# More on Green



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Interesting material about Green from an NBA scout on Canzano's blog this morning:

Blog 

An under control McGrady? That sounds great, but the part about him being a natural 3 makes you wonder if he's our guy.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I'm dissapointed he "called in sick"... I was looking forward to hearing about his workout with us.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

There do seem to be a lot of "people in the know" that say he's a 3 in the NBA. I still say take him though. I don't think having a roster where Green, Outlaw and Monya being able to play both the 2 and 3 is a bad thing. if they can all shoot like they are supposed to be able to then ball handling isn't a problem because of Telfair....(sorry Tlong) It sounds like he is quick enough and athletic enough to guard 2's, so I don't see a problem. Besides wasn't Clyde listed as a SF when we drafted him?


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Honestly, I could care less if everyone thinks Green is a natural "3" and we have 18 million small forward on the roster already. Green can play the 2-guard. Hell, McGrady is a 3, and he plays shooting guard all the time.

It's not like we're asking a natural center to play a point guard. The difference between a 2 and a 3 is pretty minor, as long as the guy can handle the ball, make good decisions and has a decent perimeter jumper. All of which it sounds like Green has.

If we pass on this guy, and he ends up being the next Tracy McGrady, we're going to end up kicking ourselves for missing that opportunity.

You don't pick for need that high in the draft. You pick for talent. Sam Bowie, anyone?

-Pop


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

mediocre man and SodaPop stole my thunder.

DRAFT GREEN!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I've seen Green play in the MacDonald's game and I've read a lot about him (just like most people here), but I'm not convinced that he'll be a 2 guard, and even if he is: is there too much overlap with what we have?

We have Outlaw and Monia and Miles... each of whom have a lot of potential at the 2/3 spots.

We have Telfair who stands along as the only PG on the roster and who has a lot of potential in his own right.

Because of this, why have so many of us dismissed taking Chris Paul or Deron Williams instead of Gerald Green? While Paul is limited to a single position, Williams is capable of playing either guard spot.

I'm very interested in Green, and I wouldn't mind Portland getting him in the draft, but considering our depth (almost logjam) at the swing spots (including young players), why not simply take the best prospect, even if that prospect plays that same position as Telfair?

Ed O.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I've seen Green play in the MacDonald's game and I've read a lot about him (just like most people here), but I'm not convinced that he'll be a 2 guard, and even if he is: is there too much overlap with what we have?
> 
> We have Outlaw and Monia and Miles... each of whom have a lot of potential at the 2/3 spots.
> 
> ...



I've dismissed Paul and D Williams because I don't think it's a good idea to have 2 young PG's that both think they should be "the man." I think it would destroy any hope of chemistry that the Blazers hope to have. If it came down to it I suppose D Williams would be a better fit becaue he can play the 2, but I don't think he can play it any better than Green. And I think Green's upside is extremely higher.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

You are correct sirs! 

Not much to add. Who gives a rip if he's a little more of a SF than SG? If he has the handles and the shot, and the quickness and the athleticism, so much the better if he's taller than most SGs. With his hops, who's going to stop his 'J'?

Draft for talent/potential. Trade for need.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> You are correct sirs!
> 
> Not much to add. Who gives a rip if he's a little more of a SF than SG? If he has the handles and the shot, and the quickness and the athleticism, so much the better if he's taller than most SGs. With his hops, who's going to stop his 'J'?
> 
> Draft for talent/potential. Trade for need.


I think the dribbling aspect of a players game as a SG is over blown. I'd be happy with an Outlaw/Monia, Green/Monia SG tandem, and a Outlaw/VIktor, Green/Viktor SF tandem.

I also think getting a backup PG (which is what we need) is a lot easier than getting a top 3 pick in the draft, and said player @ #3. 

The thing that makes Darius expendable, imho, is his lack of an outside shot thats consistent. I know people think a new coach will make a difference, but after 3 coaches in 2 years, his game isn't all that much better. Sure, he's scoring more, his points don't spread the offense like a SF's game should. I'm not saying (if Green is picked and plays SF) that Green's outside shot is "better" already, but that Outlaw's shot is.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I've seen Green play in the MacDonald's game and I've read a lot about him (just like most people here), but I'm not convinced that he'll be a 2 guard, and even if he is: is there too much overlap with what we have?
> 
> We have Outlaw and Monia and Miles... each of whom have a lot of potential at the 2/3 spots.


Exactly the kind of reasoning we used for NOT taking Michael Jordan. We already had Drexler at shooting guard! It was too much "overlap"!


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Exactly the same kind of reasoning we used for NOT taking Michael Jordan. We already had Drexler at shooting guard! It was too much "overlap"!


All-Star 20+ pt scorer Jim Paxson was our starting SG. Drexler was a 2nd-year athletic freak at SF!!(much like Miles & Outlaw without fundamentals) But he could play some SG some thought.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Exactly the same kind of reasoning we used for NOT taking Michael Jordan. We already had Drexler at shooting guard! It was too much "overlap"!



ha! zing!

that reminds me of a good song from Gilbert and Sullivan.



> I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
> I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
> I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical,
> From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
> ...


er...I mean


> A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox, ahahahahahahahahaa a paradox!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> ha! zing!
> 
> that reminds me of a good song from Gilbert and Sullivan.
> 
> ...




Showtunes Hap? It's come to showtunes?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Exactly the same kind of reasoning we used for NOT taking Michael Jordan. We already had Drexler at shooting guard! It was too much "overlap"!


That doesn't do *anything* to answer my question, however. So I'll restate it.

People seem to be almost universally opposed to taking Chris Paul or Deron Williams with our pick because we have Sebastian Telfair at the 1. Gerald Green has been seen as filling a more long-term need because of his ability to fill the 2 spot.

With questions being raised about whether he will be able to play the 2, I wonder why people aren't reconsidering the possibility of taking Paul or DWilliams with our first pick.

I am 95% behind taking the player that the Blazers think is the best player irrespective of position (my only caveat is that they should take into account what other teams will most likely do, to ensure any possible extra value out of the pick by moving down if it makes sense). _So if Chris Paul or Deron Williams is seen as the best available player at the third spot, ahead of Gerald Green, wouldn't it make sense to take him ahead of Green, even though we have Telfair at the PG spot already?_

Ed O.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm going to agree with the majority here. If we believe he is the best prospect, draft him anyways. It's no different then drafting Williams.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> That doesn't do *anything* to answer my question, however. So I'll restate it.
> 
> People seem to be almost universally opposed to taking Chris Paul or Deron Williams with our pick because we have Sebastian Telfair at the 1. Gerald Green has been seen as filling a more long-term need because of his ability to fill the 2 spot.
> 
> ...




Didn't I answer your question right?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Ed O said:


> People seem to be almost universally opposed to taking Chris Paul or Deron Williams with our pick because we have Sebastian Telfair at the 1. Gerald Green has been seen as filling a more long-term need because of his ability to fill the 2 spot.
> 
> With questions being raised about whether he will be able to play the 2, I wonder why people aren't reconsidering the possibility of taking Paul or DWilliams with our first pick.
> 
> ...


I agree completely. It has to come down to workouts and evaluations. We can always make trades to move extra young talent, but you have to take the best available. If Paul is Telfair with a 40% 3-point shot, then take him. If Green is T-mac with basketball IQ, then take him. If needed we can always move Telfair, Outlaw, or whoever to balance out the roster. Take the best and trade to make it balance.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

It would absolutely make sense to pick Deron Williams. This guy is big enough to slide between the 1 and the 2. However, I think the #3 pick is a little bit too high for him. After reflecting on it I am okay with taking Green in that spot as I feel we don't have tremendous quality at the 3 position. Miles can't shoot, Outlaw can't play defense, and Monya is unknown. If Bogut and MWilliams are unavailable I favor trading down and taking Green or DWilliams if possible.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Showtunes Hap? It's come to showtunes?



thats my shtick.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

tlong said:


> It would absolutely make sense to pick Deron Williams. This guy is big enough to slide between the 1 and the 2. However, I think the #3 pick is a little bit too high for him. After reflecting on it I am okay with taking Green in that spot as I feel we don't have tremendous quality at the 3 position. Miles can't shoot, Outlaw can't play defense, and Monya is unknown. If Bogut and MWilliams are unavailable I favor trading down and taking Green or DWilliams if possible.



So it's ok to have an undersized SG, but not an undersized PG? Deron Williams is 3-4 inches shorter than an average 2 guard, but Telfair's only 2 inches shortr than the average PG. Where is your logic?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Didn't I answer your question right?


I was responding to TalkHard's comment, rather than your response mm.

I guess I don't see why it would be harder for two young PGs to get along than four young swing men. Trading one of the two young PGs to hand the reigns to the other would certainly be easier than trading two of the young swing men....

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> So it's ok to have an undersized SG, but not an undersized PG? Deron Williams is 3-4 inches shorter than an average 2 guard, but Telfair's only 2 inches shortr than the average PG. Where is your logic?



it's paradox thursday! Get 2 paradox's for the price of one!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I was responding to TalkHard's comment, rather than your response mm.
> 
> I guess I don't see why it would be harder for two young PGs to get along than four young swing men. Trading one of the two young PGs to hand the reigns to the other would certainly be easier than trading two of the young swing men....
> 
> Ed O.


easy. Those 4 swingmen have 2 positions 2 of them can play. Those 2 pg's have 1 position they can play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> So it's ok to have an undersized SG, but not an undersized PG? Deron Williams is 3-4 inches shorter than an average 2 guard, but Telfair's only 2 inches shortr than the average PG. Where is your logic?



It's okay because I believe Williams would eventually wind up as our starting point guard.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

tlong said:


> It's okay because I believe Williams would eventually wind up as our starting point guard.


Oh yes my mistake. I forgot about your extreme and unjust hatred for Telfair.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I've dismissed Paul and D Williams because I don't think it's a good idea to have 2 young PG's that both think they should be "the man." I think it would destroy any hope of chemistry that the Blazers hope to have. If it came down to it I suppose D Williams would be a better fit becaue he can play the 2, but I don't think he can play it any better than Green. And I think Green's upside is extremely higher.



I agree. I think having Telfair and Paul/D. Williams is worse than having our current logjam at SF. The reason being is, I think the SF logjam can be worked in better than a PG logjam. Some of our SF's can play spot minutes at PF or even more minutes at SG. Telfair or Paul/D. Williams shouldn't be filling in spot minutes anywhere else. Ok, D. Williams can maybe play some minutes in the NBA but I don't want to see it on our team. Sorry, I saw to much of Damon at SG this last year to last a life time.

Is D. Williams or Paul going to be better than Telfair? If so, how much better? I haven't seen either of the two play, I only know stuff about them from what I read. From what Telfair showed this last year, I can't see either of the rookies being any better than Telfair. I know it's early, but Telfair has a lot of potential, and played pretty well for playing a position scarce for rookies to play. Especially out of HS.

So, we could have Telfair and Green(maybe M. Williams). If we look at the alternative, could we do better having Telfair and Paul/D. Williams, knowing that we will probably need to trade one down the road? To answer that, what could we get for Telfair or Paul/D.Williams? In the end, what if we keep Telfair and trade off the newest rookie? Will we get something better in return than Green? Or if D. Williams/Paul outshines Telfair and we need to trade Telfair, will he have much trade left? 

Ok, I'll stop with the scenarios so I don't confuse everyone more.. 

My point is, I look at what we have now. IMO, Telfair will be an above average PG in this league for a long time. Will he be a superstar? Who knows, but I think he will definitely be in the upper eschelon of PG's out there. So, I look at that as pretty much a given or less of a question mark. So, that leaves our #3 pick as the biggest question mark. I believe Green can play the SG, or maybe I just want to believe it because we need one sooooooo bad(I don't even consider DA part of this team anymore, so he's NOT an option). I think it's a lot easier to get a vet backup PG and draft a SG than it is to draft another stand out PG, play them both, then try and trade them and get a high value for him. There's just to much risk involved in drafting someone knowing you'll have to trade one later and you expect to get a lot of value for said player.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> So if Chris Paul or Deron Williams is seen as the best available player at the third spot, ahead of Gerald Green, wouldn't it make sense to take him ahead of Green, even though we have Telfair at the PG spot already?


That depends on how good you think Telfair is going to be. Nash and company may think that Telfair will eventually be better than either of those guys (and maybe is ALREADY). At the same time, they probably think we don't have anyone of Telfair's skill and/or potential at the shooting guard position, so Green is the logical pick.

Most of us here seem to think Green has much more upside than either Paul or Williams. We are intrigued by his amazing atheleticism, great outside shooting, etc. and we think it might be worth it to take him and give him time to develop.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Exactly the kind of reasoning we used for NOT taking Michael Jordan. We already had Drexler at shooting guard! It was too much "overlap"!


So you're arguing for taking Chris Paul, because all the talent evaluators have him rated in the top 3 (ahead of Green)? Screw the overlap with Telfair, you're saying?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> The other thing is the franchise has much more invested in Telfair than they do in any of our shooting guards (a position Green might be able to play). Telfair was our No. 1 pick last year, and Nash and Co. want to build the team around him. So why would they take Chris Paul or Deron Williams?


Just like our franchise had much more invested in Paxson than they did in our center position?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Just like our franchise had much more invested in Paxson than they did in our center position?


Touche! Admittedly, you're always taking a risk with a draft pick, and it's not an exact science. I just happen to think that GREEN could be something very special, but of course so could Paul (or even someone we are overlooking!)


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> easy. Those 4 swingmen have 2 positions 2 of them can play. Those 2 pg's have 1 position they can play.


96 minutes for 4 players = 24 minutes each.

48 minutes for 2 players = 24 minutes each.

This is also ignoring:

-- Williams might be able to play some minutes at the 2
-- Derek Anderson is still on the roster and is more likely to play minutes at the 2 than the 1
-- Ruben Patterson is still on the roster
-- Viktor probably deserves some minutes at the 3, as well (although he looks like he will be able to play some 4, as well)

In terms of minutes over the next 2 or 3 years, at least, there seems to be more at the 1 than at the 2 or 3 in my opinion.

I'm not saying (a) we pick a PG because of this, or (b) we avoid picking a swing man because of this, but it seems pretty clear to me that we should not avoid picking a PG *if* we think he's the best prospect.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> 96 minutes for 4 players = 24 minutes each.
> 
> 48 minutes for 2 players = 24 minutes each.


I would hope that Telfair would play more than 24 minutes a game. And I dont think that Outlaw, Green and Viktor would really get much more than 24 minutes each. And on top of that, Viktor can play some PF (which we need a backup for). 



> This is also ignoring:
> 
> -- Williams might be able to play some minutes at the 2
> -- Derek Anderson is still on the roster and is more likely to play minutes at the 2 than the 1


who gives a bucket of **** what Derek Anderson can do. We shouldn't draft or not draft a player based on having Derbrick Anderson.

You're also ignoring that they probably wouldn't be taking Williams, they'd probably take Paul. 



> -- Ruben Patterson is still on the roster
> -- Viktor probably deserves some minutes at the 3, as well (although he looks like he will be able to play some 4, as well)
> 
> In terms of minutes over the next 2 or 3 years, at least, there seems to be more at the 1 than at the 2 or 3 in my opinion.
> ...


I think we shouldnt' pick a PG, since we already have a perfectly good PG. And spare me the same old Sam Bowie/Michael Jordan crap _again_. No one knew Jordan was going to be Jordan, so it's not like we're picking between an oft injured SG and the next great PG in the draft.

If the team wants green (and we really have no idea if thats who they want) they should do the smart thing and take him at #3. If they're so desperate for another draft pick, buy one, or trade for one with another team.

See if they can con Charlotte into taking Patterson or DA (+ a future first) for their 2nd 1st round pick (Haha, thats funny).


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

The claim that we should take one of the PGs is just plain foolish. Green has more upside than both Deron and Chris Paul in his pinky. Also there's zero chance that Paul or Deron can slide over to the SG position next to Telfair, although Green has a very high probability that he can at least play SOME minutes at the SG position. Not to mention, Green flat out has superstar potential, the other guys don't.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I would hope that Telfair would play more than 24 minutes a game. And I dont think that Outlaw, Green and Viktor would really get much more than 24 minutes each. And on top of that, Viktor can play some PF (which we need a backup for).


I was not meaning to imply that playing time would be split down the middle; it was just an average. Irrespective of who gets how many minutes of those 48 or those 96, the minutes are limited to that amount. My simple arithmetic was just to show that whether guys can swing between the 2 and 3 doesn't impact how many minutes they're going to be able to get because there are 4 of them and only 96 minutes.

And why are you mentioning Viktor? If we bring HIM into the mix, we've got to bump the number of swing men up to 5, because the original three I mentioned are Outlaw, Miles, and Monia (and draft pick would make four).



> who gives a bucket of **** what Derek Anderson can do. We shouldn't draft or not draft a player based on having Derbrick Anderson.


Not taking it into ANY consideration is silly. The Blazers will have to pay him one way or the other, and I guarantee you if he's on this team next year he'll play some minutes.



> You're also ignoring that they probably wouldn't be taking Williams, they'd probably take Paul.


I am? Where am I ignoring that? 



> I think we shouldnt' pick a PG, since we already have a perfectly good PG.


We've got 2, perhaps three "perfectly good" swing men, too.

I fail to see what the difference is.



> If the team wants green (and we really have no idea if thats who they want) they should do the smart thing and take him at #3. If they're so desperate for another draft pick, buy one, or trade for one with another team.


This is a different topic. I agree that if the Blazers want Green, they should take him. But they should look to move down a spot or two to get him. Of course, we've discussed this before.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Not taking it into ANY consideration is silly. The Blazers will have to pay him one way or the other, and I guarantee you if he's on this team next year he'll play some minutes.


So let's pass on a potential superstar just because we have to pay a below average NBA player on our roster that plays the same position? Real smart.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> And why are you mentioning Viktor? If we bring HIM into the mix, we've got to bump the number of swing men up to 5, because the original three I mentioned are Outlaw, Miles, and Monia (and draft pick would make four).


because I have it set as Viktor, Outlaw, Monia and Green (I'm going under the assumption that what ive heard about Miles being traded, is true). 



> Not taking it into ANY consideration is silly. The Blazers will have to pay him one way or the other, and I guarantee you if he's on this team next year he'll play some minutes.


so, we shouldn't draft Green, because we have DA?

is that what you're saying? I think one can (successfully) defend not drafting a PG because we have one thats promising..but to hindge a draft pick based on DA is pointless. He's not part of the future. He's not even worth worrying about.



> I am? Where am I ignoring that?


by saying that Williams can play the SG. Big deal. He's not the one who's being thought of as who they should take ahead of Green. 



> We've got 2, perhaps three "perfectly good" swing men, too.
> 
> I fail to see what the difference is.


because A: a "swing man" can play multiple positions. B: the "swing men" we have already are easily tradeable, and also can play multiple positions. 

If Paul (or D Williams) was a 6'6" or so PG with SG tendancies, I'd say take him. But we're talking about someone who's as short (if not shorter) than Telfair, who "might" be better. 

If they get Green, they can have him be the SG or SF on the team. If they get Paul (or Williams) we'd have a backup PG that we could easily get via free agency, or the 2nd round. 

see the difference?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> So let's pass on a potential superstar just because we have to pay a below average NBA player on our roster that plays the same position? Real smart.


I don't know if it's even worth responding to you because you seem to disregard anything that isn't entirely consistent with your opinion, but this ENTIRE discussion is based on the hypothetical that the Blazers think either Paul or Deron Williams are a better prospect than Green.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I don't get it. The argument for drafting Green I see here is that we have Telfair so we shouldn't draft another point guard. Ed O has astutely pointed out that we already have multiple small forwards as well so why shouldn't we draft another point guard? I think it boils down to the "man-love" that so many posters here have for Telfair. If Green is the best player available then we should by all means pick him. If not, it's a dumb pick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> because I have it set as Viktor, Outlaw, Monia and Green (I'm going under the assumption that what ive heard about Miles being traded, is true).


Were you going to TELL me that you were discussing something different than I was?



> so, we shouldn't draft Green, because we have DA?


Does one factor always mean that there is only one factor?

Of course not. But merely because a single factor isn't determinative doesn't mean it should be ignored.



> is that what you're saying? I think one can (successfully) defend not drafting a PG because we have one thats promising..but to hindge a draft pick based on DA is pointless. He's not part of the future. He's not even worth worrying about.


He's certainly part of the future. We've got him under contract for the next two years and he's the best 2 guard we've currently got on the roster.

I don't know why you think you read I said we should draft a PG because of DA (or, indeed, where I said we should draft a PG at all), but please disabuse yourself of that notion.



> by saying that Williams can play the SG. Big deal. He's not the one who's being thought of as who they should take ahead of Green.


Are we in the same thread? I'm posing the hypothetical where the Blazers prefer either Paul or DWilliams to Green.

If you think that's impossible, that's fine. Muddying things up by ignoring the question I'm asking doesn't seem to be constructive.



> because A: a "swing man" can play multiple positions. B: the "swing men" we have already are easily tradeable, and also can play multiple positions.


Point guards are harder to find than swing men. If Paul or DWilliams is a better prospect than Green, finding a trading partner for one of them (or Telfair) will be easy enough.



> If Paul (or D Williams) was a 6'6" or so PG with SG tendancies, I'd say take him. But we're talking about someone who's as short (if not shorter) than Telfair, who "might" be better.
> 
> If they get Green, they can have him be the SG or SF on the team. If they get Paul (or Williams) we'd have a backup PG that we could easily get via free agency, or the 2nd round.
> 
> see the difference?


Quite frankly, no.

I have no idea why you think that if the Blazers think the Paul or DWilliams is a better prospect than Green why Green would be better than all the swing men we have on our roster but that PG prospect wouldn't be better than Telfair.

It makes no sense. I think that you are so set in defending Telfair that you aren't even thinking in hypothetical terms before you post.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> If Green is the best player available then we should by all means pick him. If not, it's a dumb pick.


Bingo. I am banging my head against the wall, rather than being brief, I guess.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> I don't get it. The argument for drafting Green I see here is that we have Telfair so we shouldn't draft another point guard. Ed O has astutely pointed out that we already have multiple small forwards as well so why shouldn't we draft another point guard? I think it boils down to the "man-love" that so many posters here have for Telfair. If Green is the best player available then we should by all means pick him. If not, it's a dumb pick.


makes a lot of sense to me.

really, we've got young prospects at every position:
PG: Telfair
SG: Monia, Outlaw (I think it's fair to say he's got potential at this position)
SF: Khryapa, Monia, Miles, Outlaw
PF: Randolph
C: Ha, Przybilla, Nedzad

if any of them were sure-fire, can't miss superstar studs, we probably wouldn't be picking at #3 in the draft right now. 

Telfair and Randolph are the two guys most likely to own a position for the next ten years in Portland, but there's no guarantees there. and neither is a sure thing for superstardom right now. 

draft the best guy available. (in the event of a tie, go for a center if possible.) figure out what to do with him long-term after you have them here for a year or two.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> So let's pass on a potential superstar just because we have to pay a below average NBA player on our roster that plays the same position? Real smart.


Wow, you seem to disregard the opinion that Paul may be the best point guard prospect since Jason Kidd. Kidd seemed to work out well for several teams. Hmmm, I don't see Green being listed even above Marvin Williams, so if he is a lock for superstar, why won't he be drafted above the third pick? Doesn't Atlanta and Milwaukee need a superstar? Oh also, did you forget Green may be more of a SF than a SG? Do we have a few SF's?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I don't think any comparison of Jordan\Bowie applies here to Chris Paul or Deron Williams. The thing that in retrospect mind you, is so depressing? about the Jordan\Bowie draft was that IMO at least a Jordan and Drexler SG\SF tandem could have worked, and probably very well.

I don't see that as being the case here at all. Chris Paul and even Deron Williams are both PG 1st and foremost, we speculate that Deron could play some SG, but that really seems MUCH more of a stretch to me than Green or Monia being suotable to play SG. There is a significant difference b\t each of those scenarios IMO.

I HIGHLY question the success of a Telfair\Paul (particularly) or Telfair\Williams backcourt...didn't we just witness the colossal failure with Damon\NVE and Telfair\Damon?

I understand the concept, and fully endorse it BTW, of POR selecting the "Best Player Available" and if we are going by the premise which Ed is trying to discuss....that being POR ranks either Paul or Deron Williams higher than Green (and furthermore that Marvin Williams & Bogut are drafted #1 & #2) Then what should POR do?

I really think this is a tough dilemma for POR to be in....Could Williams or Paul be better than Telfair? Sure they could. But how much better? Or does mgmt even view them as "better" PG's than Telfair? I am not so sure about that one....

and then there is the whole issue of playing time...It is one thing to say "Well we see who stands out\performs the better of the two and look to trade the other one" Well, that SOUNDS good in theory, but in practice I highly doubt POR would reap as good of a return for the loser (backup) in this scenario as they POSSIBLY could on draft day for the #3 pick (or even the value of a #13 pick), but then again by trading one on draft day you are hedging as to which one is better w\o seeing them compete against each other...

They say Telfair's trade value is high now, but what would it be if he was beat out by Williams or Paul? I don't see another team trading HIGH VALUE for a b\u PG.....and there certainly is no guaranteee, at least IMO that either Williams or Paul will be SIGNIFICANTLY better than Telfair....and for it to be worth drafting one of them, they would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY better....I don't think that is the case here.

So unless Paul or Williams are much better than any of the other players sitting there (be it Green or whomever) AND mgmt feels that either of them are SIGNIFICANTLY better than Telfair, drafting one of them to KEEP, makes little sense to me. I would think if POR selects Paul or Williams then they have made a draft day deal, and hopefully they are already discussing such contingenices with other teams should that be the case.

But if BOTH assesments are true...that being Paul\Williams ARE viewed as signifcantly better than any other player available in the draft at #3 and management does view one of them as significantly better than Telfair...then you take that player, be iot Paul or Williams.....

But I HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt that is the case. So don't expect Paul or Williams to be wearing a Blazer uniform in training camp.

Technically I agree with Ed, Practically I don't see it happening. I question the premise of either player being significantly better than Telfair...and from all of Nash's comments, I feel pretty confident that Nash does as well.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

kmurph: in my mind the thing that distinguishes this thread from previous ones is simply a realization that the Blazers have a lot of swing men. Creating a traffic jam at the swing position is no better for the team in the long run than creating a traffic jam at the PG spot, and if the Blazers consider Paul or Williams a better prospect than Green then they'd be taking a step down in talent to make that swingman traffic jam.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I have no idea why you think that if the Blazers think the Paul or DWilliams is a better prospect than Green why Green would be better than all the swing men we have on our roster but that PG prospect wouldn't be better than Telfair.
> 
> It makes no sense. I think that you are so set in defending Telfair that you aren't even thinking in hypothetical terms before you post.
> 
> Ed O.


well, for starters, of our current SF crop, only 1 MIGHT be able to play SG on a regular basis. only one has shown he even has a decent shot. And only one has shown marketable improvement.

Ironically, they're all the same guy. 

Anyways, if you can get another SF/SG player, who can play A: a position of desperate need (sg) and B: give us outside shooting (if he's as good as the sites say), I'd say that's just as important as "drafting" the best of whats left (which isn't always the smart thing to do). Especially since I don't buy the subtle implication that Green is so much worse than Paul, that drafting him @ 3 over Paul is a bad thing.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> draft the best guy available. (in the event of a tie, go for a center if possible.) figure out what to do with him long-term after you have them here for a year or two.


hows this.

let's say you have a good PG, like Tony Parker.

And let's say you don't have a good SG.

but the "best guys left" in the draft are either a PG in Paul, or or SF/SG in Gerald Green. 

Who would you take?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Maybe some of us have forgotten that great backcourt duo we had this last year when we ran a combination of Telfair, Stoudamire and Van Exel at both guard positions 

I definitely wouldn't be looking forward to running yet another diminutive backcourt. Granted that Damon Stoudamire would no longer be in the mix, I still have my reservations about running Telfair along with either Paul or Deron Williams. This all stems from the idea that Telfair should be playing more than 24 minutes while not splitting his time evenly with a newly acquired big name college point guard.

Seeing as how Telfair is also the least expendable player on the team right now, I'll gladly take my chances on running Green at the 2 while trying to rid ourselves of Patterson and Miles as the year progresses.

And like many have stated, if you have most of the necessary skills, running a projected 3 at the 2 probably isn't going to turn out to be a disasterous experience because small forwards and shooting guards generally share the greatest amount of skill sets between any two positions.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> well, for starters, of our current SF crop, only 1 MIGHT be able to play SG on a regular basis. only one has shown he even has a decent shot. And only one has shown marketable improvement.
> 
> Ironically, they're all the same guy.


What does that have to do with Green?

Has he showed that he can play the 2 any better than Monya or Miles? I think that recent indications are that he's less of a 2 than we'd all imagined. Those indications might be incorrect, but they limit his utility on a team with so many small forwards.



> Anyways, if you can get another SF/SG player, who can play A: a position of desperate need (sg) and B: give us outside shooting (if he's as good as the sites say), I'd say that's just as important as "drafting" the best of whats left (which isn't always the smart thing to do). Especially since I don't buy the subtle implication that Green is so much worse than Paul, that drafting him @ 3 over Paul is a bad thing.


I don't know who's implying Green is worse than Paul, period, in this thread.

You just reject the best player available approach. Which is fine. Wrong, but fine. 

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> kmurph: in my mind the thing that distinguishes this thread from previous ones is simply a realization that the Blazers have a lot of swing men. Creating a traffic jam at the swing position is no better for the team in the long run than creating a traffic jam at the PG spot, and if the Blazers consider Paul or Williams a better prospect than Green then they'd be taking a step down in talent to make that swingman traffic jam.
> 
> Ed O.


I think it's more important to know if they think the PG's would be a better prospect than Telfair, and not Green. Because if, in their minds, they're not better than Telfair, they would be foolish to take him. And if in their minds, Green is a better prospect than oultaw/viktor/monia/miles (of which 1 is tradebale and 2 can play different positions than Green), they take Green.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

you've got a good point, Kmurph. if we draft Paul and trade the worst of the two guys at the trade deadline, the lesser of the two isn't going to be worth much. 

but couldn't we draft Paul and then trade Telfair at the beginning of the season when the starting position is still in doubt? is Telfair's stock really going to plummet if we opt to trade him in October or early November?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Maybe some of us have forgotten that great backcourt duo we had this last year when we ran a combination of Telfair, Stoudamire and Van Exel at both guard positions


Telfair and Deron Williams is a small back court, for sure, but I don't think we'd see it that much. It certainly wouldn't be the basis for picking DWilliams at number three. And nobody that I have seen is advocating playing Paul and Telfair together.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What does that have to do with Green?


one of the guys who you are saying is a swingmen in competition with Green is Outlaw. And if Outlaw can play SG, I think that means he's not necessarily in competition with Green.



> Has he showed that he can play the 2 any better than Monya or Outlaw? I think that recent indications are that he's less of a 2 than we'd all imagined. Those indications might be incorrect, but they limit his utility on a team with so many small forwards.


positions are over blown now-a-days anyways. If McGrady really a "SF" or a "SG"? He has dribbling and passing skills. Or is he, like Pippen, a "point forward"? 


> I don't know who's implying Green is worse than Paul, period, in this thread.
> 
> You just reject the best player available approach. Which is fine. Wrong, but fine.
> 
> Ed O.


I think the "best player available" approach works if that player is significantly better than the player you have at that position.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Telfair and Deron Williams is a small back court, for sure, but I don't think we'd see it that much. It certainly wouldn't be the basis for picking DWilliams at number three. And nobody that I have seen is advocating playing Paul and Telfair together.
> 
> Ed O.


At the same time, I'm advocating that we not play Telfair less than 24 minutes. The vision I have in my mind is that if we don't give either point guard a decent chunk of playing time, their values could diminish to the point that we don't maximize the overall value that the #3 pick in the draft should have.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> hows this.
> 
> let's say you have a good PG, like Tony Parker.
> 
> ...


it'd really depend. am I running a close-to-contending team? if so, go for the SG. I need help winning now. 

if I'm not running a contending team, I go for the guy who I feel has the most talent. all else being more or less equal, I go for the SG. 

if you are running a team like ours that is years from contending, you are going to cycle through a lot of players in trying to get the combination you want. the draft is your best chance to quickly add quality to your organization. you can always trade quality. Jermaine O'Neal is a fantastic example.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I think the "best player available" approach works if that player is significantly better than the player you have at that position.


So you reject the BPA approach then. I wish I did so I could take solace in the fact that we passed on Jordan because he wasn't necessarily significantly better than Paxson or Drexler.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> At the same time, I'm advocating that we not play Telfair less than 24 minutes. The vision I have in my mind is that if we don't give either point guard a decent chunk of playing time, their values could diminish to the point that we don't maximize the overall value that the #3 pick in the draft should have.


That makes sense.

How is the value of the #3 pick in the draft going to be impacted, though, if he's stuck behind Miles/Patterson/Monia/Outlaw/Khryapa/Anderson?

The path to playing time for a swing man is not any easier than that of a PG on this team.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> That makes sense.
> 
> How is the value of the #3 pick in the draft going to be impacted, though, if he's stuck behind Miles/Patterson/Monia/Outlaw/Khryapa/Anderson?
> 
> ...


I'm also going under the assumption that either (preferably both) Miles and Patterson can be eliminated from that list, Anderson is basically a non-factor most of the time and that Khryapa can end up playing some spot minutes at the 4. 

Basically, I just see more versatility in any of those players you mentioned when you compare them to either Paul or Williams.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> it'd really depend. am I running a close-to-contending team? if so, go for the SG. I need help winning now.
> 
> if I'm not running a contending team, I go for the guy who I feel has the most talent. all else being more or less equal, I go for the SG.
> 
> if you are running a team like ours that is years from contending, you are going to cycle through a lot of players in trying to get the combination you want. the draft is your best chance to quickly add quality to your organization. you can always trade quality.




so, in essence...you draft Paul, and then trade him or telfair, for more than likely less talent than Green himself had? 

that just seems to be like buying a mint susan b anthony dollar for your colleciton, when you have a mint susan b anthony dollar. Both are worth the same and both are in good condition. However, to complete your collection, you really needed a mint Ben Franklin Half Dollar. It has a good chance of ending up being worth more than either dollar. You already have some Ben Franklin Half dollars, but they're a little dirty, and not really worth as much. They're not mint either. One is kind of clean, and shiney, but not mint.

And then to top that off, because you bought the second Susan B dollar, you make a trade with one of the coin stores near by. But what you end up getting is worth less than the Ben Franklin Half dollars would've been worth.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> So you reject the BPA approach then. I wish I did so I could take solace in the fact that we passed on Jordan because he wasn't necessarily significantly better than Paxson or Drexler.
> 
> Ed O.



*yawn*

that was 21 years ago Ed. Let it go.

No one knew Jordan would be the best player to ever play the game. Get over it.


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

Green will be a star so draft him paul will most likely be good to but i think Sebass will be better and we dont keep them both because a combind 10ft back court got real old lat year


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> *yawn*
> 
> that was 21 years ago Ed. Let it go.
> 
> No one knew Jordan would be the best player to ever play the game. Get over it.


Denial is an ugly thing, Hap.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I thought it was a river in Egypt?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Denial is an ugly thing, Hap.
> 
> Ed O.


what does that have to do with anything? Am I denying that the 84 draft was bad?

nope. 

I'm saying that repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over is stupid.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

This is the highest pick we've had in so many years so why do we want to get a guy that can be good when we can get a guy that can be GREAT? Players with Green's upside and potential don't come around too often, so why not go with him? His leaping ability is just insane and he has a great touch from the outside that MOST players coming out of H.S. don't have. If he turns out to be a good player and not great then so what, I'd rather gamble our pick to get a guy that can be a potential top SG in the league someday. Green's ceiling is as high as anyone's coming out of H.S. not named LeBron.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> kmurph: in my mind the thing that distinguishes this thread from previous ones is simply a realization that the Blazers have a lot of swing men. Creating a traffic jam at the swing position is no better for the team in the long run than creating a traffic jam at the PG spot, and if the Blazers consider Paul or Williams a better prospect than Green then they'd be taking a step down in talent to make that swingman traffic jam.



Yeah Ed, but the thing with the overabundance of swingmen is at least they can play multiple positions....

I don't think Williams or Paul (specifically) can....

I agree with you that POR is ridiculously overloaded at the "swing" positions, but I don't consider Ruben or DA as part of the future...POR may have them for 1 more year or so, but for a future core they are not in the equation, (nor was DA this year).

Outlaw has the potential to play SF or possibly SG

Monia the same

Khryapa I think can play SF and PF

Miles the same

I would agree that whether POR selects Marvin Williams or Gerald Green, whom IMO looks more capable of playing SG than either Monia or Outlaw, one of these players would have to be moved.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

so, we shouldn't take green because we have an abundance of SF's...

but we should take Williams regardless of that little factoid?

I like how cut and dry that is.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> what does that have to do with anything? Am I denying that the 84 draft was bad?
> 
> nope.


You're denying WHY it was bad. The Blazers, like all teams, miss on players sometimes. They passed over a clearly superior player in Michael Jordan because they drafted for need: to get a center. The same thing that you advocate doing in this and other threads.



> I'm saying that repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over is stupid.


It's the classic example of drafting for need, Hap, and you're denying that it has anything to do with going for the best player available.

It clearly does. Yet you deny, claiming it was a long time ago, or that "nobody knew Jordan was going to be the greatest ever", or that you're sick of hearing it. Even if all these things are true, they don't touch the reason it's mentioned so often by me and others when draft strategy is discussed.

I don't mention it because it happened to the Blazers. I don't mention it because Jordan is the best player of all time (I don't think that he is). I mention it because it's such a great example of teams ignoring superior players because they're already supposedly set at a position.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Yeah Ed, but the thing with the overabundance of swingmen is at least they can play multiple positions....


But there are so many of them, that doesn't really matter. Portland only has one PG that figures into its future, and they have at least three swingmen. Adding a fourth demands a trade and short of at least one (and perhaps two, if you include Viktor) of Miles/Monya/Outlaw/Khryapa being traded, there's such a logjam at the 2/3 spots that position versatility won't make a difference in ungumming the works.

Again, though: if Green's a superior prospect to everyone else on the board, we should aim to take him (with the consideration of where he can be acquired). If he's got greater upside than Paul and Williams, then it makes sense to deal with the logjam at the swing positions by letting them duke it out on the floor or clearing people out via trade. If Paul or DWilliams are the BPA, though, don't create a logjam at the swing spots to ensure that Telfair doesn't have competition.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You're denying WHY it was bad. The Blazers, like all teams, miss on players sometimes. They passed over a clearly superior player in Michael Jordan because they drafted for need: to get a center. The same thing that you advocate doing in this and other threads.


I'm not denying why it's bad. I'm saying that it doesn't always apply the same on each case. And always bringing it up as tho it does, doesn't make it so.



> It's the classic example of drafting for need, Hap, and you're denying that it has anything to do with going for the best player available.


cept that you're implying that Green is monumentally worse than Paul. It's not like we're drafting the difference between Tayshaun Prince and Dwyane Wade here.



> It clearly does. Yet you deny, claiming it was a long time ago, or that "nobody knew Jordan was going to be the greatest ever", or that you're sick of hearing it. Even if all these things are true, they don't touch the reason it's mentioned so often by me and others when draft strategy is discussed.


because *NO ONE DID* know. so to continually bring it up as tho it's proof 20 years later as to why to do something, is stupid. Bring up the clippers taking Olowakandi. bring up the Wizards taking Brown. Those are more realistic in comparison (and even then, it's not).



> I don't mention it because it happened to the Blazers. I don't mention it because Jordan is the best player of all time (I don't think that he is). I mention it because it's such a great example of teams ignoring superior players because they're already supposedly set at a position.
> 
> Ed O.


well, I'm glad you don't see how foolish it is to keep trumping that comparison out as tho it's the same now as it was in 84.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Not to be pedantic, but.......

People who were involved in the INFAMOUS DECISION, reported that the scouts wanted Barkley, until Ramsey shouted them down and demanded Bowie.

The argument over whether anybody "knew" that Jordan was going to be so great is beside the point. The talent people DID know that Bowie was not the best player available. They knew he wasn't even the 2nd best!

If even you leave Jordan out of the discussion, the Blazers still made a mistake. It wasn't a mistake in evaluating talent, it was a *strategic* mistake.

In that respect, ED is absolutely right in comparing the situations. By draft day, Green may have cratered in his workouts. The best SG in the draft might only be the 8th or 10th best player overall. Then what?

The problem with your argument HAP, is that you seem to believe that can't happen. ED is trying to discuss "what if?"

If Green and Paul are both on the board at #3, and IF they are pretty much equal (or Green actually proves to be better), there won't be an issue.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> In that respect, ED is absolutely right in comparing the situations. By draft day, Green may have cratered in his workouts. The best SG in the draft might only be the 8th or 10th best player overall. Then what?


and by draft day, Paul may have cratered in his workouts. The "best PG since Jason Kidd" might be only the 8th or 10th best overall. then what?



> The problem with your argument HAP, is that you seem to believe that can't happen. ED is trying to discuss "what if?"


Ive never said it can't happen. I just think that it's not as black and white as that. If it turns out that Green is significantly worse than Paul, than you take him. Ive never said otherwise. I just said that in cases were the "bpa" isn't obvious, what do you do?



> If Green and Paul are both on the board at #3, and IF they are pretty much equal (or Green actually proves to be better), there won't be an issue.


thats what Im trying to get at. If they are pretty much equal (imho, they are. I'd say that Green is the BPA after #2), who do you take? a player of need or a player of "talent"?

Thats my point. BPA isn't always clear cut. And bringing up a clear cut example from 21 years ago, doesn't clear things up.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

Just to throw in my two cents...

I see a lot of people have brought up the failed small backcourt of Telfair, Damon and NVE. But, I don't think anyone has brought up an example of it succeeding, the Chicago Bulls with Duhon, Hinrich and Gordon. It was pretty clear in 2003-2004 that Hinrich, the teams PG, was the best player. Yet, in the draft they took another two PG's in Gordon and Duhon. They were the best players available at their respective spots and they had a great 2004-2005 season.

Now, i'd have my doubts about a taking Paul. Two barely 6'0 guys would not be ideal playing together. But, I don't think you can rule out a dual PG backcourt with Deron. He's got the size, bulk and defensive ability to defend the two in most matchups, IMO. So if the Blazers considered him a better overall prospect, I think it would be smart to take him over Green. Plus, it's not like you would be stuck with them if it doesn't work out, one of the players can always be traded.

:twocents:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> How is the value of the #3 pick in the draft going to be impacted, though, if he's stuck behind Miles/Patterson/Monia/Outlaw/Khryapa/Anderson?
> 
> The path to playing time for a swing man is not any easier than that of a PG on this team.
> 
> Ed O.



If we go and do the draft and nothing else happens to the roster by the start of the season I would agree with you totally...

but if DA, Ruben and/or Darius are moved for other players... then it changes things drastically... 

DA + Ruben for Houston or Jalen Rose?
Darius for a S&T Jaric?

kind of deals... makes the #3 pick more valuable for the long run of the team. If the SF clutter is lessened by players being moved later in the summer. Then its the correct move at draft time to select a SF if they see fit, or if its the BPA... taking that best player available becomes more crucial

one step at a time... in the essence of drafting.. is short sighted. We do not know what PatterNash & Allen have in mind down the road for the rest of the summer.... Assuming no lockout.

I am not disagreeing with you... but as you and others say.. we need to explore lots of options. Hopefully the Blazer draft board have a zilllion scenarios going for it.


as you and others also say.... the draft is an unknown.. and its a gamble


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> How is the value of the #3 pick in the draft going to be impacted, though, if he's stuck behind Miles/Patterson/Monia/Outlaw/Khryapa/Anderson?
> 
> The path to playing time for a swing man is not any easier than that of a PG on this team.
> 
> Ed O.


I dont think Patterson and Anderson are A: going to be on the team next year or B: reasons not to draft a player.

I think the players that are at issue with Green, are (in no order): 

Outlaw
Monia
Miles
Veektor

Outlaw can play SG (imho) and maybe Monia can too. It's not the strongest back-court, but hey, it's not like we have much choice.

Miles (if he's here) and Viktor are the SF's.

Green could play backup to both the SG and SF spot, and it's likely that he wouldn't get much play this year anyways, even if we didn't have Miles and Patterson and Anderson.

I dont htink thats a reason not ot take a player. Infact, it seems to almost be counter to what you always say Ed. 

I agree tho, take the bpa. And thats Green.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I dont htink thats a reason not ot take a player. Infact, it seems to almost be counter to what you always say Ed.
> 
> I agree tho, take the bpa. And thats Green.


If Green is the best player available, I hope we take him. What to do if he's *not* is the entire tangent that I've been trying to discuss in this thread.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think if Green is not the best player on POR draft board then they are better served parlaying that pick for multiple picks be it CHA (preferably but unlikely), TOR or UTA for example, or a lower pcik and a future pick\s, or a lower pick and a player or a lower pick and offloading some salary trash onto that team. 

There seems to be several teams itching to move up this year and get into those top 4-5 picks, so POR should have ample opportunity to take advantage if need be...and if Paul or Williams are on the board and they don't value Green as highly as either of them, then that (trading down) is what they should do.

But I think, if you are hypothetically speaking that POR likes Williams and\or Paul better than Green or anyone else, then you also have to hypothetically ask how POR mgmt rates both players in comparison to Telfair...those two go hand in hand IMO. 

IF you are saying that hypothetically POR does, let's say value Deron Williams as a better player than Telfair? Then yeah I agree, you take him.....But I do feel you have to take into account how both of those guys rate in comparison to Telfair as well as how they relate to Green or any other prospect, b\c if POR mgmt feels Telfair is a better prospect\player than either one, then logic says (or SHOULD say) they trade down....


----------

