent trade then NO selects Green, then you are left with Chris Paul....


Green will not be gone by the 5th pick.....I'm not sure why you think he will be....Nobody regards him as a top 5 pick except for that moron Chad Ford....Green will go #5 to Charlotte......We'll take either Marvin Williams or Chris Paul and probably end up trading the pick....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

If the Blazers aren't looking at what they can get for Telfair, then they're foolish. If they trade Telfair without a good reason, obviously they're foolish, as well.

The same way they should have gotten an idea of what Zach was worth before they signed him to the massive deal, they should be seeing just what teams around the NBA would be willing to give them for Telfair.

Chris Paul is a better prospect than Telfair was and is, but Sebastian has earned a place in the organization and the transaction costs of moving him seem like they'd be higher than moving the pick for Chris Paul... with that being said, if Paul's there at 3, and if the Blazers think that Paul is head and shoulders above Telfair in the intermediate-long run, and/or if they could get superior value for Telfair than they could for Paul, then I think that the Blazers should look to grab Chris Paul.

From the Olive blog (before the order was announced):



> Prichard says you hit a home run with guys like Bogut or Paul, and if that caliber of player is available to the team, they'll take him regardless of position.


Now, taking and keeping aren't the same thing, but I find it hard to believe that Portland would pass on any of these three guys with their pick to select Green or anyone else.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> If the Blazers aren't looking at what they can get for Telfair, then they're foolish. If they trade Telfair without a good reason, obviously they're foolish, as well.
> 
> The same way they should have gotten an idea of what Zach was worth before they signed him to the massive deal, they should be seeing just what teams around the NBA would be willing to give them for Telfair.
> 
> ...


I have to agree with Ed, although I will say that I think Deron Williams will be better than either Paul or Telfair.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

why are we working out all of these point gaurds? or short shooting gaurds?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Now, taking and keeping aren't the same thing, but I find it hard to believe that Portland would pass on any of these three guys with their pick to select Green


Why? Green seems to be the same caliber of talent...both he and Paul were the top-ranked high schoolers at their position. Plus, Green merges that ability with prototypical size, while Paul doesn't. That makes a difference in the pro game (had Telfair been 6'4''-6'6'', I'm sure he'd have gone much higher).

I can easily see a team passing on Paul to take Green. Green seems like the sort of high schooler that tends to pan out at star/superstar level. He's not a project with marginal skills, like Outlaw.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Why? Green seems to be the same caliber of talent...both he and Paul were the top-ranked high schoolers at their position. Plus, Green merges that ability with prototypical size, while Paul doesn't. That makes a difference in the pro game (had Telfair been 6'4''-6'6'', I'm sure he'd have gone much higher).


A couple of reasons, off the top of my head:

1. Paul plays a position of scarcity. A very good PG is less common than a very good swing man.

2. Paul has succeeded in spite of being young for his class. Green is only about 8 months younger than Paul, but Chris has put in two years at the highest level of college basketball. 

Further, and most importantly, Green hasn't been considered in the elite level of NBA prospects for any considerable amount of time. Paul has been.

It's possible that everyone's missed the boat on Green, and he's all of a sudden one of the top 3 prospects, but I find it much more likely that he's being overhyped by some because he's an incredible athlete, a great dunker, and a good three point shooter--all of the things that lead to hype.

I'm not saying that Green is ALL hype or that there's no way he's a mid-level lottery pick... I just don't believe he's worthy of a top-3 selection when Bogut, Williams, and Paul are in the draft.



> I can easily see a team passing on Paul to take Green. Green seems like the sort of high schooler that tends to pan out at star/superstar level. He's not a project with marginal skills, like Outlaw.


I guess we just disagree here on the level of Paul as a prospect. I haven't read anything that deviates much from ranking Paul as one of the best PGs to come along in the past decade or so.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> A couple of reasons, off the top of my head:
> 
> 1. Paul plays a position of scarcity. A very good PG is less common than a very good swing man.


and we have a good PG (who has as much of a shot at being a "very good PG" as Paul does) already. And we don't really have a very good swing man/SG.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

You take the best available player, you don't draft to fill positions.....Us Blazer fans should know that by now...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> and we have a good PG (who has as much of a shot at being a "very good PG" as Paul does) already. And we don't really have a very good swing man/SG.


I know you hate this comparison, but the same thinking led us to take Bowie over Jordan... the team should take the best player, IMO, irrespective of need. That doesn't mean they need to KEEP that player, but they should take him and get full value for the pick, rather than settling on an inferior prospect.

Getting back to the PGs: I'm not sure that Telfair is the same caliber or player or prospect that Paul is. (Or, to be honest, vice versa.)

Scouts and teams seem to be much more sold on Paul than they were on Telfair, and IF Portland considers Paul a better prospect and IF Portland can get good value for Telfair, then they should consider moving Sebastian.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I know you hate this comparison, but the same thinking led us to take Bowie over Jordan... the team should take the best player, IMO, irrespective of need. That doesn't mean they need to KEEP that player, but they should take him and get full value for the pick, rather than settling on an inferior prospect.


I hate that comparison because it's old, stupid and inaccurate.

for starters, no one knew Jordan would be Jordan, so to continually trump that out is retarded. 

secondly, Jordan and Drexler could play 2 positions each. Paul and Telfair can only play 1.

and thirdly, Im sure if someone looked hard enough, they could find cases where a team took a player out of need over a player who's "better" and it (god forbid) didn't bite them in the ***.



> Getting back to the PGs: I'm not sure that Telfair is the same caliber or player or prospect that Paul is. (Or, to be honest, vice versa.)
> 
> Scouts and teams seem to be much more sold on Paul than they were on Telfair, and IF Portland considers Paul a better prospect and IF Portland can get good value for Telfair, then they should consider moving Sebastian.
> 
> Ed O.


or if they consider green a better prospect, they should just take him. If paul is such a great prospect, the 1st or 2nd pick should get him them.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Nobody regards him as a top 5 pick except for that moron Chad Ford....Green will go #5 to Charlotte......


Let's see besides Chad Ford....

DraftCity...About.Com....NBAWire...

Not sure what you are talking about here......I think your letting your personal bias against Green affect your opinion. Still trying to figure out, WHY it is you don't like him.

Also I don't see who NO would prefer to put next to JR Smith other than Green. Those two would make a nice SG\SF duo....Maybe Deron Williams I guess, but I doubt they will pass up on the upside of Green.



> I guess we just disagree here on the level of Paul as a prospect. I haven't read anything that deviates much from ranking Paul as one of the best PGs to come along in the past decade or so.


Which makes it surprising why ATL, which has Tony Delk and Tyronn LUe as its current PG's would dismiss Paul and select Williams instead.....

If they do, I look forward to seeing how they work out playing time in that mess of Sg\SF\PF they have going there.....


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> I hate that comparison because it's old, stupid and inaccurate.
> 
> for starters, no one knew Jordan would be Jordan, so to continually trump that out is retarded.


Actually *I knew* Jordan would be Jordan.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> DraftCity...About.Com....NBAWire...


Draftcity is somewhat respectable, but they are smart enough to realize that Portland won't take him at #3, but don't realize that New Orleans just picked JR Smith (who plays the same position) last year.....

About.com?.............the name speaks for itself......

NBAwire..................never even knew there was such place.....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I hate that comparison because it's old, stupid and inaccurate.


You hate it, but not because it's old, stupid, nor inaccurate. It's a bit old but it's totally appropriate and neither stupid nor inaccurate.



> for starters, no one knew Jordan would be Jordan, so to continually trump that out is retarded.


He didn't HAVE to be Jordan. He could have been "only" a multiple-time all-star and it would have been stupid to pass on him for anyone other than Akeem.

He'd hit the championship-winning shot as a freshman. He'd won the Sporting News College Player of the Year award as both a sophomore AND a junior, and his junior year he also won the Wooden and Naismith awards. He was coming off of a gold medal performance for the US Olympic team.

Anyone who accurately recalls the draft broadcast (and I do, since I have watched it in the last year) knows that it was Jordan who the announcers were hyping and considering to be THE special player of the draft... which is remarkable, considering how good Akeem was in college.



> secondly, Jordan and Drexler could play 2 positions each. Paul and Telfair can only play 1.


I don't see how that matters in the least. I don't care whether Jordan and Clyde would or could have played on the floor at the same time or not... the Blazers still passed on Jordan.

If the Blazers pass on a superior player because they want a certain position, especially at the top of the draft like this year, they run the risk of making a similar mistake (even if the odds are absolutely infinitesimal that it will be a Jordan/Bowie level of mistake).



> and thirdly, Im sure if someone looked hard enough, they could find cases where a team took a player out of need over a player who's "better" and it (god forbid) didn't bite them in the ***.


So what? If you put enough monkeys in a room with enough typewriters, eventually you'll get Hamlet. Does that mean that Shakespeare lacked talent?

Or are you saying that which player is "better" doesn't really matter? I can't believe that's your position. Presumably scouts and GMs have opinions that have some correlation to a player's talent.



> or if they consider green a better prospect, they should just take him.


Not necessarily. If they like Green more, then they can trade down and probably still get him.



> If paul is such a great prospect, the 1st or 2nd pick should get him them.


That doesn't add up, Hap. It's entirely possible that Paul is a superior prospect and player to Telfair but he's only the third-best player in the draft. In fact, it's not only possible it's pretty likely.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

ZagsFan - 

Your a knowledgeable poster, but I am curious to why you think that JR Smith and Gerald Green could not co-exist? Heck even our own GM says he thought Green was more as a SF....

What is T-Mac? a SG or a SF?

What is Pierce? a SG or a SF?

What are Joe Johnson or Quentin Richardson? SG's or SF's?

What is Sergei Monia? a SG or a SF?

JR Smith and Gerald Green works a whole lot better as a SG\SF combo than Travis Outlaw & Darius Miles do as some here have suggested.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You hate it, but not because it's old, stupid, nor inaccurate. It's a bit old but it's totally appropriate and neither stupid nor inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't HAVE to be Jordan. He could have been "only" a multiple-time all-star and it would have been stupid to pass on him for anyone other than Akeem.


but at the time, no one knew that he'd be even a multiple time all star. 

of course, bowie was a bad pick regardless of whether or not jordan was, could've been or is jordan.



> He'd hit the championship-winning shot as a freshman. He'd won the Sporting News College Player of the Year award as both a sophomore AND a junior, and his junior year he also won the Wooden and Naismith awards. He was coming off of a gold medal performance for the US Olympic team.


blah blah blah...not sure what this really had to do with how the comparison is pointless.



> Anyone who accurately recalls the draft broadcast (and I do, since I have watched it in the last year) knows that it was Jordan who the announcers were hyping and considering to be THE special player of the draft... which is remarkable, considering how good Akeem was in college.


This isn't about whether or not we should've taken Jordan. It was that Paul and Telfair *isn't* the same as Jordan and Drexler. 

If Paul was 6'5"(ish) and could play PG AND SG, than it'd be the same. But since he can't, it's not.



> I don't see how that matters in the least. I don't care whether Jordan and Clyde would or could have played on the floor at the same time or not... the Blazers still passed on Jordan.


it's not the same scenario.



> If the Blazers pass on a superior player because they want a certain position, especially at the top of the draft like this year, they run the risk of making a similar mistake (even if the odds are absolutely infinitesimal that it will be a Jordan/Bowie level of mistake).


they also run the risk of passing on a player who could end up being better than Paul, because they took the "best player available". Not all "best" are going to be the best. Wade for example. I'd take him over Carmello. 



> tripe snipped





> Not necessarily. If they like Green more, then they can trade down and probably still get him.


just like last year, they could've drafted someone else and "still gotten telfair". If they want Green, they should get green at #3. Why run the risk of not getting the player you want, for the possibility of getting him (maybe) + another pick..when the chances are equally as good they can just buy/trade for another pick?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap doesn't like the comparison because it defeats his argument. Simple as that.

I certainly hope the Blazer *do not * draft Green at #3. I'm becoming more and more sold on Deron Williams. He's the player the Blazers should acquire if Marvin Williams and Bogut are gone.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Which makes it surprising why ATL, which has Tony Delk and Tyronn LUe as its current PG's would dismiss Paul and select Williams instead.....
> 
> If they do, I look forward to seeing how they work out playing time in that mess of Sg\SF\PF they have going there.....


I totally agree, Kmurph. IF the Bucks take Bogut, I think it'll be hard for the Hawks to pass on Paul.

And in that case I'd be ecstatic to get Marvin Williams into a Blazers uniform.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I totally agree, Kmurph. IF the Bucks take Bogut, I think it'll be hard for the Hawks to pass on Paul.
> 
> And in that case I'd be ecstatic to get Marvin Williams into a Blazers uniform.
> 
> Ed O.


I'd be content with that. Infact, I'd prefer that over anything else, assuming Marv shows great things in the work-outs. 

Now, if they take paul, and he's supposed to be "best pg since kidd", that means they can get more for him. So trade him. I mean, it's not like we're being left with Omar Cook.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> but I find it much more likely that he's being overhyped by some because he's an incredible athlete, a great dunker, and a good three point shooter--all of the things that lead to hype.


Yes...but all things that also indicate an incredible talent. A huge guard who's an exceptional athlete, a great slasher and finisher *and* a good shooter? That sounds like an amazing package. Bryant and McGrady didn't even have the shot, entering the league.

It's like saying, "Paul is a great passer and scorer, both things that lead to hype." Yes...but also things that lead to great players.



> I'm not saying that Green is ALL hype or that there's no way he's a mid-level lottery pick... I just don't believe he's worthy of a top-3 selection when Bogut, Williams, and Paul are in the draft.


Yes, but remember...Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady were all also viewed as "not top-three" quality talent. While I'm not necessarily saying Green is the same talent level, I think he absolutely fits the mold of the top-level high school talent that has yet to fail (unless Kwame Brown never gets it together). The ones who have failed were lower first round picks or second round picks.



> I guess we just disagree here on the level of Paul as a prospect. I haven't read anything that deviates much from ranking Paul as one of the best PGs to come along in the past decade or so.


Well, I will admit that when I've seen Paul play, I haven't seen anything that stood out as a "once in a decade" talent. So that factors in here. But I think we disagree more fundamentally on Green's value. I think he's a definite top-five talent...you seem reluctant to even dub him mid-first-round talent.

Paul may be the safer pick, but I think Green is the highest upside talent in the draft outside of Marvin Williams. His size, explosiveness, ability to finish over defense and advanced shot for his age are all extremely positive indicators.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> I'd be content with that. Infact, I'd prefer that over anything else, assuming Marv shows great things in the work-outs.
> 
> Now, if they take paul, and he's supposed to be "best pg since kidd", that means they can get more for him. So trade him. I mean, it's not like we're being left with Omar Cook.



True. I believe Omar Cook is taller than Telfair.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

EdO,

It is nice to see you making multiple posts again. Don't be too rational, that would almost defeat the purpose of the BB!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> but at the time, no one knew that he'd be even a multiple time all star.


No one *knows* anything. But Jordan was as sure of a sure thing as sure things get. Bowie was anything but.



> This isn't about whether or not we should've taken Jordan. It was that Paul and Telfair *isn't* the same as Jordan and Drexler.
> 
> If Paul was 6'5"(ish) and could play PG AND SG, than it'd be the same. But since he can't, it's not.


It doesn't matter one way or the other. It comes down to picking for need or picking the BPA.

You're arguing for need, and you're trying to say that the Bowie pick doesn't matter to your position. When it clearly does.



> they also run the risk of passing on a player who could end up being better than Paul, because they took the "best player available". Not all "best" are going to be the best. Wade for example. I'd take him over Carmello.


Again: are scouts incompetent?

If "best player" doesn't mean anything, then I agree with you. I come at it from the angle that, while no team has any PARTICULAR advantage in evaluating players, there is an inherent competence that teams have in that players considered to be superior generally turn out to be so.



> just like last year, they could've drafted someone else and "still gotten telfair".


Absolutely. It's not a sure thing, but there are no sure things in sports and teams need to take maximize whatever situation their in.



> If they want Green, they should get green at #3. Why run the risk of not getting the player you want, for the possibility of getting him (maybe) + another pick..when the chances are equally as good they can just buy/trade for another pick?


Because it's not smart. Simple as that.

When I go into the store I look at prices. I don't just get stuff because I like it irrespective of price. I look to see what it's going to cost me and decide whether it's a good value.

When I drive, I don't just drive however fast I want to get where I'm going in the time I have. I pay attention to the speed limit and I drive within that framework to get there as quickly (and safely) as I can.

The Blazers, or any other team, picking a player at whatever pick they have just because they like them is amateurish. They have the capabilities to evaluate risk and reward situations where the team gets good value for their pick, even if they don't get the guy they want.

If they have Green astronomically higher than anyone else available at the third pick (or at whatever new value they'd get in a trade), then I couldn't fault them for not messing around and simply taking Gerald. I don't see how that can possibly be the case, though, given the quality of the top three players in this draft.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> I'd be content with that. Infact, I'd prefer that over anything else, assuming Marv shows great things in the work-outs.
> 
> Now, if they take paul, and he's supposed to be "best pg since kidd", that means they can get more for him. So trade him. I mean, it's not like we're being left with Omar Cook.


Right, if they TRULY feel that Paul is best available, they should...

1 - Pick Paul, Trade Telfair for another player
2 - Pick Paul, Trade Paul for another player
3 - Trade down for another pick + player, or multiple picks
4 - Pick Paul and let Chris and Bassy duke it out at camp

I think #4 is the worst option. However it's better than...

5 - Pick an inferior prospect to fill a need

This way, you lose out on assets and the Blazers need as many as they can get right now.

When do the workouts start? It'd be fun to have a little more substance floating around...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

one things for sure, no matter who we pick, the "experts" will somehow come up with dirt on him sayin it's a "typical blazer pick" (like they did with OUtlaw).

and we'll also have fan's think they know who should've been taken instead, and they'll act like they know more about how to pick a player than guys who do it for a living.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I think Ed is right on this one.



Hap said:


> for starters, no one knew Jordan would be Jordan, so to continually trump that out is retarded.


I don't believe that is true. Jordan was NCAA College Player of the Year in 1983 and 1984. Winner of the Dr. James Naismith Award and the John Wooden Award in 1984. Unanimous First Team All-America selection in 1983 and 1984. I remember reviews were fairly unanimous in stating he would be a pretty good pro.



Hap said:


> secondly, Jordan and Drexler could play 2 positions each. Paul and Telfair can only play 1.


While both did play some SF, neither spent very much time there (until Jordan was too big and slow to play SG). Obviously the Blazers at the time didn't see them as playing 2 positions each or they would have taken Jordan.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Yes...but all things that also indicate an incredible talent. A huge guard who's an exceptional athlete, a great slasher and finisher *and* a good shooter? That sounds like an amazing package. Bryant and McGrady didn't even have the shot, entering the league.


Jonathan Bender did, though. And he has more size than Green.

I don't mean to link Green to Bender (I'm going to comment more on my thoughts of Green below) but prep players with his skill set aren't rare (in terms of NBA prospects).



> Yes, but remember...Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady were all also viewed as "not top-three" quality talent.


They were all drafted when prep players simply weren't drafted that high. It took Garnett, a massive freak of a man, to break the mold and have an NBA team draft him.



> While I'm not necessarily saying Green is the same talent level, I think he absolutely fits the mold of the top-level high school talent that has yet to fail (unless Kwame Brown never gets it together). The ones who have failed were lower first round picks or second round picks.


Bender, as I mentioned, has failed (to date). Stevenson lacks the size that Green has but he had other attributes and, while he's been a started in the NBA, he hasn't panned out.

The odds of Green being a bust are, IMO, slim. The odds of him being as good as McGrady or Bryant aren't very good either, though.



> Well, I will admit that when I've seen Paul play, I haven't seen anything that stood out as a "once in a decade" talent. So that factors in here. But I think we disagree more fundamentally on Green's value. I think he's a definite top-five talent...you seem reluctant to even dub him mid-first-round talent.


I think that Green is in the 5 to 10 range. If Portland were to move Paul to Charlotte for the 5 and 13 and take Green, I'd be very happy (second only to the ecstatic state I'll be in if Marvin Williams slides to us at 3).



> Paul may be the safer pick, but I think Green is the highest upside talent in the draft outside of Marvin Williams. His size, explosiveness, ability to finish over defense and advanced shot for his age are all extremely positive indicators.


He's a good prospect. I just don't think that it makes sense that Portland should be the team that reaches for him when there are three very good (IMO superior) prospects sitting there.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> I think Ed is right on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that is true. Jordan was NCAA College Player of the Year in 1983 and 1984. Winner of the Dr. James Naismith Award and the John Wooden Award in 1984. Unanimous First Team All-America selection in 1983 and 1984. I remember reviews were fairly unanimous in stating he would be a pretty good pro.


pretty good pro isn't the same as best ever.

I'm not arguing they should've taken bowie. I'm saying that continually using this analogy is getting old, because it's not the same scenario now. for the reasons I stated already.



> While both did play some SF, neither spent very much time there (until Jordan was too big and slow to play SG). Obviously the Blazers at the time didn't see them as playing 2 positions each or they would have taken Jordan.


has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The whole "well, we don't want to repeat the bowie-jordan" crap is getting old. Every damn time we have a draft, we hear that **** trumped out as tho it's always the same thing every damn ****ing time. Well, it's not. and it's getting a tad old hearing it as tho thats 100% proof you always take "the best of whats there". 

You don't always take the best of whats left, especially when the difference isn't as monumentally huge as whats being implied. We aren't talking about like it being just Shane Battier and then the next pick is Dwyane Wade or something. (Ironically, people rip on Battier being picked where he was. There was maybe 4 players taken after him that have had much better careers, and 2 of them were after 20. 

but whatever. arguing over this is stupid. we all know our stances, and we'll just repeat it over and over and over and over.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Bender, as I mentioned, has failed (to date). Stevenson lacks the size that Green has but he had other attributes and, while he's been a started in the NBA, he hasn't panned out.


I don't recall Bender or Stevenson getting this level of regard. I honestly don't recall (not trying to be sarcastic): Were they #1 prospects? (Not "top prospects," but actual #1 prospects for their years.)



> I think that Green is in the 5 to 10 range. If Portland were to move Paul to Charlotte for the 5 and 13 and take Green, I'd be very happy (second only to the ecstatic state I'll be in if Marvin Williams slides to us at 3).


Well, we agree entirely there. My top scenario would be Williams falling to us at #3 and my second-favourite scenario would be to drop back to #5, acquire another pick, and grab Green and another interesting player further down.



> He's a good prospect. I just don't think that it makes sense that Portland should be the team that reaches for him when there are three very good (IMO superior) prospects sitting there.


I'm probably placing too much importance on too small a sample size, but I guess it just boils down to Paul not exciting me very much. I keep reading all the raves about Paul and he just doesn't strike me as doing any particular thing at an amazing level. If Portland acquires him, I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

"There is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip."

Until/unless we start getting reliable reports of how individual workouts are going, we are all (to an extent) blowing smoke. Green may prove to be a butterfingers who will never be able to play guard. Deron Williams (or someone else) may have their stock rise dramaticaly. It is way to early to be digging trenches and staking out immovable positions.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I don't recall Bender or Stevenson getting this level of regard. I honestly don't recall (not trying to be sarcastic): Were they #1 prospects? (Not "top prospects," but actual #1 prospects for their years.)


I don't know, and it probably depends on where you look.

Superprep had Bender #9 overall in 1999 and Stevenson #4 (right between Zach and Darius) in 2000. I remember that Bender was dominant in the McDonald's game, too.

I used to have URLs with more prep player rankings, but when I changed computers I seem to have lost them and Google isn't treating me right.

Ed O.


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

Trading Telfair for Paul's sake would be a mistake of colossal proportions. It's just that simple. Hopefully there will be no lockout so summerleage can continue as scheduled where Telfiar will dismantle some of his so called competition in Livingston, Nelson, Duhon, Gordon, and whoever else may be participating at that time. Seriously there's no pg out there that can come close to Bassy. The game is over Sebastian is already on top. Watch out.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> ZagsFan -
> 
> Your a knowledgeable poster, but I am curious to why you think that JR Smith and Gerald Green could not co-exist? Heck even our own GM says he thought Green was more as a SF....
> 
> ...



Now that I think about it, it makes sense that NO picks Green.....I personally could care less if the guy is a top 5 pick or not as long as the Blazers don't draft him it doesn't bother me...


----------

