# Another Lotto Pick Locked Up?



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

> -Speaking of Javaris Crittenton,, it's interesting to note that he's scheduled to work out with the Portland Trailblazers the day before the draft, June 27th. He obviously won't be working out for the #1 pick, and can't be planning on Portland's next pick at #37 either. So what does that mean? Deductive reasoning tells us that his people have almost certainly been convinced that there is a very good chance that the Trailblazers will have a draft pick in his range, AND will have a need for another point guard besides the two very good ones they already have in Jarrett Jack and Sergio Rodríguez. It goes without saying that the day before the draft is a VERY valuable spot on the calendar of a player like Crittenton.
> 
> A couple of quick calls made indicate that Crittenton isn't the only one who might feel that way. Two agents with draft prospects in the 5-15 draft range conveyed to DraftExpress that they feel that Portland is sending out messages implying that they may already have a late lottery pick locked up. The rumor emerging is that Portland can secure the #11 pick belonging to Atlanta, in return for Jarrett Jack if they so desire.
> 
> Portland will also (tentatively) be hosting Nick Young and Al Thornton two days before the draft, on the 26th. The Young and Crittenton workout dates were released by a Portland beat writer, Jason Quick.


DX article

hmmmmm....


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Dude, that is awesome if we can get #11 for just Jack. 

If we go by my tentative order for the lotto: 

Oden, Durant, B. Wright, Horford, Yi, Conley, Brewer, Noah, Hawes, _J.Wright, *Green*, Law, Thornton,_

then we might have a chance at one among the last four mentioned. However, I'm not so high on Javaris. Don't think his skills can warrant a lotto position.


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

yuyuza1 said:


> Dude, that is awesome if we can get #11 for just Jack.
> 
> If we go by my tentative order for the lotto:
> 
> ...


If we were gonna do that I would love it if we got Josh Childress as well, and picked Law or Crittenton with the 11th pick. Obviously we would have to give them something else of some value too though


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I like Crittendon a lot... I think that he would be a very interesting matchup with Brandon Roy in the backcourt.

I'm not sure that Portland would go for him at #11, though... maybe the NJ pick at #17 (part of a Jefferson for Zach swap, maybe?) would be the position where Portland would hope Crittendon or Thornton would slide to.

Very interesting, though.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I can't see Thornton sliding quite that far...12 at worst IMO. Crittenton though could very well be there ate #17. ANother though was if we think back wasn't there talk of Washington as being interested in Zach as well? They hold #16.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Wow, very interesting. Does this also mean that a possible Randolph trade might not include a pick?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I can't see Thornton sliding quite that far...12 at worst IMO. Crittenton though could very well be there ate #17. ANother though was if we think back wasn't there talk of Washington as being interested in Zach as well? They hold #16.


Small forwards seem to slide every year... Graham and Granger did a couple of years ago, and I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one slide this year, too. TYoung or Thornton seem to be the likeliest candidates.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Also, if Portland gets the #11 pick, I could see them using two of their second rounders to move up a couple spots if a team realizes their guy will be available at #11.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

I think I'd rather take Thad Young than him, but I wouldn't really complain either way.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

I'm betting that it's Jack for the 11th pick from Atlanta... and we're not drafting a point guard there.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

graybeard said:


> I'm betting that it's Jack for the 11th pick from Atlanta... and we're not drafting a point guard there.


So that means they take Brandon Wright at 3?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

LameR said:


> So that means they take Brandon Wright at 3?


Yeah, or another big.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

It sounds like they're gearing up for two additional picks, not just one. If they take Atlanta's pick, I have to think they're going either SF or Conley. I'm curious as to which late first round pick they might be after. Maybe it would pan out like this: *(Theory)* Portland takes Atlanta's pick and waits to see who falls to them (top SF prospect or Conley). If it's the SF, then they pull the trigger on the late first round deal and take Crittendon. If they take Conley, then maybe they don't take the later pick. Maybe...


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

And if Jack is gone, Blake is definitely back to shephard Sergio along.

This is all speculation, of course, but it's fun to think about the gears moving.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Crittendon isn't a better player than JJ is, IMHO, at least not significantly better. I just don't see KP trading JJ for him.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

If we trade Jack I can see us having a deal lined up for a vet PG like Kidd or Bibby. That's the only rational conclusion. You don't trade Jack for a rookie PG and get even more inexperienced. I can see the Blazers doing a Zach and Jack trade for say Bibby and their lotto pick or something to that extent. We'll see though, definitly makes things even more interesting to see Pritchard has pretty much already set up shop.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Samuel said:


> This is all speculation, of course, but it's fun to think about the gears moving.


True, and I'm _very_ much looking forward to an end of all the speculation. I'll take it when it's all we have, of course, but it's almost physically painful to count the days to the draft.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

1. Draft a 2 guard
2. Trade Zach for Rashard
3. Sign Blake/or start Sergio or Roy at pg

We're set.


----------



## UOSean (Jul 7, 2005)

The Blazers are having 9 or 10 PGs come workout for them. Highly peculiar I'd say. It's looking like Jack is gonna get a new home and Sergio is gonna be groomed into our starting PG (dude looks like Nash to me in the open court).

Atlanta would be the perfect desination for Jack but in that same range of picks the Clippers have the #14 pick and DESPERATLEY need a PG with Sam Cassell probably only having a year or two left in the league and Shawn Livingston having his gruesome knee injury.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

graybeard said:


> 1. Draft a 2 guard
> 2. Trade Zach for Rashard
> 3. Sign Blake/or start Sergio or Roy at pg
> 
> We're set.


As long as the theoretically drafted 2 guard can swing to SF (or the other way around) I pretty completely agree. I just don't have much interest in another 6'3" shooting guard unless he's a _really_ special player -- flirting with Iverson/Wade like potential.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Possible scenario:

- Portland trades Jarrett Jack to the Atlanta Hawks for the #11 pick.

- Portland selects Jeff Green or Al Thornton (say Thornton for discussion's sake) at #11 and Greg Oden at #1. 

- Portland signs Steve Blake to the MLE, Travis Outlaw at 3m per year, and Udoka to the minimum.

- Portland sends Zach Randolph to another team for their SF (say Jefferson for discussion's sake).

Blake, Rodriguez, 
Roy, Udoka, Webster
Jefferson, Thornton
Aldridge, Outlaw, LaFrentz
Oden, Przybilla

Dickau, Jones, Miles (maybe retired)


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

graybeard said:


> Crittendon isn't a better player than JJ is, IMHO, at least not significantly better. I just don't see KP trading JJ for him.


Perhaps it's just me, but I love Crittendon. He is very green, but has all the tools and is showing that he is developing the skills to become a top flight PG. I would rank him as the best PG in the draft. Only question is, do the Blazers want to wait 3 years for him to develop?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> As long as the theoretically drafted 2 guard can swing to SF (or the other way around) I pretty completely agree. I just don't have much interest in another 6'3" shooting guard unless he's a _really_ special player -- flirting with Iverson/Wade like potential.


That's what I love about KP. If he likes a guy, regardless of his position, he goes out and gets him. If said player happens to be a PG, so be it.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Possible scenario:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


While prior to winning the lottery I'd have done flips for that line-up, it's not one that I'd be shooting for now, mainly because of SG. Roy's great, no question, but I don't think Udoka can really guard 2s -- why else would they've run him, at 6'5", at SF all year? Dixon/Jones, Webster, and even Jack were playing SG before Udoka got minutes there. I like him a lot but I don't think he can cut it.

Likewise, I don't think Webster can cut SG. If he makes it in this league it'll be as SF pretty exclusively unless something significant changes for him. That makes Jones the next best option at SG, unless Jefferson or Thornton can play there effectively, and maybe they can -- I'd believe if of Jefferson before Thornton. Still, it seems a reach.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Samuel said:


> That's what I love about KP. If he likes a guy, regardless of his position, he goes out and gets him. If said player happens to be a PG, so be it.


I hear you and to a certain extent agree, but I think there's still value to thinking about positional match-ups, especially for the starting line-up but even with a second unit -- hence my issue with your above roster. :biggrin:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> While prior to winning the lottery I'd have done flips for that line-up, it's not one that I'd be shooting for now, mainly because of SG. Roy's great, no question, but I don't think Udoka can really guard 2s -- why else would they've run him, at 6'5", at SF all year? Dixon/Jones, Webster, and even Jack were playing SG before Udoka got minutes there. I like him a lot but I don't think he can cut it.
> 
> Likewise, I don't think Webster can cut SG. If he makes it in this league it'll be as SF pretty exclusively unless something significant changes for him. That makes Jones the next best option at SG, unless Jefferson or Thornton can play there effectively, and maybe they can -- I'd believe if of Jefferson before Thornton. Still, it seems a reach.


If the above stuff happens, Portland will be fine. Fred Jones when healthy is servicable, and it'll be a contract year for him so we might see a high-flying overachiever out of him. If the Randolph tradee is indeed Jefferson, we could move him over to the SG position (he's played there before). And it's important we continue to plug Martell Webster in there in case the light goes on. 

I'm guessing Brandon Roy will play 37+ minutes next season, so that's only 11 minutes of backup SG to fill. We'd be fine for the 06-07 season, and we could always address SG next year in the draft or this year with our 2nd round picks.

I know KP is wonder boy, but this is a growing team and the team should be patient and deliberate about addressing their needs. No need to attempt to solve every problem when it's still possible a guy on the team might be fine.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I'm going to have to think about this move. 

By drafting another young point guard, we are creating a logjam at that position (assuming we pick up a vet point guard as well). Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we sign Steve Blake. Now you're splitting minutes between Blake, Sergio, and Crittenton. I'm not completely sold on Sergio being a starter in this league (yet), but he deserves a shot. Sergio has the tools to be something very special, but he needs the minutes to prove it. 

With that said, if Pritchard thinks Crittenton is going to be the next Jason Kidd or Gary Payton, make the move. But he should only draft another point guard with the caveat that they pick one and go with him. I don't want to see another situation like we had with Jermaine. Young players need minutes to develop and that's simply not possible with a logjam at that position. 

Don't forget, Blake isn't an old man either. He's only 27. If we sign him it will be for at least three or four years, and it will be under the assumption that he will get minutes, either as the starter or as the backup. 

I would much rather draft Oden and a small forward. I would hardly say our situation at the three is solidified right now (as you all know), and despite the improvements of Travis Outlaw, adding another young forward would be very beneficial. 

But here's the real question, if Conley is still available by the 11th pick, do you take him?


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> I'm going to have to think about this move.
> 
> By drafting another young point guard, we are creating a logjam at that position (assuming we pick up a vet point guard as well). Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we sign Steve Blake. Now you're splitting minutes between Blake, Sergio, and Crittenton. I'm not completely sold on Sergio being a starter in this league (yet), but he deserves a shot. Sergio has the tools to be something very special, but he needs the minutes to prove it.
> 
> ...


 You might also note that Roy slides into the pg position in the 4th quarter. Nate wanted Freddie to lose 15 lbs, I think it is because he'll see some time guarding pg's when Roy plays the point. The more I think about it, the more I believe they're going to go with Sergio starting next year. *Sergio, Roy, Dickau and Jones*, there isn't enough minutes at pg for them.... let alone if we sign Blake AND Crittendon.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> I'm going to have to think about this move.
> 
> By drafting another young point guard, we are creating a logjam at that position (assuming we pick up a vet point guard as well). Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we sign Steve Blake. Now you're splitting minutes between Blake, Sergio, and Crittenton. I'm not completely sold on Sergio being a starter in this league (yet), but he deserves a shot. Sergio has the tools to be something very special, but he needs the minutes to prove it.
> 
> ...


I interpreted this rumor more as 'we're looking to grab one of the SFs that drop', not 'we're interested in drafting Crittenton'.

I will say that if Conley gets to #11, Portland will defintely think long and hard about selecting Conley. I'm not sure how good the guy will be as a PG, but it'd almost be a guarantee that Oden would stick around Portland long term if we drafted Conley at #11. 

If Conley isn't around, though, draft a SF.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

graybeard said:


> You might also note that Roy slides into the pg position in the 4th quarter. Nate wanted Freddie to lose 15 lbs, I think it is because he'll see some time guarding pg's when Roy plays the point. The more I think about it, the more I believe they're going to go with Sergio starting next year. *Sergio, Roy, Dickau and Jones*, there isn't enough minutes at pg for them.... let alone if we sign Blake AND Crittendon.


Yeah, PG depth doesn't seem like much of an issue. Some might claim that _quality_ PG depth is, perhaps reasonably, but then again, if Rodriguez is going to manage to become Nash-like, he'll need minutes and patience. Even Nash wasn't Nash-like for the first half of his career. And Roy always seems to make magic happen when he's got the ball in his hands, and as third and fourth stringers, Dickau and Jones might be among the best tandems in the league.

That said, if Bibby is part of a Sacramento fire sale, it might still be worth checking out. In that case, I'd probably try to move Dickau (thinking that Jones has the chance to be the best defender of the four and he _did_ take a big financial risk in coming here) and have a depth chart like:

Bibby, Sergio, Roy, and Jones.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I've said it before, but I believe Crittendon will be the best PG out of this draft. He is big, athletic and can get to the hoop at will. He reminds me a lot of Baron Davis. If we trade JJ for Atlanta's #11 I think that would be ideal. But would Sergio start? I'm not sure he's ready for that yet. I could see him starting and then Crittendon being kind of a combo guard splitting time between the 1 and 2, when Roy's resting up.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> I've said it before, but I believe Crittendon will be the best PG out of this draft. He is big, athletic and can get to the hoop at will. He reminds me a lot of Baron Davis. If we trade JJ for Atlanta's #11 I think that would be ideal. But would Sergio start? I'm not sure he's ready for that yet. I could see him starting and then Crittendon being kind of a combo guard splitting time between the 1 and 2, when Roy's resting up.


I've been a proponent of a 3 guard rotation for a while. I was hoping Jack could be that combo guard off the bench but thus far he's looked really unnatural while playing the 2.


----------



## UOSean (Jul 7, 2005)

I think this trade is probably conditional. As in Atl will probably see who falls to them at #11. If their guy doesn't make it to 11 *and* a guy we like does the trade happens. Pritchard is probably preparing for the scenario where it does happen. You can never be too prepared.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I like Crittenton a lot, and think of a Javaris/Roy backcourt. Both can handle the ball, Javaris is 6'5, Roy 6'6, Outlaw 6'9, Aldridge 7'0 Oden 7'0.

HUGE lineup. I hope we get him, if not I'd like Jeff Green, a point-forward type player.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

That would be the perfect spot to grab Acie law.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

hasoos said:


> That would be the perfect spot to grab Acie law.


i know you like law a lot. i think he could be a valuable pg to some teams who needs a lot of scoring from their pg. but i don't think that team is us.

i have already stated why i don't like law, so i won't go over it again. but i think law is exactly the type of pg that this team should not look to acquire. he's a scoring pg with a streaky shot at best. his d isn't anything to brag about either. the thing that probably turns me off most about law is his over-confidence nature. yes, i know having confidence is good. but law to me seems like a guy who over values himself, sort of like a damon stoudamire. i would hate to acquire a player like that on our team, especially at pg, a position that the team relies on to run the offense.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Possible scenario:
> 
> - Portland trades Jarrett Jack to the Atlanta Hawks for the #11 pick.
> 
> ...


Could very well happen

and if its Zach for RJ.. then NJ may have to add their pick... in which we take Crittenton or Fernandez


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Thad Young..clap Clap Clap Clap Clap...thad Young!!!!


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

I often wonder if the demand for Mike COnley Jr is a little bit of a smoke screen. Haven't NBA scouts learned their lesson about short point guards that have little to no college experience. Does Conley's 1 "pretty good" season (coincidently, playing next to one of the best players in the country)warrant a top 5 pick?

I have to think it is just GM smoke screen to drive up his stock in case PDX wants/needs/covets him. 

I mean, take Atlanta, does anyone really think Conley is a better fit for them at # 3 then Jarret Jack?


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel
Possible scenario:

- Portland trades Jarrett Jack to the Atlanta Hawks for the #11 pick.

- Portland selects Jeff Green or Al Thornton (say Thornton for discussion's sake) at #11 and Greg Oden at #1. 

- Portland signs Steve Blake to the MLE, Travis Outlaw at 3m per year, and Udoka to the minimum.

- Portland sends Zach Randolph to another team for their SF (say Jefferson for discussion's sake).

Blake, Rodriguez, 
Roy, Udoka, Webster
Jefferson, Thornton
Aldridge, Outlaw, LaFrentz
Oden, Przybilla

Dickau, Jones, Miles (maybe retired) 



Trader Bob said:


> Could very well happen
> 
> and if its Zach for RJ.. then NJ may have to add their pick... in which we take Crittenton or Fernandez


I love this senario or some such. Wow!!! Wow!!! This team could easily be a play-off team next year and subsequent years. 

Can't we have 15 on the roster with three on the IR or whatever it is called now?

gatorpops


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

I would take Javaris for Jarret. He is 6'5'' !!!!! I love tall point guards. Our back-court would be 6'5'' and 6'6'' -

If KP pulls off 3 first round picks in this draft... wow!!!


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Blazer Freak said:


> Aldridge 7'0


That would be cool if he was 7 foot... but he's not.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

BenDavis503 said:


> That would be cool if he was 7 foot... but he's not.



If "team sources" are to be believed, LMA had a last little growth spurt during last season, and grew an inch (to be 7'0" in shoes). I can believe it; I grew an inch in college (during my junior year).


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Well all I know is I would be happy if Atlanta did that deal. 

However, I think I would prefer to trade Josh Childress for Jarrett Jack and then take Javaris Crittenton at 11 for point guard depth. I would think Childress could produce more right now than Thaddeus Young or one of the other SF's available could. And it would also free up the log jam at SF for Atlanta. Childress doesn't have the upside as Jeff Green or Young, but let's be honest. You have Oden, Aldridge, Roy, and Sergio. Childress is a guy who works well without the ball.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Again, what makes anyone think KP is targeting a point guard? I have a feeling KP has already spent enough time developing young point guards.


----------



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

BenDavis503 said:


> I would take Javaris for Jarret. He is 6'5'' !!!!! I love tall point guards. Our back-court would be 6'5'' and 6'6''


Before you get too ecited about Crittenton's height !!!!! you should be aware that he's only a half inch taller than Jarrett Jack, has a smaller wing span (6'5½" vs. 6'7½") and shorter standing reach (8'2" vs. 8'4").

If you're basing your love for Crittenton solely on his size, you may be disappointed as the guy we'd be giving up is just as big.

BNM


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

From what I have read of the workout schedule for the Blazers, I am not sure if they have procured another lotto pick. There are a few guys that would be lotto picks in there, but not many. I believe they may have the opportunity for one, and maybe a few guys would give them an opportunity to seize, but I some of the guys listed here in this thread seem to be a "Reach" at the position IMO, taking them at 11 would be too high, and some of the others listed, 11 would be too low.


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

hasoos said:


> From what I have read of the workout schedule for the Blazers, I am not sure if they have procured another lotto pick. There are a few guys that would be lotto picks in there, but not many. I believe they may have the opportunity for one, and maybe a few guys would give them an opportunity to seize, but I some of the guys listed here in this thread seem to be a "Reach" at the position IMO, taking them at 11 would be too high, and some of the others listed, 11 would be too low.


the only reason that we are not working out more top prospect is because they know they are not worth the #1 and POR doesnt officially have another pick.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Just b\c Crittenton is working out for POR doesn't mean he is the guy they would be targeting at #11 if a deal is made....In fact I am unconvinced POR is even after him....I found that to be speculation on DXprss' part....

What I took away from it...is that it is just another whisper\rumour\whatever that POR is indeed angling to acquire another lottery pick....and it looks to me at least....that they are after a mid\late lottery pick....

I think POR is going after a SF...be it Brewer, Green, Wright, Thornton or Young?...

and perhaps Zach could be dealt for a PG & change? A guy like Bibby perhaps? I would love that scenario.....


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

If Atlanta takes a SF with the 11th pick, I think we should all be waiting for the announcement. 

I'm all for Thaddeus Young at this point, and think he'll be very similar to Gay from a year ago. I like Rudy Fernandez too, but you can only take on so many young players.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Perfection said:


> If Atlanta takes a SF with the 11th pick, I think we should all be waiting for the announcement.


If Atlanta takes a SF, it will be out of habit only.


----------



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

Blazer Maven said:


> If Atlanta takes a SF, it will be out of habit only.


Especially if he's a 6'9" tweener. They seem to want to corner the market on guys 6'9" who have no definitive position.

BNM


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

My take on any rumor at this point is to not read too deeply into it. I think that if KP had secured the #11 right now he would be trying to flip it into a higher pick! He would not be happy with the #11.

I also think that we should not read to deeply into who the Blazers workout. The reason being is that I have no doubt that KP would bring in you or I for a workout if it helped him create a smoke screen or kept other teams off balance in regards to what he is trying to accomplish!


----------



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

BIG Q said:


> The reason being is that I have no doubt that KP would bring in you or I for a workout if it helped him create a smoke screen or kept other teams off balance in regards to what he is trying to accomplish!


COOL! Sign me up. Anything for the team.

BNM


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> My take on any rumor at this point is to not read too deeply into it.


I tend to agree with you, but weren't there rumors of a Telfair/Ratliff trade to Boston a few days before the draft? I remember hearing the rumor and thinking "what a terrible trade idea". 

At this point, I would rather avoid drafting a point guard and target a small forward.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Draft a point guard? I'm against it. Trading for one? I'm for it.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

NateBishop3 said:


> I tend to agree with you, but weren't there rumors of a Telfair/Ratliff trade to Boston a few days before the draft? I remember hearing the rumor and thinking "what a terrible trade idea".
> 
> At this point, I would rather avoid drafting a point guard and target a small forward.


I thought the Telfair deal came about on draft day. I liked it because I knew that KP found something big and knew he had to take on a bad contract to get it done. I too would rather target a SF and think that is probably what KP is some how working towards.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Blazer Maven said:


> If Atlanta takes a SF, it will be out of habit only.


I think there is a good chance Atlanta will deal the picks they have - there is no-one called Williams in the draft so the brain trust must not know what to do with them.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

BIG Q said:


> I thought the Telfair deal came about on draft day. I liked it because I knew that KP found something big and knew he had to take on a bad contract to get it done. I too would rather target a SF and think that is probably what KP is some how working towards.


That was news the day before the draft.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

BenDavis503 said:


> That would be cool if he was 7 foot... but he's not.


Except he is. Grew 3/4 of an inch and is now 7 feet in shoes.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

BIG Q said:


> I also think that we should not read to deeply into who the Blazers workout. The reason being is that I have no doubt that KP would bring in you or I for a workout if it helped him create a smoke screen or kept other teams off balance in regards to what he is trying to accomplish!


I've been left with the feeling that a lot of people felt Portland had been taken by other teams to trade up for Aldridge and Roy. I didn't really buy it, but if we were, then I could see KP paying the whole league back by annoying the hell out of them. It's not a bad strategy either way, but I can't wait to see what happens June 28.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

andalusian said:


> I think there is a good chance Atlanta will deal the picks they have - there is no-one called Williams in the draft so the brain trust must not know what to do with them.


But there is someone named Wright & Smith, so you never know.

2 Johnson's 2 Wright's 2 SMith's and 2 William


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

I hate the idea of giving up Jarrett Jack for yet another rookie PG, especially one that isn't even 20 yet. Jarrett should be ready soon to be close to a coach on ths court. All the Roys/Odens/Aldridges in the world do the team no good if yet another young point guard is cutting his teeth. Jack can be upgraded, but I'd prefer a veteran PG in return and then groom Sergio for another year.

I just don't see Sergio as being ready to be the starting PG with only Dickau and a rookie behind him. That scares me.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i heard Yi might slide a bit now that would be a nice thing!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> i heard Yi might slide a bit now that would be a nice thing!


Ah, but could he slide all the way to PG? That might solve the Blazers PG issues right there.


----------

