# Never thought I'd say this....



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Stay the course.

Deal with the losses. If you can't, you are a bandwaggoner, and the sooner you let the door hit you on the rear end (is that ok, censors?), the better.

If the Blazers blow up the team now, looking only in the short term, they'll ruin any potential this young squad could mature into being.

Telfair WILL be good. Webster WILL be good. Jack WILL be good. Outlaw WILL be good. Miles, when healthy, IS good already, and still very young. Zach... well, if he lets Nate start coaching him, instead of being a spoiled brat, IS good. Otherwise, get rid of him for someone with a work ethic.

I'm willing to endure 3-4 years of this, if it means the Blazers will grow into a title contender. They have the talent, they have the coaching, they have the support of the owner.

Or would you rather they get the 8th playoff spot every year, and lose in the first round?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

:biggrin: I would prefer if Portland would become the equivelent of a farm team for the rest of the NBA and only made the playoffs every 10 years. Isn't that what everybody wants for their favorite team? :biggrin: 

:clown:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

chris_in_pdx said:


> Stay the course.
> 
> Deal with the losses. If you can't, you are a bandwaggoner, and the sooner you let the door hit you on the rear end (is that ok, censors?), the better.
> 
> ...


I think it depends on who you trade for, as to whether or not the team would be a 1st and out. 

I think that a big reason why a fair # of us fans think that the "old team" needed to go, was because they didn't show improvement over a 3 year period (2000-01-2003 basically). I do think that if this team pulls a Chicago Bulls and goes after the "whats hot this week" youngins (Chandler and Curry) that'd be a problem. Going after a "proven vet" (Pierce/Carter type) for relatively little CORE expense, is another. I'm not saying the 2nd option is terribly possible.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I'm willing to endure 3-4 years of this, if it means the Blazers will grow into a title contender.


Why? We built two different title contending squads in the recent past without enduring anything of this sort, and as I've said previously, I'm not aware of any teams that've gone through this process and achieved title contending status. Bad teams don't grow into good ones. They become good by adding immediately good pieces (Duncan, Shaq in Orlando, LeBron, Nash in Phoenix, Kidd in NJ, Jordan, etc.). Our current direction is a massively futile one, in my opinion. Staying the course just prolongs the inevitable failure.

Dan


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> Why? We built two different title contending squads in the recent past without enduring anything of this sort...


I'm wondering if Paul went into deep debt as a result of that? I'm wondering if Trader Bob, himself, would have a playoff contending team right now....if under the same fiscal/character mandates which PatterNash must abide by?


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

another point is that our young talent is proving to possess less potential than other team's young talent (JR smith and chris paul....al jefferson...deron williams..to name a few)

and i agree that very few to no title teams are built like this.....players in todays NBA dont stay long enough to take a squad with HS and young international talent all the way to when they will be ready

never thought i would see the day when having 12th row tickets at a blazer game would result in such boredom

i had those seats for the seattle game and i found myself sad at the product and also wanting to leave at the mid 4th quarter point.....no effort except from steve


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> Stay the course.


Yeah, that's working real well everywhere, isn't it? Besides, it's not as if fans have a choice. You think I WANT to support a team that is famous in my memory for (1) losing to an inferior Lakers team because of Magic's pass to nobody
(2) Jordan's "shrug"
(3) Losing the final game against the Bulls to a bunch of scrubs
(4) Losing when 15 points ahead of the hated Lakers
(5) getting the incredibly witty and imaginative "JailBlazers" tag?

Would anyone still be here if they had a choice? Tell me how I can become, say, a Spurs fan, without having a lobotomy.



> I'm willing to endure 3-4 years of this, if it means the Blazers will grow into a title contender.


So, basically, you're a _slightly more patient_ bandwagoner. Kudos. (Oh, and by the way, I hate to break it to you, but you're going to be bitterly disappointed.)


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I agree with you Chris...

To pull the plug now and trade for some veterans to make this team slightly less awful would be asinine.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I'm wondering if Paul went into deep debt as a result of that?


It was a very profitable team until the potent combination set in of losing, bad public image, and luxury tax. I'm of the opinion that [reported] profits were high enough during the winning to have offset the luxury tax issue with room to spare, had the winning continued.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> I agree with you Chris...
> 
> To pull the plug now and trade for some veterans to make this team slightly less awful would be asinine.


I think it depends on what vets you get, and at what cost.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Don't know if I'd use the expresssion "stay the course", Chris, it's pretty taintd.
But yes, I could live with a sucky year IF I felt the team had a plan. Stay the course is what is said when there is none. So I'm sort of in the middle here. I am not a Whitsitt nostalgia freak. I know it takes time to rebuild a team. I am not pushing to trade for a star who will not make the team a contender, is at the brink of being over the hill and has a huge contract. 
What troubles me is the apparent lack of effort and progress; the season is 25% over and I'd like to have seen something; if not wins, at least improving play, but it seems the team has moved backward. Was what we saw last night the team that took Detroit to the wire?
OK, true, we have injuries. 
But if anyone on this team is coasting I want him gone.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

dkap said:


> Why? We built two different title contending squads in the recent past without enduring anything of this sort, and as I've said previously, I'm not aware of any teams that've gone through this process and achieved title contending status. Bad teams don't grow into good ones. They become good by adding immediately good pieces (Duncan, Shaq in Orlando, LeBron, Nash in Phoenix, Kidd in NJ, Jordan, etc.). Our current direction is a massively futile one, in my opinion. Staying the course just prolongs the inevitable failure.
> 
> Dan


That's not true. The 88-89 Blazers had a losing record. I think they were 39-43 or something. The made a couple small to medium sized moves (trading for Buck, drafting Cliffy, Petrovic finally got here), but nothing major. Just a young team that added a few pieces and gelled. Nobody knows what these young guys are capable of yet. What did everybody expect with this years Blazers? We knew they would be really bad. We're 20 games in. Give these guys more time. Besides, it's not like there are any franchise players with decent track records on the blocks. The last thing we need is to become the NY Knicks (or the 2001-3 Blazers for that matter)


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

so if we cant deal with the losses we are bandwagoners now? lol whats next , we're not REAL fans cause we dont believe in the 3-4 yrs till contender plan you suggested? 

its kinda rich for anyone here to doubt the dedication of regular posters to this team - its not a requirement to be happy n optimistic about a 6-16 team and be sold that we are heading to contender status in a few years - we are 2 games ahead of T Dot and now only one ahead of atlanta - teams we have totally ridiculed as hopeless - thats perspective. 

im with crandc , i dont really see a plan either atm or enough heart on the court to make me think things are getting better or that there is even a hint of championship in this squad at all.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> That's not true. The 88-89 Blazers had a losing record. I think they were 39-43 or something.


If that's the best example you can come up with, you just made my point for me. That "bad" team was still good enough to make the playoffs, which means they were already a fairly solid team, very much unlike what we currently have. Great teams are typically built by having solid pieces and then adding the final piece or two that makes them elite. The Blazers squad we have right now is mostly comprised of players trying to prove they belong in the NBA, let alone getting minutes. I'd love to see Telfair, Jack, Webster, Monia, Khryapa, and Outlaw all become legitimate starters (or better), but odds are we'll be lucky to see more than two of them get there. In the process, we're going to limit each one's ability to get that far by jumbling the minutes and rotations and immersing each in a losing environment, so we might be lucky if _any_ reach their potential. Did Jermaine become a better player after leaving here, or did he simply get into the right situation? Ditto for McGrady exploding upon arriving in Orlando. Players rarely grow, they either fit or they don't.

Dan


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

It didn't have to be this way. Only if we drafted JR Smith and Chris Paul things would be different. Chris Paul is 100x better than Sebastian Telfair.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

I just want to see improvment as the season goes on. I dont care how many games we win right now as long as they progress and not regress. My judgement of this team will come in the spring.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Chris Paul is 100x better than Sebastian Telfair.


Yes, but Zach is 107.35x better than Buzz Aldrin. So we should just be happy Nash didn't draft Aldrin.

barfo


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

dkap said:


> If that's the best example you can come up with, you just made my point for me. That "bad" team was still good enough to make the playoffs, which means they were already a fairly solid team, very much unlike what we currently have. Great teams are typically built by having solid pieces and then adding the final piece or two that makes them elite. The Blazers squad we have right now is mostly comprised of players trying to prove they belong in the NBA, let alone getting minutes. I'd love to see Telfair, Jack, Webster, Monia, Khryapa, and Outlaw all become legitimate starters (or better), but odds are we'll be lucky to see more than two of them get there. In the process, we're going to limit each one's ability to get that far by jumbling the minutes and rotations and immersing each in a losing environment, so we might be lucky if _any_ reach their potential. Did Jermaine become a better player after leaving here, or did he simply get into the right situation? Ditto for McGrady exploding upon arriving in Orlando. Players rarely grow, they either fit or they don't.
> 
> Dan


Since when is a sub .500 team considered "fairly solid" Dan? Sneaking into the playoffs with the 8th seed, a losing record, and getting swept in the 1st round isn't very solid IMO. And, to answer your question, Jermain DID become a better player after leaving here. His 1st season in Indiana was very average. He made a lot of mistakes, went for every blocked shot and was in foul trouble often . . . only averaged 12 ppg that season. THE FOLLOWING SEASON he averaged 19, and has been around 20 ever since. He didn't just "get into the right situation", he grew into a better player. Had the Blazers not thought of themselves as contenders who couldn't afford to be patient enough to watch him play through mistakes, he would have been good here too. He just needed minutes, as is the case for just about every high school kid who ever came straight to the NBA (who isn't named Labron) I can't believe you don't see that. And T-Mac? You think his game was anywhere near what it is now when he came into the league? How 'bout Rashard Lewis? He couldn't make a FT way back when, now he drains 3's. And it's not just high school guys that get better. Do you remember Shawn Marion knocking down 3's fresh out of UNLV? If you do, you managed to catch one of the four he made his rookie season. It's not uncommon for him to make four in one game these days. Bottom line is -- most young players take time to develop. 20 games isn't long enough.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Well said Kaydow! :clown: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> It didn't have to be this way. Only if we drafted JR Smith and Chris Paul things would be different. Chris Paul is 100x better than Sebastian Telfair.


wow, paul is averaging 1000 points, and 450 assists a game? Not bad for one player.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think it depends on what the course is. Right now we know one thing...the team is rebuilding. That could mean any number of things. Personally I think it means taking what we have now, rock bottom essentially and building from here. As far as being solid, well compared to other bottom 4 teams we really are pretty solid in regards to balance of the team, we have decent Centers, Power Forwards, SG prospects and relatively good PG Prospects. Compare that to Atlanta who has SF's and that's it...we look solid as far as a foundation to build on. 

To me staying the course is to continue to try and build this team for the long run. That means not going after 30 year old sg's, because it would makes us better for now. In theory the team should be panle to make a few minor upgrades which would make the team more pleasing on the court without sacrificing the long term goal.

IMO it's time for Nash and Co. to start tweraking things a little. TIme to get players tha compliment what we have. Move players that don't fit, get ones that do. Maybe get out of a couple of contracts that could handcuff the team in the near future. We're gonna have to start paying some of these players as their rookie deals come up...The team needs to decide if trhey are going to pay all of these guys, and if not, who?


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

meru said:


> (1) losing to an inferior Lakers team because of Magic's pass to nobody


we lost that game because adelman pulled the starters at the start of the 4th while most/all of the laker starters including magic were still in the game. i think we were in control up to that point.

i can still remember uncle cliffy having that pass go through his hands out of bounds on the fast break at the end of that game - still have nightmares about that.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Since when is a sub .500 team considered "fairly solid" Dan?


Well, let's see... 39-43; calling that sub .500, while technically true, is a pretty big reach to make a point. Two more wins and it's a .500 club, not to mention it's about twice as many wins as this year's team is likely to achieve. And most importantly, it was good enough to make the playoffs, which is "fairly solid" by any definition I'm aware of.

As for Jermaine, the only thing that really changed from his first season in Indy was his shooting efficiency (FG and FT). From what I see of his stats, everything else, including his rate of fouling, remained pretty steady according to the minutes. Same player, more efficient. That sort of transition is to be expected when someone goes from spot minutes to regular duty. I'd almost go as far as to say the only thing that really changed from his time in Portland was minutes, based on the per minute averages.

Dan


----------



## toutlaw25 (Aug 7, 2005)

dkap said:


> Well, let's see... 39-43; calling that sub .500, while technically true, is a pretty big reach to make a point. Two more wins and it's a .500 club, not to mention it's about twice as many wins as this year's team is likely to achieve. And most importantly, it was good enough to make the playoffs, which is "fairly solid" by any definition I'm aware of.
> Dan


A sub .500 team is far from solid. Those blazers just happen to sneak in the playoffs because every other team in the western conference sucked that year. In 2004, we finished at .500, but missed the playoffs. I don't think anyone was calling that a "solid" season.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

toutlaw25 said:


> A sub .500 team is far from solid. Those blazers just happen to sneak in the playoffs because every other team in the western conference sucked that year. In 2004, we finished at .500, but missed the playoffs. I don't think anyone was calling that a "solid" season.


His original assertion was that we didn't have to go through what we're going through now. 39 wins is about double what we're going through now, so his point is unquestionably valid.

Whether making the playoffs is solid per se or whether non-solid teams can make it into the playoffs is getting into semantics that I'm not sure really matter.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> It was a very profitable team until the potent combination set in of losing, bad public image, and luxury tax. I'm of the opinion that [reported] profits were high enough during the winning to have offset the luxury tax issue with room to spare, had the winning continued.
> 
> Dan


I suppose I'll cite this as an example of what I was relating to.

Resulting from similar fiscal predicaments - emanating from MANY of his businesses - Paul didn't just veer, apparently, he purposed to turn on a dime.

Paul planted a new garden. As a good farmer, though, you don't plant the garden, only to dig it up a few weeks later to see how it's coming along.

Some things require patience and hope. I, for one, am willing to wait and see what eventually pops up out of the ground. My guess is, we should start seeing _some_ culmination of these new efforts by next season.

......and taking a strong mental note of Nate's words:



> "Right now, I'm not coaching, I'm teaching. I'm coaching more for next year and the year after, more so than right now. We're just so green as a team. I'm trying to condition these guys that, 'It's not going to get better unless you work.'".....


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I find the reports about massive losses unconvincing for several reasons:

- It's always reported as $100M, which is way too clean of a number to be accurate. I'd guess it's more like $55M, rounded off to the nearest hundred million...

- Payroll did not change significantly from the time profits were among the 5 best in all of pro sports to the time they were reporting the biggest losses ever. I figure the luxury tax accounted for an extra $30-40M ding when it kicked in, which still leaves us at least $60M short of the magic $100M number. (Probably quite a bit more, since that's just figuring in the loss amount and ignoring how much profit margin there was previously.) Assuming all the numbers are reasonably accurate, the only thing that explains that is an enormous drop in attendance and merchandising, and perhaps losses (real or creatively accounted) on the stadium and related enterprises. I've yet to see (or pay attention to) an explanation of whether the fan side of the equation could really add up to the supposed values. I'd say it's more likely a matter of accounting.

- I don't have a third item in mind, but two bullets doesn't qualify as "several"...



> Paul planted a new garden. As a good farmer, though, you don't plant the garden, only to dig it up a few weeks later to see how it's coming along.


Not a bad analogy, but "The Accidental Billionaire's" track record of building successful enterprises from the ground up isn't something I'm willing to pin my hopes on, especially in a case like this where the next time it works would be the first time.

Dan


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> ...."The Accidental Billionaire's" track record of building successful enterprises from the ground up isn't something I'm willing to pin my hopes on, especially in a case like this where the next time it works would be the first time.
> 
> Dan


So, what, then, are you doing here?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> So, what, then, are you doing here?


Are we only supposed to be here if we have confidence that the current plan--which has failed so many times for so many other teams--is going to work?

That sort of "love it or leave it" attitude simply doesn't make sense for sports fans, ABM, and I hope it's not the position you expect the posters on this board to take.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Are we only supposed to be here if we have confidence that the current plan--which has failed so many times for so many other teams--is going to work?


I just feel that some in here appear to be ignorant of what the current management team's mission was/is.

It just seems to me that it's too easy to criticize the situation when we're still in the midst of the overall (apparent, 3-year) mission.

I'll defer to my analogy of last season....the clutter from the garage was taken out on the driveway, some of it gotten rid of, and now is in the process of being replaced and/or put back into the garage in more acceptable (to most) order.

Not to mention that, all the while, the team is currently playing without 3 of its top players?

What do you guys really expect RIGHT NOW?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> It just seems to me that it's too easy to criticize the situation when we're still in the midst of the overall (apparent, 3-year) mission.


Even AMWAY says success is a 5 year plan.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Even AMWAY says success is a 5 year plan.


Depends on how big your family is. 

Friends, family, and co-workers seems to be the only folks AmWay members sell to on a regular basis. That is, unless they're already successful, along with a previously amassed network of associates, etc.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

chris_in_pdx said:


> Stay the course.
> 
> Deal with the losses. If you can't, you are a bandwaggoner, and the sooner you let the door hit you on the rear end (is that ok, censors?), the better.
> 
> ...



Normally I'd agree with you. The problem is that none of these lottery picks and none of the guys that are supposed to be the future of our franchise are doing anything positive at all. Guys like Telfair, Martell, Outlaw, and Jack are looking more and more like Kwame Brown instead of Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Bosh, Frye, etc. It's not the losses that are getting to me, it's the performances of those I just mentioned. When Charles Smith, Dixon, and Blake are playing better than our 'future', it's kind of depressing. I'm starting to think they are going to be nowhere near as good as we were lead to believe.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ProZach said:


> Normally I'd agree with you. The problem is that none of these lottery picks and none of the guys that are supposed to be the future of our franchise are doing anything positive at all. Guys like Telfair, Martell, Outlaw, and Jack are looking more and more like Kwame Brown instead of Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Bosh, Frye, etc. It's not the losses that are getting to me, it's the performances of those I just mentioned. When Charles Smith, Dixon, and Blake are playing better than our 'future', it's kind of depressing. I'm starting to think they are going to be nowhere near as good as we were lead to believe.


Come on now...to be Fair, Outlaw and Jack were both taken in the 20's...Telfair at #13. Webster we took at #6, and we can see that there is potential, but he needs a little time, we all knew he was a year or 2 away. Of the Players you mentioned only Howard was a HS to pro player, the rest all had experience in College.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Come on now...to be Fair, Outlaw and Jack were both taken in the 20's...Telfair at #13. Webster we took at #6, and we can see that there is potential, but he needs a little time, we all knew he was a year or 2 away. Of the Players you mentioned only Howard was a HS to pro player, the rest all had experience in College.



Okay, but let's both be fair. Blake has outperformed both Telfair and Jack in the few opportunities he's had. STEVE BLAKE. Even he's better than they are right now. Outlaw hardly plays, but his expectations weren't as high to begin with, so I'll give you that one. But Webster... All I heard is what a great shooter he is and he can't hit the broad side of a barn. But most of the time you hardly even notice he's on the court. CHARLES SMITH has, at the very least, played him even, let alone Juan Dixon. They are getting outplayed by Euro-players and bench players from other teams. Mediocre bench players.

I'm not saying we should start trading left and right, I'm just saying that I'm far less optimistic about these guys future as I was. Atlanta's main young talent is at least performing pretty well, even though they have a bad record. I think there future is much brighter than ours.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I just feel that some in here appear to be ignorant of what the current management team's mission was/is.


Wasn't one of management's stated 3 criteria to maintain the level of competitiveness? They've fared only slightly worse there than they have at cutting back on bad contracts, and we still have plenty of character issues if Nate's public comments are to be taken at face value. There's no ignorance of management's master plan, rather awareness of how flawed it is.

Dan


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> There's no ignorance of management's master plan, rather awareness of how flawed it is.
> 
> Dan


OK, let me rephrase what I related earlier: Come back in a year, you'll probably be a bit more satisfied. Currently, you're just looking at a field of dirt.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Come back in a year, you'll probably be a bit more satisfied.


On the one hand, it would be tough to be less satisfied, but on the other hand, there's very little evidence that things will be better next year. You say this field of dirt will turn into a garden, I say it's just as likely to turn into a weed patch.

I suppose it all comes down to whether you think this rebuilding plan can work. I'm siding with history until proven otherwise.

Dan


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> I'm not saying we should start trading left and right, I'm just saying that I'm far less optimistic about these guys future as I was. Atlanta's main young talent is at least performing pretty well, even though they have a bad record. I think there future is much brighter than ours.


Marvin Williams the #2 overall pick that Atlanta drafted is averaging a whopping 5.7 ppg and 4.5 rpg....Not exactly great...The people who are carrying that team are their veterans Joe Johnson and Tyrone Lue....


----------



## MercyKersey (Jul 22, 2003)

Stay the course.. :cheers:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Schilly said:


> IMO it's time for Nash and Co. to start tweraking things a little. TIme to get players tha compliment what we have. Move players that don't fit, get ones that do. Maybe get out of a couple of contracts that could handcuff the team in the near future. We're gonna have to start paying some of these players as their rookie deals come up...The team needs to decide if trhey are going to pay all of these guys, and if not, who?


I think, and probably Nate/Nash would agree, that it is to early to do this. We can't judge players, especially the young ones by such a short period of time. They might make a move because of Ruben but I doubt they'll do anything like what you are talking about until after this season is over which is probably best. So IMO it's not that time yet.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

ProZach said:


> Okay, but let's both be fair. Blake has outperformed both Telfair and Jack in the few opportunities he's had. STEVE BLAKE. Even he's better than they are right now. Outlaw hardly plays, but his expectations weren't as high to begin with, so I'll give you that one. But Webster... All I heard is what a great shooter he is and he can't hit the broad side of a barn. But most of the time you hardly even notice he's on the court. CHARLES SMITH has, at the very least, played him even, let alone Juan Dixon. They are getting outplayed by Euro-players and bench players from other teams. Mediocre bench players.
> 
> I'm not saying we should start trading left and right, I'm just saying that I'm far less optimistic about these guys future as I was. Atlanta's main young talent is at least performing pretty well, even though they have a bad record. I think there future is much brighter than ours.


And this surprises you? Blake has spent the time on the bench and going through the learning process that our players hasn't so even though he might not be one of the best players out there he's ahead of our younger players. That's why we got Blake to be a steadying influence no matter the opinion of a lot of the posters on his talent level.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I think, and probably Nate/Nash would agree, that it is to early to do this. We can't judge players, especially the young ones by such a short period of time.


Then why build a team around them? If the talent of young players can't be judged this early, is it wise to draft them and expect them to be successful? Are we a farm team or a NBA team?

Dan


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

dkap said:


> Then why build a team around them? If the talent of young players can't be judged this early, is it wise to draft them and expect them to be successful? Are we a farm team or a NBA team?
> 
> Dan


This is the path they chose. Do you think they are going to scrap the plan this quickly? That is why most plans like this fail is because they panic and bail. They said from the get go it was going to be rough and it was going to take a commitment. Would you expect a rookie to come in and be able to judge him this soon? Or after two years? I can't believe people are expecting results so quickly or to react to such a short time period.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

It's a rather interesting change of events that have taken place in the past 6 months. I don't think PatterNash (or, anyone, for that matter) could have predicted: (a) that McMillan that would sign-on as coach.......or (b) understood the force and/or impact that he is having on this team.

I believe that Nash, Pritchard, et al, certainly had a good idea, early on, as to the direction - personnel-wise - they wanted to go in. Then, low and behold, Nate showed up and now some of those 'bets" appear to be off. I mean, it's "suddenly" an evaluative year, with Nate saying that *he* will be the one determining who stays and who goes.

Stay tuned.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> That is why most plans like this fail is because they panic and bail.


You may well be right, but it's an unsupportable statement because the opposite (such a plan successfully seen to fruition) has never occurred. We don't know that this plan can succeed or that other potentially successful ones have failed due to being aborted prematurely and not merely due to being doomed.



> Would you expect a rookie to come in and be able to judge him this soon? Or after two years?


I've got a one word response to that: Clippers. If you're depending on evaluation of young talent to get anywhere, you end up replacing one young guy with the next and spinning your wheels. The Clips didn't become good until adding Cassell and Mobley (both iffy character guys, by the way), and finally holding onto a guy (Brand) long enough to be considered a veteran. In this league, you have to have your talent evaluated prior to bringing it in.

Dan


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

ABM, as a gardener I liked your analogy. Sure, if I planted lettuce I'd have a crop this year, but I had too much lettuce and planted fruit trees. And it will take 3 years to get fruit, more to get abundant harvest. So, should I have kept planting lettuce, even though I had too much and it doesn't keep and can't be canned or frozen for later use?

It is ridiculous to compare a high schooler 20 games into the season with someone who went through a good college program and then a couple of years in the NBA, even if the latter is less gifted. An average high school senior will probably outscore a brilliant 4th grader, true?

Last year we laughed, some scorned, when the Clippers were referred to as a model. Well, the Clippers are in first place. Without a $100 million payroll, without really bad guys (Cassell was considered a head case but so far as I know has no rape or assault convictions). The guys on the team say they were finally given a chance to grow together. Did anyone, a year ago, 2 years ago, predict the Clippers would as of December 19 be in first place in a division including the Suns, Lakers and Kings?


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

The problem I have with the gardening analogy is this: With gardening, you know what you'll get (i.e. lettuce), as long as you're dilligent. With this basketball youth movement, we really have no idea. A better analogy would probably have something to do with gambling, where the house typically wins.



> Did anyone, a year ago, 2 years ago, predict the Clippers would as of December 19 be in first place in a division including the Suns, Lakers and Kings?


Probably not, but unless we're willing to build around vets who also happen to have questionable character on or off the court -- both traits apply to both Cassell and Mobley -- then the Clips' success cannot be used as evidence that our plan will succeed. That would require us abandoning ship midway, which is exactly what this thread is about.

Dan


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> The problem I have with the gardening analogy is this: With gardening, you know what you'll get (i.e. lettuce), as long as you're dilligent. With this basketball youth movement, we really have no idea. A better analogy would probably have something to do with gambling, where the house typically wins.


Please, let me repeat....please don't understimate the Nate factor. Read the Nash, Nate, and the Future thread.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

dkap said:


> The problem I have with the gardening analogy is this: With gardening, you know what you'll get (i.e. lettuce), as long as you're dilligent.


You mean like my lemon tree producing grapefruit? (honest)


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

dkap said:


> .
> 
> As for Jermaine, the only thing that really changed from his first season in Indy was his shooting efficiency (FG and FT). From what I see of his stats, everything else, including his rate of fouling, remained pretty steady according to the minutes. Same player, more efficient. That sort of transition is to be expected when someone goes from spot minutes to regular duty. I'd almost go as far as to say the only thing that really changed from his time in Portland was minutes, based on the per minute averages.
> 
> Dan


You're contradicting yourself. "That sort of transition is to be expected when someone goes from spot minutes . . . " Obviously, Jermaine wasn't the same player he is today (as he was in Portland or his 1st season in Indiana) if he had to go through an 81 game "transition" to reach his potential. Your original question was "Did Jermaine become a better player after he left here . . .?" 
Obviously, he did. After a full season in 2000-01 of taking some lumps, or a "transition" as you call it. Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Please, let me repeat....please don't understimate the Nate factor. Read the Nash, Nate, and the Future thread.


Great, another factor that can't be quantified any time soon... That's supposed to convince me that we'll be the first team to prove history wrong?



> You mean like my lemon tree producing grapefruit? (honest)


Ok, blind luck (or non-luck) aside, you pretty much know what you'll get with gardening. Not so with unproven NBA prospects. I doubt the odds are even 50/50 for all but the top-5 in any given draft, which is why I brought up the gambling analogy.



> You're contradicting yourself. "That sort of transition is to be expected when someone goes from spot minutes . . . " Obviously, Jermaine wasn't the same player he is today (as he was in Portland or his 1st season in Indiana) if he had to go through an 81 game "transition" to reach his potential. Your original question was "Did Jermaine become a better player after he left here . . .?"
> Obviously, he did. After a full season in 2000-01 of taking some lumps, or a "transition" as you call it.


kaydow, I'm not clear on what you're saying the contradiction is... I pointed to his per minute stats being fairly consistent across seasons as evidence that he didn't suddenly become better. To say that players become more efficient as they gain experience vs. basically being the same player they were when they came into the league is not at all inconsistent as far as I'm concerned. Just two different angles of viewing the same sphere... An improved efficiency player does not by any means equate to a good (i.e. impact) player. It just means they're getting closer to their max potential.

Dan


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> Great, another factor that can't be quantified any time soon... That's supposed to convince me that we'll be the first team to prove history wrong?


I'm not trying to _convince_ you of anything, Dan. Just pointing out that there's really not a whole lot you can do about our _field of dirt_............other than (a) have hope that a crop will become of it, or (b), determine it's all just a futile effort, or (c) wallow in frustration, or (d) laugh.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Put me in camp 'b', with a sub-clause of hoping management will wise up to the futility and do something proactive.

Dan


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

dkap said:


> Great, another factor that can't be quantified any time soon... That's supposed to convince me that we'll be the first team to prove history wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, you are saying that Jermaine O'Neil hasn't gotten better, he's just become more effecient? I guess that's your opinion. Mine is that O'Neil has become more effecient BECAUSE he's gotten better.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

That's pretty much the way I see it. He still has the same glaring weaknesses and the same athletic strengths, and he's still about as inconsistent as he was here, just with his highs and lows having a greater spread due to more minutes (think multipliers).

Tougher to take into account would be the reports of how phenomenol he was here in practices. If true, that's even more evidence that he didn't really improve after leaving Portland, he simply stepped into the correct situation. And that's precisely the point I've been harping on -- if a young player doesn't show something significant early on, odds are they won't do so with the team that drafted them (thus my farm team comments), either because they aren't good enough or the situation is wrong. I wouldn't bank on the situation changing within the same team, be it due to personnel, coaching, or management changes, either. I can't think of many/any cases of that happening.

Dan


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

dkap said:


> And that's precisely the point I've been harping on -- if a young player doesn't show something significant early on, odds are they won't do so with the team that drafted them (thus my farm team comments), either because they aren't good enough or the situation is wrong. I wouldn't bank on the situation changing within the same team, be it due to personnel, coaching, or management changes, either. I can't think of many/any cases of that happening.
> 
> Dan


pretty interesting point you're making. we could see almost from the very beginning that Rasheed Wallace, Bonzi Wells, Darius Miles and Zach Randolph were going to be pretty damned good for us. Qyntel Woods never really did that. Damon Stoudamire looked so-so from the beginning and never really rose above that. Travis Outlaw has shown us glimpses, but it ain't nearly as crystal clear how he'll fit in. 

I've seen a similar phenomenon in business. when my employer acquired a rival in another city that was poorly run and generally inept, we tried our damndest to retrain the new guys. just failed. it took us about two years to finally get done firing everybody and start with a clean slate. the problem was that you just couldn't change the way they were. they didn't fit in, and it was obvious right from the get-go it just wasn't going to work. 

maybe guys like Telfair and Outlaw just aren't destined to work out here, no matter what we do. 

maybe the key for us is to find other teams with similar young, talented "potential" guys and start doing some serious horse trading. maybe think about Al Jefferson for Telfair, or similar types of deals.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

theWanker said:


> pretty interesting point you're making. we could see almost from the very beginning that Rasheed Wallace, Bonzi Wells, Darius Miles and Zach Randolph were going to be pretty damned good for us. Qyntel Woods never really did that. Damon Stoudamire looked so-so from the beginning and never really rose above that.


Sorry, Wanker, don't agree. First of all, Wallace already had played in the NBA when he came to Portland; he was not our pick. He had already shown he could play very well but needed to control himself. Darius Miles was considered a question mark and to many still is. Remember how Cavs fans used to say thanks for "giving" them McInnis for Miles? Wells spent his first year on the bench. The _Sporting News _ gave the Blazers an F for that draft, although a reader correctly pointed out they should have gotten an Incomplete. Randolph also played little his first year. Many of us were puzzled as to why the Blazers drafted a power forward when they already were stocked at that position, and figured they should have taken Brendon Haywood, a center, instead. True, Randolph looked great his first summer league but that was summer league. Woods also looked great in summer league and had been projected as a lottery pick. He fell due to marijuana troubles. Most of us had high hopes, no pun intended, for him. Damon was rookie of the year in Toronto. The team had tried to draft him but were unable to move up far enough and put a lot of effort into finally landing Damon in Portland.

I do agree with you on Outlaw.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I included Sheed, Miles and Stoudamire because they are examples of guys who "fit" in one situation and clearly didn't in another. Sheed and Miles fit in Portland, but not in Washington and Cleveland. Stoudamire fit in Toronto, but not nearly as well here. 

as for your contention about Miles not fitting here, just look at our record since he got injured. just look at the 18 ppg he put up. he's played well whenever given sufficient minutes here in Portland. much better than he ever did in Cleveland. don't know why you bring up how Cleveland fans disliked him--it only proves my (and dkap's) point that he didn't fit in there. 

Randolph was easily putting up 20/10 numbers on a per minute basis right from the get-go here. Bonzi was producing pretty much the same way. I could tell very early on with both these guys that we were going to have to find time for them. 

so I've supplied a number of Blazer examples of knowing very early on how a Blazer was going to fit it. it's interesting, because I didn't really believe dkap until I did the exercise myself in this thread. it seems he's right. you have a pretty good idea who's going to be good on your team very, very early in their careers. 

(if you'd like to present your own list of players we've nurtured over many seasons to fruition, I'd love to see it. to disprove dkap's theory, just come up with guys who looked generally horrible or completely forgettable for our team in their first two seasons, but exploded later with us.) 

by this yardstick, it seems like Khryapa, Blake, Ha and maybe Webster are the youngsters likely to have a productive career on this team.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Uh-oh, now my reputation's on the line. 

Dan


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Wanker, I seem to have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the question was whether these were or were not good players (we knew Wallace, Miles et al were but not Damon, etc.), not whether or not they fit in to the Portland team that existed when they were/are here. That of course is a totally different question.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

it is an interesting theory. I'm not sure I buy into it entirely myself, mostly because I think high school point guards could be in a different category. 

high schoolers tend to take longer to develop. point guards take longer to develop. combine the two dynamics (as we have with Telfair), and who knows how long it can take for a quality guy to emerge. maybe Telfair doesn't "fit" right now just because he's still learning the NBA game. 

it's not like there's a lot of case history to go by in the NBA. we've got one of the first ever high school point guards in the league.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

crandc said:


> Wanker, I seem to have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the question was whether these were or were not good players (we knew Wallace, Miles et al were but not Damon, etc.), not whether or not they fit in to the Portland team that existed when they were/are here. That of course is a totally different question.


actually, I'm not sure you get my point. I'm just expounding on dkap's idea that a guy has a certain fate on any team he lands on. he'll either be good on that team right off the bat (even in very limited minutes), or stink. 

if he stinks you trade him asap. you do so before his trade value takes a big hit. you don't kid yourself that he just needs nurturing, just needs time. swap him for a cog on somebody else's team and hope the new guy fits in better. rinse. repeat. over and over. eventually you find the combination that fits.

in this philosophy, patience is not a virtue but a vice. the more you wait for a guy to finally fit in, the more you hurt yourself. you are giving up the opportunity cost of getting somebody who will fit, and you are watching the value of the non-fitting player deteriorate on the bench.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> if he stinks you trade him asap. you do so before his trade value takes a big hit.


It's interesting how a theory co-evolves via an exchange like this. I hadn't thought about it before, but what you just said reminds me of Whitsitt and his infamous trigger finger. We all know he's had great success at building successful teams (what follows that is the part open to debate), but maybe, just maybe, he was onto something that we're just now touching on. Namely, you're better off cycling through players as soon as you've seen enough. Wait it out and you get nowhere.

Dan


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

dkap said:


> It's interesting how a theory co-evolves via an exchange like this. I hadn't thought about it before, but what you just said reminds me of Whitsitt and his infamous trigger finger. We all know he's had great success at building successful teams (what follows that is the part open to debate), but maybe, just maybe, he was onto something that we're just now touching on. Namely, you're better off cycling through players as soon as you've seen enough. Wait it out and you get nowhere.
> 
> Dan


you know, while I was writing that last post it started to dawn on me that this was a key ingredient of Whitsett's philosophy. 

look at how quickly he gave up on Kelvin Cato, even though he seemed like a decent enough project at the time. in retrospect, it was a no-brainer to dump him (and others) to get Pippen, but I remember at the time thinking it'd have been nice to hold onto him and develop him. I still was happy about the Pippen signing, but giving up Cato gave me pause. boy was I wrong. 

it seem Patternash have the opposite--what I'll call "hunker down" philosophy. hold onto the same young guys long enough and as the players become good, the team will become good.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

so I guess the next question is, what is the definition of the "short period of time" it takes to evaluate your players? 20 games? 40? 82?


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

theWanker said:


> so I guess the next question is, what is the definition of the "short period of time" it takes to evaluate your players? 20 games? 40? 82?


And you are talking about FAs right, not draft picks.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

mgb said:


> And you are talking about FAs right, not draft picks.


i'm talking about every player.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

theWanker said:


> actually, I'm not sure you get my point. I'm just expounding on dkap's idea that a guy has a certain fate on any team he lands on. he'll either be good on that team right off the bat (even in very limited minutes), or stink.
> 
> if he stinks you trade him asap. you do so before his trade value takes a big hit. you don't kid yourself that he just needs nurturing, just needs time. swap him for a cog on somebody else's team and hope the new guy fits in better. rinse. repeat. over and over. eventually you find the combination that fits.
> 
> in this philosophy, patience is not a virtue but a vice. the more you wait for a guy to finally fit in, the more you hurt yourself. you are giving up the opportunity cost of getting somebody who will fit, and you are watching the value of the non-fitting player deteriorate on the bench.


It's don't think it's that easy. Take this "theory" and apply it to the current Blazer roster. Tell me who you would trade. Then, tell me what you would expect to get back for these guys. Just curious.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

theWanker said:


> so I guess the next question is, what is the definition of the "short period of time" it takes to evaluate your players? 20 games? 40? 82?


If you're talking about one of our former players or a player Portland had a chance to draft, then even one good quarter is good enough to judge them a smashing success in the NBA. 

If it's one of our players, they can only be judged when they get caught smoking weed or they're elected into the hall of fame.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> If you're talking about one of our former players or a player Portland had a chance to draft, then even one good quarter is good enough to judge them a smashing success in the NBA.
> 
> If it's one of our players, they can only be judged when they get caught smoking weed or they're elected into the hall of fame.


strange how that seems to be the case sometimes, ain't it?

re: the first one.

whats strange is, the players we could've drafted can have as bad a stats, or in some cases, worse than a player on our team and it still doesn't matter. They're a smashing success, and our guy is a bum who'll be out of the league in 5 years, and will never be anything more than just a role player.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

kaydow said:


> It's don't think it's that easy. Take this "theory" and apply it to the current Blazer roster. Tell me who you would trade. Then, tell me what you would expect to get back for these guys. Just curious.


well, since I don't really follow prep and college ball at all, I'll confess to being pretty ignorant about most of the young guys drafted by other teams this year. 

I would, however, be willing to reshuffle our deck by trading Monia and Telfair for guys picked at similar draft positions on other teams. I'd trade Jack for a guy picked in the lottery, since I think he's probably a lottery-caliber talent. ditto for Outlaw. 

I don't think Webster has had enough burn to get a feel for how good he can be for us. the fact that McMillan has chosen to start him in several games says to me that he must be doing something right in practice. if he hasn't shown any improvement by the end of the season, maybe we should look to trade him. he's a pretty valuable chip right now, so he could get us something nice, I suspect. 

like I said before, I'm really inclined to keep Ha, Khryapa and Blake at this point. each of them have shown enough to make me think they've got long-term potential on our team. 

I'd trade Randolph and Miles if I thought we could get anything close to fair value, but since I suspect we can't I don't see the point in even considering it much.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Tell me who you would trade. Then, tell me what you would expect to get back for these guys.


That really ought to be separated into two distinct considerations: 1) Talent evaluation, and 2) Trade brokering. Whitsitt happened to be pretty good at both. Nash's strengths clearly lean toward #1. Just because you can't find ideal alternatives out there, doesn't mean you should hold onto the guys indefinitely in the name of steady nurturing.

As far as selecting a cutoff point for talent evaluation, I would assign a sliding scale based on a few different factors...

Rookies - a quarter of the way into their second season

Free Agents - a quarter to half of the way into their first year

A certain +/- needs to be applied based on each player's opportunity to get on the court, but that's partly reflected in the rookies getting more time to show their stuff. You usually don't sign a free agent (at least not the ones that have any significance to this discussion) to park them on the bench ... that's what the young guys are for. The first year for a rookie is bound to be an adjustment period, but after that they should be capable of performing.

Dan


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

dkap said:


> That really ought to be separated into two distinct considerations: 1) Talent evaluation, and 2) Trade brokering. Whitsitt happened to be pretty good at both. Nash's strengths clearly lean toward #1. Just because you can't find ideal alternatives out there, doesn't mean you should hold onto the guys indefinitely in the name of steady nurturing.
> 
> As far as selecting a cutoff point for talent evaluation, I would assign a sliding scale based on a few different factors...
> 
> ...


You do realize that you are going to lose some good players with this system, don't you? Guys like Chauncey Billups, Steve Nash, Gary Payton, Jermaine O'Neil, & Ben Wallace started their NBA careers rather uneventfully. There are a bunch of 2nd tier players as well like D-Fish, Brad Miller, & David Wesley that didn't look like much early on. With your 1-1/4 season evaluation system, some (if not all) of those guys would have had to go. You do have to evaluate statistics when building a roster, but what makes the great GMs great is their ability to evaluate talent & personalities. Jerry West traded a proven Divac for Kobe because his gut told him Kobe was a once in a decade type player. I'm pretty sure he didn't care how effecient Kobe was in high school statistically. The thing I don't like about putting all your stock into numbers is that they don't tell the whole story. Is so-and-so a good on-ball defender? The numbers might tell you he averages a lot of steals--does that make him a good defender? Can he set a pick? Does he box out well? Does he make good decisions? Meaning, does he leave his man to help at the right time? Does he take good shots within the flow of the offense? And on and on. So much of the game doesn't show up in the box scores. Look how many offensive rebounds the Blazers have given up this year, especially on free throws. Show me the stat that tells you who's responsible for that?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

kaydow--I don't think dkap is saying that a young guy like Nash was has to be producing statistics to be worth keeping. he's saying a player needs to have a positive impact on the game very early on, regardless of minutes.

teams did give up on guys like Nash and Ben Wallace too early. but you also have to take into account all the times teams gave up on guys like Kwame and Kandi and Darko and others way too late. 

there was a time, for example, when the Wizards could've dealt Kwame Brown for a really, really nice player. they had a golden opportunity with him and just squandered it because they were sure they could bring him along. 

we had the same thing with Qyntel Woods. there was definitely a time when he was worth a lot more than his crummy late teens pick. after that first great summer league he had, he was considered the steal of his draft. 

even Randolph, whom I like, was worth a lot more if we'd been willing to trade him back when Sheed was here, or when we just signed SAR. 

it's easy to point at Ben Wallace or Chauncy Billups because it's an obvious story. what's less obvious, and often far more damning to a franchise, is the opportunity costs of holding onto a young asset much longer than you really should.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

With Ben Wallace and Billups, the key ingredient is whether they would have produced at that level in their previous situations. Ben in Detroit is much like McGrady in Orlando. The productivity didn't materialize until the opportunity did. Had Orlando held onto Wallace, who's to say he would've become half the player he is now?

It's a two part philosophy with the two halves not quite jiving with each other logically (opportunity vs. being basically the same player), but somehow meshing harmoniously...

Dan


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I don't think that time frame is true of draft picks especially on a deep team like the Blazers have had in the past.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Which players does it not hold true for, and how long of an alternative timeframe would you suggest? Guys like Zach, Bonzi, Cliffy, Clyde, Terry ... all of them showed early on that they had what it took, as far as I can remember. Guys like Abdelnaby, Bryant, Cato, Boumtje-Boumtje, Qyntel, Erick Barkley, Hollywood Robinson ... they all showed from the get go that the best we could hope for from them was moderate contributions. Mark Bryant I might remove from that list and put him in some sort of early maturer sub-category. He was like the 6th grader we all knew that should've been in high school ... good early, but never progressed much beyond that.

I'm looking down the list of Portland draft picks, and I just don't see any examples of guys that didn't make it pretty clear in their first year if they were keepers...

http://www.basketballreference.com/draft/draftteam.htm?tm=POR&lg=N

The reason I gave rookies a bit of second year leeway is because most all first year guys get less chance to show what they've got, but by the second year they're regulars in the rotation if at all capable. With youth, it's a balancing act of giving them the necessary seasoning and evaluating them while they're still in the "potential" curve, and the bulk of that takes place during their first off-season and start of year 2, in my opinion. Shortly after that, they become lumped with the journeymen...

Dan


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

We have had some downright horrible first round selections. You can still get quality at the bottom of the first round or later, ala Gilbert Arenas, Manu Ginobili, Clifford Robinson, etc. We need better talent evaluators!

1990-Alaa Abdelnaby- All I remember from this guy was he always talked on the bench.

1992-David Johnson- David who!?

1993-James Robinson- Out of the league by 2000.

1994-Aaron McKie- Actually a good pick but only played 2.5 seasons for us, great defender.

1995-Shanw Respert- Traded for Gary Trent I believe, good thing we traded Respert because he was a bust.

1996-Jermaine O'Neal- Well I don't have to tell you about this pick.

1997-Chris Anstey- Never played for us but Alvin Williams was a steal in the 2nd round.

2000-Erick Barkley- What did we ever see in this guy, this New Yorker is out of the league, is Telfair going to follow in his footsteps?

2001-Zach Randolph- Great pick but with people wanting to trade him I don't know?

2002-Qyntel Woods- What was Whitsitt thinking!?

2003-Travis Outlaw- Has done nothing so far, looks like a major bust.

2004-Sebastian Telfair, Sergei Monia, Viktor Khryapa- Well Nash, looks like only one of them will be a good NBA player(Viktor), even I can hit 33%!

2005-Martell Webster, Jarrett Jack- Nash sure loves multiple draft picks so he has more chances to look good, LOL!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

SolidGuy3 said:


> We have had some downright horrible first round selections. You can still get quality at the bottom of the first round or later, ala Gilbert Arenas, Manu Ginobili, Clifford Robinson, etc. We need better talent evaluators!


You can say the same for just about every team. 

I like how you say we should get better talent in the 2nd round, then you use one of our draft picks as an example. Nice work.


----------

