# Blazers draft day grade



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

So we traded Telfair, Khryapa and Theo for Lamarcas Aldridge and Brandon Roy. 

We gave up an undersized shoot first point guard, a decent role player and and injured vet.

We get two potential superstar players. 

I don't understand all the negativity, the Blazers have needed a superstar since Clyde left and they just gave themselves two chances to get one in one draft. 

The roster is completely balanced out now. The lineup of: Jack, Roy, Webster, Aldridge and Pryz is a great building block for the future. Aldridge has an excellent chance of being the best big man in this draft and Roy is the most NBA ready out of any player in the draft. We improved in both the frontcourt and the backcourt. I'm happy with what the Blazers have done.

Grade - A


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

B+

wouldve been an A+ if they kept Foye.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Portland traded one of their only two potential stars for a non-premium pick in a weak draft. They then compounded that mistake by trading away Khryapa to move up two spots to select a player who likely would have fallen to their original pick and then passed on possibly the best talent in the draft at #7.

Overall, I can't see any grade but an *F*. Pretty much a clinic on how to mismanage a draft.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

On the draft moves alone as of 6:18 PM, it's a B/B+. 

If Portland can move Miles by the end of the night, even for a ripe tomato, it's an A. 

And if they can convince Pryz to stay, even though I'm not sure where the minutes would come with Aldridge, Skinner and now LaFrentz, it's an A+.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

----


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd say B or B+ as of 6:20 PM.

They got two players who are athletic and skilled and pretty mature. As I've said in other threads, I wish they would have drafted Gay instead of Foye, but I'm confident that Aldridge and Roy are going to be solid Blazers for a long time.

Hopefully Portland can do something interesting with their 30/31 picks.

Ed O.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Portland traded one of their only two potential stars for a non-premium pick in a weak draft. They then compounded that mistake by trading away Khryapa to move up two spots to select a player who likely would have fallen to their original pick and then passed on possibly the best talent in the draft at #7.
> 
> Overall, I can't see any grade but an *F*. Pretty much a clinic on how to mismanage a draft.


I like Telfair and he might become a great scorer, but I don't see him ever being the kind of point guard that can run a championship team properly without sacrificing his own game. And he's too short. Losing Khryapa was a waste I agree, but not a big loss. We don't need him with Webster and Darius at the position.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Incomplete. Shouldn't we wait for the end? What happens if we make a big trade?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

the only thing that would take away alot of pain would be getting kg.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I'd go with an A minus as it stands- two impact players without taking much of a loss. I would have picked Rudy Gay also, but I think Aldridge at #2 was the best player in the draft.

I just wonder what the rotation will be

PG- Jack/Blake/Dikau
SG- Webster/Roy/Dixon
SF- Miles/Outlaw
PF- Randolph/guy with goatee
C- Pryzbilla (?)/Aldridge

Does Webster move to SF? Does Pryzbilla resign now that we have a young center? Do we trade Zach to put Aldridge at PF?

A lot of questions, still.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

C-


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

C minus.

I can live with Aldridge and Roy. I am still smarting a little bit from missing out on Morrison but I had resigned myself that that wasn't going to happen.

I give a C minus however BECAUSE Portland still needs to jettison Miles somewhere.

And those of you who are fretting because Blake is still a Trail Blazer (and now obviously were he to be moved that would leave the Blazers thin at PG), remember he could still be dealt later this summer, perhaps included as a sweetener in a potential deal that will get rid of Miles.

I happen to like Blake obviously however if moving him makes it attractive for another team to have to take on a significantly less desirable player, then so be it.

Besides, unless they get traded too, the 30 and 31 picks could be used on Marcus Williams, who STILL as of now hasn't been drafted, if they wanted another PG.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

INC until Darius Miles is gone, which he undoubtedly is. 

Also, the 30/31 picks could be decent.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

B+ so far.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

chromekilla said:


> the only thing that would take away alot of pain would be getting kg.


That's ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Goldmember said:


> So we traded Telfair, Khryapa and Theo for Lamarcas Aldridge and Brandon Roy.
> 
> We gave up an undersized shoot first point guard, a decent role player and and injured vet.
> 
> We get two potential superstar players.


We gave up one potential superstar player, a decent role player and an overpaid vet.

We got back one potential superstar player, a marginal player, and a more overpaid vet.

We were getting one of those "potential superstars" anyways.

Overall, I give it a C. I liked the move for Aldridge, I don't care for what amounted to Telfair for Roy. However, time will truly tell.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

C+

I accepted us getting rid of Telfair for the 7 because I assumed we'd get a good pick out of it. I was busy until just now when I read we got Foye. I was pretty excited, only to read on the next line we traded him for Roy. I Was also hoping we would get Morrison, but I guess I'm somewhat content with Aldridge. The problem I have right now is our two remaining SFs (once a logjam) are:

Miles, who shouldn't be on the team.
Outlaw, who if isn't ready for major playing time, what do we do.

I really liked Khryapa(sp?), and accepted that he needed to be dealt, but if we don't get a decent SF sometime soon, we'll need to go...

Jack
Roy
Webster
Zach (bleh!)
Aldridge

That's a reallllllly young line-up, even if you include Joel. We better hope Roy has a higher ceiling than most people think, and that Aldridge can come in and contribute early.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

A- so far.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I don't think Miles should factor into the grade, since it is a draft day grade. He is on the way out. No way is he here next year. And he may still be gone today.
I say B+.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Goldmember said:


> I like Telfair and he might become a great scorer, but I don't see him ever being the kind of point guard that can run a championship team properly without sacrificing his own game.


I think the idea that he's a score-first point guard is a myth, as he was and is most reknowned for his passing, and I think the idea that scoring point guards can't win titles is a myth, as Isiah Thomas, Oscar Robertson and even to some extent Magic Johnson showed. Gary Payton was also a scoring point guard and reached the Finals as arguably the best player on his team, and the Sonics didn't fail to win the title because of Payton's scoring.



> Losing Khryapa was a waste I agree, but not a big loss.


Not a big loss, just another example of being out-maneuvered.


----------



## abwowang (Mar 7, 2006)

james white could be a darius miles player.. soon as white got drafted, i'm confident dmiles is gone.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel - What if Chicago was content on keeping Aldridge? Portland obviously had him at the top of their list, once Bargnani was gone. They were faced with either keeping Thomas (the player they didn't want as much) or losing Kryapa (7th or 9th best player) and getting Aldridge (their top choice).

It's a no brainer IMO. You make that deal if Aldridge is your man.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'll say B or B+

I thought that we'd end up with Morrison and Millsap and we ended up getting two lottery picks and used them on Aldridge and Roy, players I would have picked after Morrison.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I give it a "C". If they keep Zach and use him *with* Aldridge, it might be a "C+".

Roy over Gay kills the grade. Not only did they pick the lesser talent, they have created a host of bad scenarios. IE - keep Miles and bench either Roy or Webster; or dump Miles and use Webster/Outlaw at SF; or bench Jack and try to play Roy and Webster together. Losing Viktor compounds the problem.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Crimson the Cat said:


> Minstrel - What if Chicago was content on keeping Aldridge? Portland obviously had him at the top of their list, once Bargnani was gone. They were faced with either keeping Thomas (the player they didn't want as much) or losing Kryapa (7th or 9th best player) and getting Aldridge (their top choice).
> 
> It's a no brainer IMO. You make that deal if Aldridge is your man.


I agree... I think that Chicago did well to extract value for their pick, but Portland wasn't in a position to lose their big man over Viktor.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*A*
Portland addressed a few of the team's pressing issues. Now, onward and upward.

Additions: 
#2- LaMarcus Aldridge
#6- Brandon Roy
#27- Sergio Rodriguez
#30- Joel Freeland
Raef LaFrentz
Dan Dickau

+ Gives Outlaw a legitimate shot at winning a spot in the rotation. The SF position, once a logjam, is now razor thin. Desmond Mason, perhaps?
+ Settles the Point guard dispute. Jack and Blake will play at the PG position, and they're both pretty good.
+ Gives Portland someone at center who will play every night. Ratliff was an injury nightmare.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

i change my mind. 

An F- after hearing Stephen A. Smith. Usless trades, and a lineup of rookies.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Crimson the Cat said:


> Minstrel - What if Chicago was content on keeping Aldridge? Portland obviously had him at the top of their list, once Bargnani was gone. They were faced with either keeping Thomas (the player they didn't want as much) or losing Kryapa (7th or 9th best player) and getting Aldridge (their top choice).
> 
> It's a no brainer IMO. You make that deal if Aldridge is your man.


Exactly. Giving up a marginal talent to make sure you get your guy...no questions asked, that's a great move.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Pain5155 said:


> after hearing Stephen A. Smith.


:laugh:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Pain5155 said:


> i change my mind.
> 
> An F- after hearing Stephen A. Smith. Usless trades, and a lineup of rookies.


Stephen A. Smith hates our draft? I changed my mind. I said A- before...I say A+ now. Stephen A. Smith is an absolute idiot.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Pain5155 said:


> i change my mind.
> 
> An F- after hearing Stephen A. Smith. Usless trades, and a lineup of rookies.


If you base your opinions on SAS's opinions, I think I'm glad you don't like the draft.


----------



## Stugots (Apr 20, 2006)

I give them a B.

We traded up probably unnecessarily to get Aldridge, but I think he will be a very solid player. I'll miss Khryapa a bit, but he was definitely a marginal role player. 

Somebody in here said something about Telfair being the type of PG you see on sportscenter, but not a championship PG. Hard to say without any good pieces around him. He'll probably do better in Boston with Pierce.

I was ecstatic when we also got Foye, but am very pleased with Roy as well. I think Roy will be able to split his time between 1 and 2. He is a very good defender as well and may even be able to handle some 3 in a pinch. 

I am soooooooo glad that mgmt didn't bow to the fans and get Morrison. Will he be a solid NBA player? Yes. Does he have as much versatility, room to improve, and was he what we needed? Absolutely not, IMO. The people who think he is the second coming of LB are off their rockers, IMO. He is a very good scorer, full stop. He will never be the rebounder and passer that Bird was. At the very height of his ability, he projects to me like a less athletic, slower Richard Hamilton (with weaker defense). Maybe I'm crazy, though.


----------



## Stugots (Apr 20, 2006)

Foulzilla said:


> If you base your opinions on SAS's opinions, I think I'm glad you don't like the draft.



Quite Frankly, SAS is the biggest moronic blowhard ever to grace his profession.


----------



## Odomiles (Mar 23, 2004)

I think Pain was being incredibly sarcastic (see his location and think Villanueva last year).


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

I have to give them a "B" for effort.
It may turn into an "A" later.

The drafts over the last few years didn't have any direction. They had no set idea of what they would do. I am just glad that they put in enough effort to have a mission. They got the two guys that they wanted. This team is the worst in the league so what does it matter how we got the players that were here. We just need a new roster. Talfair was probably the PG that was least like what Nate wanted. We now do not have a "too short" PG for the first time in how many years. Upgrading the front line makes loosing Zach much easier. 

This roster needed a mix up and needed to be retooled to fit what the coach wanted to do.
That is what happened, so lets see what happens.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Redbeard said:


> I have to give them a "B" for effort.
> It may turn into an "A" later.
> 
> The drafts over the last few years didn't have any direction. They had no set idea of what they would do. I am just glad that they put in enough effort to have a mission. They got the two guys that they wanted. This team is the worst in the league so what does it matter how we got the players that were here. We just need a new roster. Talfair was probably the PG that was least like what Nate wanted. We now do not have a "too short" PG for the first time in how many years. Upgrading the front line makes loosing Zach much easier.
> ...


 Good post. Hard to say if the moves will pay off, but this organization needs to show it is trying to change. If they ended up today with just the 4th pick, it wouln't change the team much. As you said, mix up roster and see what happens.

Also, if I'm Joel, at least i know they are trying to change things around.


----------



## Buckethead (Jun 13, 2006)

B+

If Roy turns into a stud then A++. This was an amazing draft that got the roster balanced and brought some D AND offense to the team at the same time.

Wow, what a draft.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Fork said:


> Stephen A. Smith hates our draft? I changed my mind. I said A- before...I say A+ now. Stephen A. Smith is an absolute idiot.


Not a big fan of his but you know he was damn right about last years draft. He said Paul was the only sure thing.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I say this is an A draft. IMO Blazers had the best draft of any team. We got two players in Aldridge and Roy who can step in now and start if needed and a good PG prospect in Sergio.

I think the Aldridge trade was a good one, we got a 2nd rounder, and as much as I like Khryapa, it was worth it. He's a good player, but nothing more than a good role player/bench player.

Aldridge/Roy/Sergio/Freeland/ and now Alexander Johnson and 3 future 2nds.

Damn good draft for me.

C-Aldridge/LaFrentz/Ha
PF-Randolph/Skinner/A.Johnson
SF-Webster/Outlaw
SG-Roy/Dixon
PG-Jack/Blake/Dickau

Solid young team. I'm lovin' it.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I'd say the top of the draft was a B, I'd have much rather taken Gay than Roy. But the bottom of the draft was an A+ with Sergio/Johnson/Freeland. Overall a A- draft.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel - Or, I'm betting that Charlotte would have grabbed Aldridge if we hadn't made the move. Okafor and Aldridge is > than Okafor and May.

As far as Telfair, I'm sick of waiting to develop players. We've waited for Woods, Outlaw, Wells, Miles, and Randolph to all realize their potential. Players with some scorching upside but not consistent or mentally tough. Well I'm through waiting. I watched Roy this season accept a leadership role with the very successful Huskies. I know what he can do. I'm 99% sure his style of game will translate very well in the NBA and, more importantly, in McMillan's system. I've watched Telfair and come to the exact opposite conclusion. His style of game may be the right fit for some team out there, but not Portland's. Telfair became more of an asset to this team by moving him than by keeping him.

Very good move.

Did you watch Roy this year? Just curious. I'd love to hear why you think he can't be a superior player for McMillan. The guy just has "it". When the team's offense broke down, he took control to generally score or find an open guy. He's a tough defender. But best of all, he's heady. Just knows the game. 

I had Gay as the best player in this draft. I can't wait to hear from Pritchard about why Gay slipped. I'm sure they have their reasons.


----------



## tobybennett (Jun 12, 2003)

I give them a B for this draft. It is clear that Portland is under really shaky management right now. It doesn't look like they have a clear vision or plan for what they are doing. I believe the Bulls just threatned to take Aldridge at 2, and the Blazers gave in. A real GM would of handled that situation better. I don't know if I like taking Raef for Theo, the terms of the contract are longer, which is dissapointing because we could use that money asap. 
That being said I like the way this draft turned out. Brandon Roy is going to fit right in. Lamarcus Aldridge looks like a good player. Freeland and Rodriguez I can't say much about. I'm happy to get an Englishmen on the Blazers. This is probably the most diverse team in the league now, lol.
Major Dissapointment not seeing Miles moved. I want to see this happen soon, and I'm not sure that management will be able to get a good deal done if they leave it any longer. I also was a big Telfair fan, but came to the realization that he would most likely leave the blazers anyways.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

[email protected] at all the superstar talk. We did not lose or gain a superstar so there should be no A's or F's.


B- but it’s a weak draft so a B- is pretty good.

I like Telfair and I think he will become a good all-around PG but he was one of those players that contributed to our overall poor team D. Some things had to be shaken up. In the long run Roy is an upgrade from Telfair but only cuz Roy is a good fit.

I’m not big on Aldridge. He seems soft and he needs seasoning but he is still an upgrade from Ratliff.

I love James White. He is the best leaper on the planet and after 5 years in college he has some skills. I like the fact that he can hit a freethrow, which is something Miles cant do.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

This stuff about Portland not knowing which direction or having a plan is just a bunch of ignorant crap. The Blazers knew exactly who they wanted and made positively sure that they would get the players they wanted. The end result was that they paid a little more than necessary, but they made sure they didn't screw up and lose their guys. Kudos to Blazer Management. I agree with Patterson, we hit a home run. Grade A.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

I gave them an A as well. Good stuff all around - and the best news is that Paul once again showed a willingness to buy talent for this franchise! That alone is a major victory for Blazer fans.


----------



## tobybennett (Jun 12, 2003)

They overpaid for talent in this draft, but I have no problem with that. I think until we see what happens with Miles, I don't think this team will be complete in the direction it is going. The are obviously trying to get rid of players who didn't mesh well together last year. I like what they did, but you cannot give this draft an A. Like the panel on ESPN said, good picks, just overpaid for them by trading up. Overall I think we got two nice players and more projects at the back of the draft. I stick to my B for this draft, but I can't complain. I'm happy with what they've done.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Crimson the Cat said:


> Minstrel - Or, I'm betting that Charlotte would have grabbed Aldridge if we hadn't made the move. Okafor and Aldridge is > than Okafor and May.


Anything is possible, but most people had Charlotte locked into one of the top small forwards, Morrison and Gay. And that was despite widespread belief that Aldridge wouldn't be selected by Toronto (Bargnani) or Chicago (Thomas).



> As far as Telfair, I'm sick of waiting to develop players. We've waited for Woods, Outlaw, Wells, Miles, and Randolph to all realize their potential.


None of those players were anywhere nearly as highly regarded as Telfair, except Miles. And "we" didn't wait for Miles to develop...he had already busted for several years and two teams before Portland. Miles was a known entity when Portland acquired him.

I think "getting tired" of waiting the offseason before the seasons (years 3 and 4) most prep-to-players break out is highly short-sighted. Portland was short-sighted like that with Jermaine O'Neal...worked out pretty poorly. Giving up on Kobe Bryant or Tracy McGrady after two years would also have been silly.



> I watched Roy this season accept a leadership role with the very successful Huskies. I know what he can do. I'm 99% sure his style of game will translate very well in the NBA \


Why? That evaluation is true of nearly every drafted college player. The only college players who get drafted are the ones who succeeded in college. We know what they can do in college...that often has little to do with what they can do in the NBA.



> Did you watch Roy this year? Just curious. I'd love to hear why you think he can't be a superior player for McMillan.


I didn't say he "can't be." A second-round pick could become a Hall of Famer. I'm saying it was a poor move based on expected returns. Why do I expect that Roy's upside is much lower than Telfair's? Because he doesn't do anything at an extremely high level. He was good all-around in college. You need to be great at things in college, by the time you reach your senior year, for it to translate into NBA impact.

I think Roy's upside is Doug Christie. Useful, sure...but nothing approaching the upside of Telfair or Gay and nothing you can't sign for the MLE. I think passing on risky superstar potential for safe mediocrity is a bad decision.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Part of the issue on this, Minstrel, is that you've regarded Telfair VERY highly for some time.

That's not a criticism, because nothing's been proven one way or the other, but Telfair was NOT clearly a lottery pick until Nash overrode his scouts' opinions and made him one. And he hasn't demonstrated that he's anything more than he showed before being drafted.

Ainge clearly still thinks of him as a great prospect, but I don't think that Telfair's holes (his shooting, his defense, his domination of the basketball) are necessarily ever going to go away.

Roy, on the other hand, has good size for a 2 guard (at over 6'6"). He's got excellent athleticism (with over a 40" vertical leap). He's a great passer. A very good ballhandler. He shot the ball extremely well. He was a leader on a national power with no other first rounders.

At 21, he's not even particularly old for a guy that stayed all four years. He SEEMS old, and Telfair still seems really young, but he's less than 11 months older than Sebastian.

He might "only" be Doug Christie. We'll see. I don't see any reason to think he's going to be limited to that. He was better than a player like Michael Finley, who turned out to be an impact NBA player in spite of never excelling at any aspect of the game at Wisconsin.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

9:00pm, and I'll give them a solid B, maybe B+. Still trying to sort out the 6 deals they made tonight...

PBF


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

ProudBFan said:


> 9:00pm, and I'll give them a solid B, maybe B+. Still trying to sort out the 6 deals they made tonight...
> 
> PBF


Once you do, I would appreciate the cliffnote version. :biggrin:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

The last few years we've assigned the Blazers a 5000 word essay on "What I plan to do on my summer vacation". 

The past few years, they've turned in a single sheet of paper with one line: "maybe hang out get wasted n go to the mall I dunno". 

This year, they turned in 5000+ words, neatly typed, with punctuation and footnotes. I haven't read it all yet, so I'm not sure what grade to give it, but at least it looks like they put in some effort this time. 

barfo


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

I give a B+.

The negatives (in no order) were that we took on Lafrentz's contract. It's even worse than Theo's, I wasn't aware that existed... We got rid of Telfair. It was too soon to trade him. I know we didn't 'give up' on him and basically got Roy in return, but I still think he'll be a very good player... It sure seemed like a few of our trades didn't need to occur. Chicago wanted Thomas, we would have landed Aldridge anyways and kept Victor. And if Minnesota wanted Foye, why on earth did both teams go through that ridiculous swap? I'm sure there's more to it than meets the eye though... And lastly, I heard Patterson say he wanted to get younger. I'll repeat that, because it bears repeating. He said he wanted to get Y-O-U-N-G-E-R... 'Nuff said.

But I still give it an B+ because Telfair might have left at the end of his contract and his style of play and personality might not have meshed with others on the team... We got Roy and Aldridge (if you told me that at the beginning of the day I'd be thrilled)... We have a lot of future picks to package with a few malcontents later on - *cough* MILES... And the amount that we had to give up for Aldridge and Roy, really wasn't that much when you think about it rationally. It definitly didn't deserve the amount of criticism we got. And overall I just feel good about it, so I give it a border-line B+/A.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> I think Roy's upside is Doug Christie. Useful, sure...but nothing approaching the upside of Telfair or Gay and nothing you can't sign for the MLE. I think passing on risky superstar potential for safe mediocrity is a bad decision.


The question is, though, do you honestly think Telfair would've reached anything close to his possible "McGrady"-esque potential in Portland under McMillan? Just look at the teams McMillan's run--there's very little to indicate he'd ever be happy giving starters minutes to a PG who played uptempo and was a mediocre defender at best. 

And we just signed McMillan to a massive contract, so you know we aren't going to fire him and continue to pay for the privelege of firing him. 

The Jermaine O'Neal analogy works entirely too well in the case of Telfair. Mike Dunleavy was never, ever going to give him a chance to succeed in Portland, so we got what we could out of him. Nobody was suggesting that we fire Dunleavy to keep Jermaine. Similarly, Telfair was never going to be more than a very mediocre PG in Portland under McMillan, so we had to choose one or the other. 
As there are more examples of Jarret Jack-type PG's leading championship teams than Sebastian Telfair-types, I think we made the right choice.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Part of the issue on this, Minstrel, is that you've regarded Telfair VERY highly for some time.
> 
> That's not a criticism, because nothing's been proven one way or the other, but Telfair was NOT clearly a lottery pick until Nash overrode his scouts' opinions and made him one. And he hasn't demonstrated that he's anything more than he showed before being drafted.


Telfair, without playing any worse in high school over his final season, went from a top-three pick (he was even called the next prep-to-pro phenomenon to follow LeBron James) to borderline lottery pick. In my opinion, his talent didn't change, but teams' wariness over his size did. There was virtually no other criticism levied against him. His shooting was considered problematic at the time of drafting, but scouting reports said his form was excellent and there was no reason to assume he'd remain a questionable shooter.



> Roy, on the other hand, has good size for a 2 guard (at over 6'6"). He's got excellent athleticism (with over a 40" vertical leap). He's a great passer. A very good ballhandler. He shot the ball extremely well. He was a leader on a national power with no other first rounders.


He's not a _great_ passer, in my opinion. He's a good athlete with good passing skills for his position (off-guard) and decent handles. He shot the ball extremely well? So did Telfair, prior to the draft, stroking threes at over 45%. Roy is not a great shooter, he has the potential to be a good one. And he's a good defender but, again, not an elite one.

He doesn't do _anything_ incredibly well at the college level, which limits his NBA projection.



> He might "only" be Doug Christie. We'll see. I don't see any reason to think he's going to be limited to that. He was better than a player like Michael Finley, who turned out to be an impact NBA player in spite of never excelling at any aspect of the game at Wisconsin.


Michael Finley is an exception. He basically overcame all the odds to become what he did. There are a few of those from time to time. I don't think it's wise to base an evaluation of a player on what he might be if he's also a very rare case.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

theWanker said:


> The question is, though, do you honestly think Telfair would've reached anything close to his possible "McGrady"-esque potential in Portland under McMillan? Just look at the teams McMillan's run--there's very little to indicate he'd ever be happy giving starters minutes to a PG who played uptempo and was a mediocre defender at best.


(Just as clarification, though you probably already realize it, I'm not suggesting that Telfair has McGrady talent. Outside of James and Oden, I don't think any player is ever _likely_ to be that good. I was simply noting that special high schoolers have a tendency to break out after two or three years of modest-to-poor production.)

To answer your question, the Sonics played an up-tempo game, as I recall. Ridnour may have been the point guard, but the primary ball-handler and play-maker was Ray Allen, a player who's definitely got a shooter's mentality but also has the chops to distribute the ball at a high level. Telfair clearly didn't have McMillan's confidence, but he began and ended the season as a starter, so I think that with a break-out season, he could very well have captured McMillan's confidence. McMillan played with an extremely successful scoring point guard in Gary Payton, so I doubt he believes teams can't be successful with one.



> As there are more examples of Jarret Jack-type PG's leading championship teams than Sebastian Telfair-types, I think we made the right choice.


Not leading, no. I don't think there's a single example of a Jarret Jack-
type PG _leading_ their teams to championships. There are plenty of examples of teams who's superstars played other positions and getting by with Jack-type PGs on their way to titles. But of all title teams actually led by their point guard, I'd say scoring point guards dominate. You have Isiah Thomas, Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson, with eight titles. Maybe you could add Chauncy Billiups, another scoring point guard, depending on whether you see him as a driving force for Detroit. Which teams _led_ (not dragging, Derek Fisher-like) by Jack-like PGs won titles?

Cousy? That's pretty much the only other superstar PG I can think of off-hand who might be said to have led his team to titles, and Jack doesn't resemble Cousy's game in the slightest.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Telfair, without playing any worse in high school over his final season, went from a top-three pick (he was even called the next prep-to-pro phenomenon to follow LeBron James) to borderline lottery pick. In my opinion, his talent didn't change, but teams' wariness over his size did. There was virtually no other criticism levied against him. His shooting was considered problematic at the time of drafting, but scouting reports said his form was excellent and there was no reason to assume he'd remain a questionable shooter.


I NEVER read any serious stories that had Telfair as a top-flight NBA prospect. He was ALWAYS short, even as he was a prodigy schooling the likes of TJ Ford. He was ALWAYS lacking a jumpshot.

What I did read, though, was Dime Magazine hyping him. I saw "the next great NY point guard?" articles throughout the media.

The same media that, I believe, you disregarded earlier today when people have promoted Roy's pro prospects.

The primary difference between the two hypes, IMO, is that Roy has dominated at a high level, while Telfair has struggled at an even higher one. That Telfair might struggle is not a shock, but previous PGs his age that turned out to be very good didn't struggle.



> He's not a _great_ passer, in my opinion. He's a good athlete with good passing skills for his position (off-guard) and decent handles. He shot the ball extremely well? So did Telfair, prior to the draft, stroking threes at over 45%. Roy is not a great shooter, he has the potential to be a good one. And he's a good defender but, again, not an elite one.


Roy shot 40% from three point range this past year. He shot over 50% from the field overall. He shot over 80% from the free throw line. He might not be a great shooter, but he shot the ball like one as a senior.

Telfair's high school stats are not relevant.



> He doesn't do _anything_ incredibly well at the college level, which limits his NBA projection.


I agree. He's not going to be Michael Jordan. But that doesn't mean he's going to be Doug Christie.



> Michael Finley is an exception. He basically overcame all the odds to become what he did. There are a few of those from time to time. I don't think it's wise to base an evaluation of a player on what he might be if he's also a very rare case.


Every player that excels to that level is an exception. Name a player who's become an all-star and I would bet that I can name a half dozen comparisons and explain why that player's success is an exception.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Anyway, after doing some more looking on Aldridge, I'd give Portland an A for landing him alone with nothing but the 4th pick and Khryapa. I really think he's going to be special. 

Big 12 defensive player of the year. Sheed-like turnaround jumper. Put up 23 pts/13 rebs against Chris Bosh before Bosh was drafted in two games. I'm getting excited about this guy. Just wait til he gets to work out with Maurice Lucas some. 

I even like the Roy pick. Yeah, he's not spectacular at anything. But on the other hand, he doesn't appear to have any glaring weaknesses either. Even if he never surpasses Doug Christie, well, Doug Christie was the starting shooting guard for a fantastic Sacramento Kings team. And there's always the Finley example....

I'm definitely liking the idea of a lineup down the road fearturing:
pg: Jack
sg: Roy
sf: Webster
pf: Randolph
c: Aldridge

only one defensive liability (Zach). two decent/good shooters (Webster, Roy). shot blocking (Aldridge). post scoring (Aldridge, Zach). 

the main component that seems to be lacking in that group is quality passing. 

I give the team an A for this draft.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I NEVER read any serious stories that had Telfair as a top-flight NBA prospect. He was ALWAYS short, even as he was a prodigy schooling the likes of TJ Ford. He was ALWAYS lacking a jumpshot.


Always short and lacking a jump-shot? Sure. Neither of those contradicts that he was at one point seen as a top prospect. The Clippers supposedly at one point were considering him at their #3 pick, which was widely reported.



> The primary difference between the two hypes, IMO, is that Roy has dominated at a high level


Dominated? Ridiculous. He was never a _dominant_ college player. While I don't like Morrison very much, I will admit he was dominant. Roy barely got traction as a top-ten pick until he had a strong tourney.



> That Telfair might struggle is not a shock, but previous PGs his age that turned out to be very good didn't struggle.


Telfair is the first point guard to make the jump from high school. He's also not been given the opportunity to develop that serious franchises give their best prospects, unless said franchise is contending...which was obviously not the case for Portland.



> He might not be a great shooter, but he shot the ball like one as a senior.


As did Telfair. Why are his three-point numbers "not relevant" but Roy's are?



> Every player that excels to that level is an exception. Name a player who's become an all-star and I would bet that I can name a half dozen comparisons and explain why that player's success is an exception.


Players who excel in the NBA despite not excelling at anything in college are the exception. While most All-Stars are literally exceptions (every NBA player is literally the exception), that's purely semantics. You know exactly what I mean...those who are stars in the NBA generally were great at something in college. You can always find someone who was merely good in college and then suddenly broke out in the NBA, but it's very rare and not terribly relevant to projection.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Now that I see who Rodriguez is and that we got him for cash I say this is a B instead of a B-.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I give the Blazers a B to B-. They could have had either a A+ or A by either picking Morrison with the second pick or by not giving up Viktor. Last year I consistently enjoyed watching Viktor play more than any other Blazer and will really miss him.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

the McMillan-coached Sonics played several seasons of grind-it-out ball and failed. in his final season he let all his perimeter shooters let fly more, but they never really did have an up-tempo, running offense. they weren't scoring on breaks. they just shot the three pretty early in the clock. then they'd run back and play McMillan grinding defense. that's not anything like Telfair run-and-dish basketball. 

McMillan did work with Gary Payton, but again Payton is widely regarded as one of the best post point guards of all time. he dominated the ball by slowing it down and abusing smaller guards. if they stuck a bigger guy on him, he'd blow by, but it wasn't his primary offensive threat. 


I just don't see much evidence that Nate was ever going to utilize Telfair the right way. (especially if we draft Aldridge, we emphasize Webster more and we don't trade Randolph.) 

now, I actually blame management for that. I always thought Terry Porter would've been a better coach for us, and for Telfair. but that's over and done, and we have to live with what we have. 


we're sticking with Nate McMillan for the long haul, so we might as well acquire players whom Nate can properly utilize in his system.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

And in any case, does anyone seriously think Joel is going to re-resign here, even if he does like trhe city? Some team is going to overpay for him, probably in th e$7-8 million a year range. Not only is he not worth it, we can't match it. He'd be dumb to pass it up. So he's gone.

Given that, Aldridge makes a lot of sense.

Similarly, Bassy was not really panning out, and you could see him heading back east in a few years anyway. Given that, firing him before he quites was smart.

Once D. Miles is shipped out, the Nash era will have been dispatched rather quickly.

B+


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

People forget, we got Sergio. A player that at times was consitered to be as good as Telfair. A guy that likley would have been a lotto pick if he entered a year or two before. He is so much like Bassy, but with even better vision, that I can handle loosing one of my favorite players that didnt have nearly enough time to prove himself. Sergio will bandage the pain of loosing Bassy.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Always short and lacking a jump-shot? Sure. Neither of those contradicts that he was at one point seen as a top prospect. The Clippers supposedly at one point were considering him at their #3 pick, which was widely reported.


That's because people were laughing at how ridiculous it was.



> Dominated? Ridiculous. He was never a _dominant_ college player. While I don't like Morrison very much, I will admit he was dominant. Roy barely got traction as a top-ten pick until he had a strong tourney.


I saw Roy dominate in person. Sorry if you missed it or don't believe me.

He was the PAC 10 PoTY. He had dominant stats.

I don't know how else he could be considered dominant, except for having your opinion agree with the rest of the evidence.



> Telfair is the first point guard to make the jump from high school. He's also not been given the opportunity to develop that serious franchises give their best prospects, unless said franchise is contending...which was obviously not the case for Portland.


He was less effective than Marbury or Parker. In fact, he's been less effective than ANY PG at his age in NBA history, I would bet.

It doesn't mean that he cannot become an all-star caliber player, but if he's (a) unique, and (b) unimpressive, I don't think that I'm comfortable projecting him to massively turn up his production merely because he's older.



> As did Telfair. Why are his three-point numbers "not relevant" but Roy's are?


Because Roy was doing it in the PAC 10, and Telfair was doing it against 16 year olds.

Just as I wouldn't dare compare Telfair's turnover numbers or FG% as a Blazer to Roy's stats as a Husky, comparing how Telfair shot as a prepster to Roy as a collegiate is not very productive.



> Players who excel in the NBA despite not excelling at anything in college are the exception. While most All-Stars are literally exceptions (every NBA player is literally the exception), that's purely semantics. You know exactly what I mean...those who are stars in the NBA generally were great at something in college. You can always find someone who was merely good in college and then suddenly broke out in the NBA, but it's very rare and not terribly relevant to projection.


I'm not so sure. How many lottery picks are chosen based on a single great attribute (or two) in spite of holes in their games? And then how many lottery picks are chosen because of a solid overall game?

I'm not asking that in a leading way. I would bet that MOST lottery picks have, like Telfair, a few really awesome parts of their game and then problem areas elsewhere. It doesn't seem there are very many players, like Battier or Roy, that get selected because of their incredible diversity and few weaknesses.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> He's also not been given the opportunity to develop that serious franchises give their best prospects, unless said franchise is contending...which was obviously not the case for Portland.


So you are arguing with Ed that he was never given the opportunity to develop. 

And you argue with me that we should have held on to Telfair because Nate was going to give him the opportunity to develop.

If he was never given the opportunity to develop in the past, what makes you so certain he'd have the opportunity to develop in the future on this team?


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Pain5155 said:


> i change my mind.
> 
> An F- after hearing Stephen A. Smith. Usless trades, and a lineup of rookies.


If you're listening to Stephen A. Smith, you have a problem. He has no clue what he's talking about.

The Blazers got the best guard and the best post player in the draft and cleared up the PG logjam.
Aldridge could be effective as a PF w/Joel or as a C w/Zach.

Move Miles and get ready to start winning again!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> That's because people were laughing at how ridiculous it was.


Not even remotely true. Feel free to rewrite history.



> I saw Roy dominate in person. Sorry if you missed it or don't believe me.
> 
> He was the PAC 10 PoTY. He had dominant stats.


I'm not sure that being there in person has any relevance. Dominance is not an atmospheric thing, in my opinion.

His stats were not dominant, no. They were good, but not dominant. It's fascinating how you've changed your tune, though. A month ago, you were railing at the idea of taking a player like Roy at the 4 pick. Now, you're touting his "dominance."



> He was less effective than Marbury or Parker. In fact, he's been less effective than ANY PG at his age in NBA history, I would bet.


And at ages 18-20, that's a sample size of how many? 5?

In any case, wrong. Shaun Livingston. Similar age, slightly worse season in 2005-06, by PER.



> It doesn't mean that he cannot become an all-star caliber player, but if he's (a) unique, and (b) unimpressive, I don't think that I'm comfortable projecting him to massively turn up his production merely because he's older.


I don't think he's unique or unimpressive when compared to other high schoolers. If he doesn't make a big jump in the next two seasons, then he would be.



> Because Roy was doing it in the PAC 10, and Telfair was doing it against 16 year olds.
> 
> Just as I wouldn't dare compare Telfair's turnover numbers or FG% as a Blazer to Roy's stats as a Husky, comparing how Telfair shot as a prepster to Roy as a collegiate is not very productive.


You appear to have missed my point entirely. I never said Telfair's shooting in high school was an equivalent feat to Roy's shooting in college. My point is that posting great shooting numbers at a lower level of competition doesn't make one a "great shooter." By disparaging the worth of Telfair's high school shooting performance as compared to college competition, you implicitly make my point for me as regards the worth of Roy's college shooting performance as compared to NBA competition.



> I'm not so sure. How many lottery picks are chosen based on a single great attribute (or two) in spite of holes in their games? And then how many lottery picks are chosen because of a solid overall game?


Why does that matter? We're not discussing who goes in the lottery, but rather who succeeds in the NBA. You don't have to be selected in the lottery to become a star, so I don't see why it matters who tends to be selected in the lottery.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

theWanker said:


> So you are arguing with Ed that he was never given the opportunity to develop.
> 
> And you argue with me that we should have held on to Telfair because Nate was going to give him the opportunity to develop.


Those aren't contradictory statements.

He hasn't been given a chance to play regularly. You asked me whether I believe McMillan might give him a chance in the future; I gave my reasons why I believe it's entirely possible.



> If he was never given the opportunity to develop in the past, what makes you so certain he'd have the opportunity to develop in the future on this team?


You're using terms like "so certain" that don't characterize my position. I'm not "so certain." But since Telfair opened and closed the season as a starter, I think there's signs that McMillan would have given Telfair more regular chance, especially if Telfair began to improve a lot.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Here are my player and trade grades...

TRADES

1) Traded Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff, and 2008 second round pick, for #7, Dan Dickau, Raef Lafrentz, and cash considerations.(Includes trade #3; Trade #6 Brandon Roy, for #7 Randy Foye and cash considerations._

B; I am a huge Bassy fan, but honestly getting a top 8 pick for him is a fantastic deal. I was upset at first, but stealing Sergio at #27 severley alleviates his loss. We now still have a project PG that is fun to watch, young, quick as hell and awesome to watch. Jack is a tough Nate' like player that hasnt even had a year to play healthy. Getting Roy at #7 is a great value. I believe that Brandon will never be a franchise player, and might not even be a great second option, but he is a winner and a hard worker this is a near guarantee to be a legitimate NBA starter for years. He is the type of guy that we sorley needed. Now, the real reason this isnt a A- trade is the LaFrentz for Theo swap. I think Raef will fit this team better, but his extra year is less attractive than Shaq in a thong. If the rumors that he has a Team Option on his 3rd year are true, this trade is a A-. 

2) Trade #4 Tyrus Thomas and Victor Kryapa, for #2 pick Lamarcus Aldridge and future 2nd round pick.

B+; LaMarcus was a widley consitered #1 pick. He has prototypical NBA speed and athletic ability for a big man, and simply needs to add weight. I think he could become a cross between Bosh and Jermaine. He may take time to mature, but I believe his is ready for 20-25 minutes. Now, everyone is angry about the "giving away" of Viktor. But, we in no way knew a guarantee that LaMarcus would be there at #4. In hindsight, if our coaching staff really believed that Aldridge was good enough to sacrafice a quality hustle player for, im going to trust them and have high hopes for LaMarcus. Additionally, I think Viktor can be replaces somewhat easily. I would love to get Gansey or some other hard working role player(Balkman???)

3) See trade #1

4) Trade Cash, for #27 Sergio Rodriguez

A+; Absolute steal. Sergio has far to go, but is a immense talent. His passing and floor vision can not be taught. His overall talent level and upside is comparable to that of Sebastion Telfair. He is a 6'3 physical phenom in terms of quickness and has a decent jumper. I hope Nate teaches him some discipline, and forces him to hit the weights. 

5) Trade James Wight(31#), for Alexander Johnson(#45) and Two 2nd Round Draft Picks.

B; I thought White would be a good addition, but Alexander is one of my sleeper picks. He is a 1st round talent, but is way too inconsistent and underachieved. To get another 2 future 2nd rounders also in return is great. 

6) Trade Alexander Johnson, for Future 2nd rounder.

D; Didnt like the deal at all. Maby we didnt want 4 rookies, but Johnson was a real talent and worth more than one 2nd rounder. I think he would have done good in pushing Zach for minutes and making him work harder. Well, I presume the stockpiling of 2nd rounders will be used in trades. 

PLAYERS

1) LaMarcus Aldridge A-; Best avaliable player. May have been a risk, but has prototypical size and athlecism for a big. Also, very fast from end-to-end. People question alot of players on their passion, but as many succeed as falter. He has a picture perfect looking jumper with a high release, and above average rebounding ability. All you can question is his weight and passion. Weight can be gained and Nate hopefully can light a fire under his ***. 

2) Brandon Roy B; Worth trading up for him. A well rounded player, and immediate starter. Gay may have been a better option, but Roy is a guaranteed starter. He is versatile, and can score in a number of ways. Brandon has the most well rounded game, but maby not the highest ceiling. To get a player that will be a above average starter for many years at #7 in a not great draft is a sweet deal. 

3) Sergio Rodriquez A; A great deal at #27, and consitering we simply dealt money for him a amazing deal. Really helps damper the loss of Bassy. Sergio has undenyable skills and lottery talent.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Not even remotely true. Feel free to rewrite history.


Did you want me to go back and find the ESPNInsider articles, where the Clippers rumors started?

I don't know if they archive that far back, but the rumor was treated entirely as a "Only the Clippers!" situation.

I find it amazing that the Telfair pick was almost universally treated as a reach for the Blazers, and you're claiming that *I* am the one practicing revisionism.



> I'm not sure that being there in person has any relevance. Dominance is not an atmospheric thing, in my opinion.
> 
> His stats were not dominant, no. They were good, but not dominant.


He was the PoTY because he was just a "good" player?

A "good" player who scored over 20 ppg with excellent ancillary stats on a team devoid of any other first round NBA prospects?

He didn't dominate because I saw him do so. But I saw him do so, entirely consistently with his excellent statistical season and team's success.



> It's fascinating how you've changed your tune, though. A month ago, you were railing at the idea of taking a player like Roy at the 4 pick. Now, you're touting his "dominance."


He was not a top 4 prospect in this draft IMO. If we had selected him at #4 it would have been a mistake. I STILL would rather have picked Gay at #7 than Roy.

With all of that said, it seems like you're sandbagging Roy's accomplishments and capabilities for some reason. Coupled with your longtime infatuation with Telfair's potential, I think that you're way off base here.



> And at ages 18-20, that's a sample size of how many? 5?


I would guess it's much larger than that, especially at age 20. Bibby was in the NBA at 20. There's Marbury. Parker. Chris Paul. Magic Johnson. So with Livingston and Telfair, that's 7 just off the top of my head.



> In any case, wrong. Shaun Livingston. Similar age, slightly worse season in 2004-05, by PER.


OK. Second-worst in NBA history. My bad.



> You appear to have missed my point entirely. I never said Telfair's shooting in high school was an equivalent feat to Roy's shooting in college. My point is that posting great shooting numbers at a lower level of competition doesn't make one a "great shooter." By disparaging the worth of Telfair's high school shooting performance as compared to college competition, you implicitly make my point for me as regards the worth of Roy's college shooting performance as compared to NBA competition.


I understand what you're saying, but I just don't find that it's a strong point, Minstrel.

Roy's shooting as a senior was very good... even "great", IMO. The relevance of those statistics are attenuated when they're projected into the NBA level of competition, but not nearly so much as prep statistics are. I'm comparing Roy's shooting percentages to other college prospects, not to NBA players.

Might Telfair have been considered a "great" high school shooter? Maybe, but I don't know what other players in his league shot. I don't know if he was much, if any, better than his teammates and opponents.

I do know, though, that Roy's percentages in the PAC 10 were great.



> Why does that matter? We're not discussing who goes in the lottery, but rather who succeeds in the NBA. You don't have to be selected in the lottery to become a star, so I don't see why it matters who tends to be selected in the lottery.


Because prospects aren't randomly distributed through the draft. Obviously. The players that are lottery selections are much more likely to have been highly thought of by decisionmakers that have skill at determining successful players.

When players go in the lottery, there's usually a reason that they are considered to be excellent prospects. I am merely wondering whether your assertion that well-rounded players are more limited in their projections than players with one (or two) great attributes is true _within the subset_ of players that are considered to be "excellent prospects" (as delineated by the lottery cutoff).

The reason that I think this might have value is because I tend to agree with you that stars almost ALWAYS have great attributes, and that might limit the chances of well-rounded players to become stars. But if well-rounded players are already discounted systematically in the draft process, then maybe those (like Roy) who make the lottery cut are less likely to be prone to the "well-rounded limitation".

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Bassy is a sub 6 foot pg that has a bad shot. To make things worse, he is a shoot first pg. Can you say Damon? He is a terrible defender that can not keep his man in front of him and is a post up nightmare. I like the height and defensive abilities of both JJ and Roy to Bassy. 

I am also distressed that it is being reported that Bassy is in NY playing streetball rather than working with a shooting coach. Would you also like to discuss the rumors of him pining to play with the Nets when they move to Brooklyn?

Sure, he may make a fancy pass now or then, but I would rather have a true pass first pg that is also not a defensive liability. Just my opinion on this subject.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm going to have to sleep on it tonight.......I think that Portland had a good draft with the players they got today. Many people are upset about Morrison getting away, but Aldridge and Roy are two quality players. If I was to give a grade right now.........B+ / A-. Had they moved Miles tonight.......solid A / A+.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

I'll go with a B+. I hate that we lose Telfair, and it may bite us in the butt. I, to a lesser extent hate loosing Viktor, but he can be replaced.

I like that we got a quality big, maybe the best in the draft. I like Roy, too, even if I haven't seen him play enough to know if Gay would have been a better pick.

I also like the prospects they gathered at the later picks, expecially a decent PG propect for cash.

I also like, A LOT, that PA was spreading cash around to make some of this happen. That seems like quite a shift from last year when they let all the talent walk for nada.

Go Blazers


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

HOWIE said:


> I'm going to have to sleep on it tonight.......I think that Portland had a good draft with the players they got today. Many people are upset about Morrison getting away, but Aldridge and Roy are two quality players. If I was to give a grade right now.........B+ / A-. Had they moved Miles tonight.......solid A / A+.


Give it time ... they couldn't really move Miles today just because of the contract year beginning on July 1. If Portland has something in place or is adament about trading him, we should hear something by the end of the month (because, IIRC, you can't make any official moves until July 15).


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I find it amazing that the Telfair pick was almost universally treated as a reach for the Blazers, and you're claiming that *I* am the one practicing revisionism.


I think in the back-and-forth, you lost my initial contention. My initial contention was that Telfair was once seen as a top prospect, around a year prior to the draft he actually entered. Not that he was seen as a great prospect at draft time.

So the fact that he was seen as a slight reach when Portland selected him is really not particularly relevant or contradictory to what I am saying.



> He was the PoTY because he was just a "good" player?
> 
> A "good" player who scored over 20 ppg with excellent ancillary stats on a team devoid of any other first round NBA prospects?


PAC-10 PotY. He was PotY in a weak conference for 2005-06. An accomplishment, but not one that inherently proves he was dominant. Unless you mean dominant compared to PAC-10 players. I meant he was not dominant compared to the nation's college players.



> With all of that said, it seems like you're sandbagging Roy's accomplishments and capabilities for some reason. Coupled with your longtime infatuation with Telfair's potential, I think that you're way off base here.


I'm not sandbagging his statistics, I simply don't generally put a lot of stock in NCAA statistics, considering the number of confounding factors, like competition and teammates. My impressions of Roy, having watched him, is that he's not a particularly special player. He's skilled and good all-around, but not a player with a star upside. That doesn't mean I don't think Roy is a good, useful player...but since he came at the expense of two players who I think have much more special potential, in Gay and Telfair, the pick bothers me.



> I would guess it's much larger than that, especially at age 20. Bibby was in the NBA at 20. There's Marbury. Parker. Chris Paul. Magic Johnson. So with Livingston and Telfair, that's 7 just off the top of my head.


Those players came off of a couple years of steady, extensive playing time. Telfair has, incorrectly, been given very sporadic playing time. You can argue he hasn't "earned" it, but the point isn't to carefully reward merit, it's to turn out the best players you can. Players improve with competitive playing time and no prep-to-pro player has "earned" time over veterans. You just have to give it to them, if you want them to develop. All the players you listed had gotten time in college or overseas and were given time in the pros right away.



> Roy's shooting as a senior was very good... even "great", IMO. The relevance of those statistics are attenuated when they're projected into the NBA level of competition, but not nearly so much as prep statistics are. I'm comparing Roy's shooting percentages to other college prospects, not to NBA players.


Fair enough. But my impression wasn't that anyone considered Roy an expected great shooter in the NBA. He has a good shot, to go with good passing skills and a good handle. He plays good defense. He'll be a valuable, maybe even a great role-player. I just don't think any part of his game is the sort that can take a game over.



> The reason that I think this might have value is because I tend to agree with you that stars almost ALWAYS have great attributes, and that might limit the chances of well-rounded players to become stars. But if well-rounded players are already discounted systematically in the draft process, then maybe those (like Roy) who make the lottery cut are less likely to be prone to the "well-rounded limitation".


I see what you're saying, but my belief is that the exception here is not that Roy is the rare "jack of all trades, master of none" top prospect but rather than the draft is exceptionally weak and therefore a player with the "well-rounded limitation" slipped into the top-ten instead of being in the 15-25 range that he'd normally be.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I'll give a B+. They did what they thought they needed to do to get the two players they wanted most. I don't have any problem at all with them trading Telfair; i think Sergio Rodriguez will probably be better than Telfair; he's a great pickup for cash. I don't think Aldrige would have been available at #4 (Charlotte would have picked him and forced us to make a trade); I really regret giving up Khyrapa, he will really be just a nba sophomore this year and he if developes confidence in his shot he will be a starter, but I guess Chicago wouldn't take anybody else, obviously we weren't going to give them Webster or Jack. At 30 we needed someone who we could stash overseas so Freeland was probably a good pick; we probably should have done the same with the #31 instead of trading for more 2nd round picks, maybe we think the draft will be so deep next year that these picks will be more valuable then.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Ed O said:


> That's because people were laughing at how ridiculous it was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know I respect your opinion Ed, but in this case I think you are off base.

Saying Roy was a dominant college player *as a senior* is like saying a baseball player dominated AA ball on his 3rd or 4th try. It is rare for a nondescript player to just flip a switch and become a prospect at 21 or 22. Really good players tend to hit the radar screen well before their 4th year of college.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I'd give the Blazers a solid B+... because in a draft where there were probably 7-8 very good prospects (but none great), they acted accordingly. Traded up to get one of the best of those 7-8 and trade a player with value for one of the other top 7-8. Both Roy and Aldridge will be good, possibly very good, and maybe even great players. Blazers give up Telfair (a bit of an "ouch", but if Roy works out as some say he will, no biggie), Ratliff (how many were calling for his ouster?), and Khryapa (a little too bad, too, but a career role player, so he's worth sacrificing for potential stars). 

The collateral issues - swallowing Raef LaFrentz' contract? Tough, but big guys with shooting range are hard to find. Make him a situational role player, and I can live with it. I don't know Rodriguez, but if he turns out even to be a good backup, great. Dickau? Must mean Blake's on his way out?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

F-
We dealt away the best pg in the draft in Telfair. 
Took on a longer contract in Raef.
Traded VK for absolutely nothing.
Lost a bunch of cash in all these deals.
Should have taken Ammo or Thomas at 2.
Since we had 7, should have taken Gay or Foye depending on 2.
Wasted picks 30 and 31.
Sure we stole Spanish Chocolate, but why stockpile picks in a notoriously weak draft?
We took a softy in LA.
We traded Bassy for the next Dough Christie.

Absolutely one of the worst days in franchise history. Not many seem to see it now, but it will appear evident soon as the season progresses. 
Just you wat. Doc is gonna know how to use Bassy unlike Nate, and he will flourish dishing to Green, Gomes, and Pierce.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> F-
> We dealt away the best pg in the draft in Telfair.
> Took on a longer contract in Raef.
> Traded VK for absolutely nothing.
> ...


I understand you are upset, but you are obviously going to find negativity in everything if you try and spin the fact that picking up Spanish Cholate for PA's cash is a negative thing. Come on, how can picking up a draft pick for cash be a bad thing?


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Here's the thing about the Bassy trade.

To the people who think Bassy will flourish and become an All-Star overnight ... do you really believe he'll flourish under Doc Rivers, candidate for World's Most Inept Coach? Players don't flourish on their own -- they have coaches to show them the light. And what is so special, great or different about Rivers' system that ensures Bassy will succeed?

Bassy isn't the franchise-changing player who will alter his team's style of play with his will. It's not like Rivers is going to say, "alright everyone ... now that Telfair is here, we're going to run run run and play a wide open brand of basketball." He'll still have a different system to fit into, and who knows if it will be more complementary to his style of play than Portland?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Its a bad thing when we had Foye, a much better guard prospect. Whats the point of having another pg anyways? Now we're back at the same log jam as before, but now with 4 points vying for the job. We didn't make ONE correct move tonight, therefore they get an F-. We could have plaed this SOOOO much better.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> Its a bad thing when we had Foye, a much better guard prospect. Whats the point of having another pg anyways? Now we're back at the same log jam as before, but now with 4 points vying for the job. We didn't make ONE correct move tonight, therefore they get an F-. We could have plaed this SOOOO much better.


Dude, there's no competition. Jack/Blake will play the bulk of the starter's minutes. Spanish Chocolate will play overseas or in the NBDL. Dickau will be a package piece in a trade or play very sparingly. No one is seriously expecting him to become a candidate for the starting gig.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I don't think I can take another season of Steve Blake running the point. He lost more games then he won for us.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

As far as Telfair exploding in Boston...I don't know about it, though it is possible he starts. Personally, I really like Delonte West; anyone who plays fantasy BBall certainly knows he was one of the most under-rated players this last year from a statistical standpoint.

Boston has talked about moving West to play some SG, and along with Rondo, they'll be looking at a depth of:

Telfair/Rondo/O. Greene
Pierce/West
Wally/G. Green
Jefferson/Gomes
Perkins


Personally, I think that Wally will have to get moved. Green can play and West is too good to get "backup minutes" at the PG/SG roles. I still see a starting lineup featuring West/Pierce/Wally/Gomes/Perkins is no one is moved. There is definately a hole at PF/C and I think they have 1 too many PG prospects (not counting Greene since he isn't that good). Possibly Wally and Telfair or Rondo will be involved with a trade this offseason...just a thought .

Overall, I don't see Bassy getting 35 minutes a night and flourishing next season. Maybe he'll improve, but he still has a big ? on his back because he hasn't consistently proved anything. Considering that we have Jack (and in the long term, either Jack or Telfair HAD to be moved), I'm pretty happy with the return we got; we could have fared much worse with the value of Telfair...though we did have to swallow the LaFrentz contract in the process.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

MAS,

I know how you feel about the Blazers...I felt the same way last summer when we passed over Chris Paul (or Gary Payton v2). However, casting that major blemish aside, I can still see the chemistry of the players we have working together. I think that the pure shooting of Webster, slashing of Roy, interior play of Alderage and the aspects of other players we have are very complimentary. True, we aren't loaded with athletic talent across the board, but I think we have a good balance of players, that if they develop as they are supposed to, will make for a very good team...in like 3-4 years. 

My real hope is for Oden next year...and Mayo the year by whatever means possible. Then we'll be in good condition. 


On a side note about Telfair, for a "pure PG" he sure liked to shoot and fill it up as a reserve last year, which is something that kind of worried me. Sure, I'm glad he could make 5 3's in a game and score 21 points, but I would have rather seen a more balanced line with more assists and especially less turnovers. Granted, he is still young and I guess we'll see how it pans out five years from now.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

The thing about Bassy was he could handle the ball and make plays, I jsut don't see that from Blake, who just stands around the perimeter, jacks up the occasional 3, and passes it off to a wing, or Jack who is perfectly suited to come off the bench with his defense. I just don't think either possess playmaking skills and they were both older then Bassy. It's one thing to trade Bassy, but get a better prospect then brandon freaking roy.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

2k said:


> [email protected] at all the superstar talk. We did not lose or gain a superstar so there should be no A's or F's. B- but it’s a weak draft so a B- is pretty good.


hmm... If I'm to hand out grades to a club for handling a draft, and I feel they did well, I shouldn't give them an A if the draft isn't a great one? Thats a pretty unique way of looking at things. 

It was a weak draft, but I give them an *A* for doing the right things in this situation. I think that Aldridge and Roy were both solid pick ups who should be solid 30+ minute players for years. 

btw... dispite the general concensus of the board that Miles is shortly out the door, if I were a betting man I'd lay odds agaist it. With his fat contract, reputation, and that he's yet to show much since his latest knee surgery, I doubt that there is much of a market... and they just traded Kryapa. I'd guess he's a day 1 starter.

STOMP


----------



## ludovico (Mar 29, 2006)

MAS RipCity said:


> F-
> We dealt away the best pg in the draft in Telfair.
> Took on a longer contract in Raef.
> Traded VK for absolutely nothing.
> ...


You are right about some points: but actually, looking at the roster before and after the trades, I think Blazers did very well.
The bad thing is the LaFrentz contract, but Roy and Aldridge were two of the best prospects in this draft and they were able to get them both. B+.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm gonna go with "B"

I think the Blazers should have taken Morrison with the Chicago pick and then traded with Atlanta to get Aldridge. No one would have taken Sheldon Williams before #7

I also would have taken Foye or Gay over Roy

We lose Viktor who as far as I was concerned is going to be a great rotation player for a lot of years
We add one more year of high salary in LaFrentz rather than Theo


We did get the best center prospect in the draft and the best shooting guard prospect in the draft, so that was nice.

If the team deals Miles which I think they will it makes a lot of sense. I also think the team will deal Randolph if Aldridge shows the progress I think he will 

A future line up of 

Jack/Blake/Dickau
Roy/Webster/Dixon
Webster/Outlaw/Roy
Randolph/Aldridge/LaFrentz
Lafrentz/Aldridge/Skinner


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

After having a chance to sleep on it I might as well ring in on page 7. I don't care about trading Telfair. That kid has more expectations hanging over him and I'm still not convinced he can ever live up to them all.

Aldridge better be VERY good. You don't pass on Adam Morrison when there are so many players with size coming out just next year. I hope we don't look at this whole thing as the next Sam Bowie like chapter in Blazers Draft history.

Otherwise I think they did an outstanding job. I really do. They were sold on Aldridge so for now I'm sold on this draft.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Pain5155 said:


> i change my mind.
> 
> An F- after hearing Stephen A. Smith. Usless trades, and a lineup of rookies.


*LISTENING TO STEPHEN A SMITH IS LIKE LISTENING TO OSMA BIN LAUDEN! HE IS AN ***!* :curse: :curse: :clap: 

gatorpops


----------



## Justinmoney85 (Apr 10, 2006)

Aldridge- i think of all the big men, he was the one i liked best besides simmons. he won't be anything special but will be a solid starter. - B+

Roy- i would have liked to have kept Foye, but both players are going to fight over the rookie of the year honors, so i can't complain. immediater starter for us at either 2,3, maybe even 1. A

Rodriquez- good prospect, but now our roster is 1/3 PGs. C

Freeland- its obvious, we couldn't that many players, decent pick to leave overseas. B

as stephen a would say at the end of the day, the blazers walked away with two potentially immediate starters. aldridge adds some offense with randolph now likely gone, and Roy scores and helps out everybody around us.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

ur putting ur franchise on the backs of two rookies. not gonna work.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I'll give the Blazers an A-/B+ for this draft. I would give them a solid A, but I don't think they needed to give up Theo to get Aldridge. However, they picked up LaFrentz and they got the guys they targeted. Very impressive.


----------



## marcola-native (May 15, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Portland traded one of their only two potential stars for a non-premium pick in a weak draft. They then compounded that mistake by trading away Khryapa to move up two spots to select a player who likely would have fallen to their original pick and then passed on possibly the best talent in the draft at #7.
> 
> Overall, I can't see any grade but an *F*. Pretty much a clinic on how to mismanage a draft.



Thats just ridiculous to give them an F after they were able to get Roy and Aldridge, sure I didn't agree with losing Khyrapa for a player you could have probably gotten anyway, but they must have felt they had too, I would have traded up to get Morrison, I also thought we should have drafted Gay at 7 but even though we didn't we still had a great draft,theres no need to rake management over the coles because they didn't draft the way I wanted them to, I'll trust our scouts and coach and give them congrats for getting who they wanted. 

GRADE A


----------



## marcola-native (May 15, 2006)

Pain5155 said:


> i change my mind.
> 
> An F- after hearing Stephen A. Smith. Usless trades, and a lineup of rookies.



Your first mistake was even listening to that idiot, 2nd the team has to try and rebuild somehow its not like theres allstar bigname players just knocking down our door wanting to play here, thats what rebuilding is, now if we can pick up a couple vets we'll be just fine.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Pain5155 said:


> ur putting ur franchise on the backs of two rookies. not gonna work.


No, the Blazers are stocking the shelves with talent. They just picked up the best inside player (Aldridge) and the best player overall (Roy) in the entire draft. Not a bad day's work.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

tlong said:


> I'll give the Blazers an A-/B+ for this draft. I would give them a solid A, but I don't think they needed to give up Theo to get Aldridge. However, they picked up LaFrentz and they got the guys they targeted. Very impressive.


I think you meant to say give up Viktor to get Aldridge.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

mgb said:


> I think you meant to say give up Viktor to get Aldridge.


Yes. I couldn't remember exactly which players we gave up in what specific deals. I know we dealt Viktor, Theo, and Bassy. No big deal as all of those guys are "fringe" players.


----------



## West44 (Jun 29, 2005)

A - Kudos to the Blazers and to hell w\Stephen A. :clap: 

Big changes were needed and the blazers showed some giant cajones last night. I don't think the blazers are done trading yet. 

Also, there's a very respectful and friendly atmosphere on this board that encourages the exchange of ideas. 

Hopefully, another record playoff streak starts soon.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

The Blazers get an A- for the draft last night.

I just about lost it when I saw Minny pick Roy at #6, but then the Blazers pulled off the Roy/Foye trade and I was able to get my heart started again.

Sergio was a nice pick up. He looks and plays like Blake with the speed/vision of Telfair. He will be an interesting player to watch develop.

The Blazers get an A if they keep either James White or Alexander Johnson. Those trades in the 2nd round were a mystery to me and I think Johnson would have brought a dimension the Blazers don't currently have on the roster.

Resign Joel and move Darius and get to the business of winning basketball.


----------



## MrMinish (May 24, 2006)

I thought we did great.

It doesn't seem like we needed to get rid of Vicktor, but that was the only low point of the draft for me. I'm estatic about getting _2_ of the top 5 players in the daft. We also got Sergio Rodriguez whom, from the videos I have seen, looks to be a good asset in a couple of year along with Freeland. I really look forward to the upcoming season. 

A-


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I honestly don't see what people are griping about trading up to the #2. The team needed to drop crappy players and get good players. IMO Khryapa was a player I was glad to see gone. I think management saw it the same way. Chicago thinks they got a player, I think they got a bench scrub who will be lucky to still be in the league in 2 years, and free'd up a roster spot for the Blazers, while ensuring we got our player. The most important thing is you get the players you targeted, and maintain your roster within the size limit so you are not forced to cut talented players when you are not ready to yet. If you are forced to do that, then other teams just wait like Jackals and snap them up when you cut them because of roster size limits. 

As for Steven Smith and Greg Anthony, they both were all ready to rip on Portland with venom from the start, it didn't matter how it went down, they were ready to rip Portland a new one because Portland is the media's whipping boy. 

Greg Anthony mellowed near the end after he realized that Portland did a masterful job of forcing Minnesota to trade with them instead of Houston. A lot of people may not realize that Minnesota and Houston had a trade in place that was equivelent to the Portland/Minnesota trade, but Portland forced their hand by picking Foye before Houston could, therefore locking down that Minnesota would have to trade with Portland in order to get Foye. 

As for Steven Smith not figuring out what Portland is doing, well thats because if he was going to basketball school, he would be riding the short bus. Its simple what they are doing. They are getting rid of guys that do not fit Nates system and getting guys who do. What does that mean? It means getting guards with size who can defend. It means getting guys who can shoot. It means running a 3 guard rotation in the future where all guards have good size and can switch on defense at will as needed. It means getting rid of Darius Miles and having Martell play more small forward. It means getting Lemarcus Aldridge so we can get a power forward who actually plays like one, freeing up Zbo for a trade to further improve the team. It means getting rid of guys who ride the pine with fake injuries like Ratliff. 

This will do the following:

1. Bigger guards will defend better, switch easier due to size matchups, and rebound better because of their size. 
2. Interior presence will increase with a bigger power forward with shot blocking skills. Scoring will be done from 15 feet in mostly, not from 15 feet out. 
3. The rotation will shorten giving guys the playing time they need to build confidence.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

After sleeping on it:

I could easily have made peace with the team trading Telfair, considering that Gay fell into their laps. To also lose out on Gay for Roy still stings.

A core of Webster/Gay/Aldridge would have been similarly nice to Telfair/Webster/Aldridge as far as I'm concerned. But Roy is simply a talent downgrade in my opinion and dampens my enthusiasm.

An 'F' may have been overstating it, but I'd still give Portland a negative grade.


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm going with a B+ taking into account all the Blazers moves yesterday.

I was a little sad to see Telfair and Viktor go. Theo? Not so much. Regardless, the trades went a long ways towards balancing the roster.

I can't see Dickau as anything more than a contract dump by the Celtics, and don't see that he will fit in any better in Portland than he did last time he was here. LaFrentz, while grossly overpaid, will bring some good qualities to the Blazers. Namely another big body should Joel leave, a decent shot blocker, and another shooter who can stretch defenses. 

I believe that with the Chicago trade the Blazers were able to acquire the #1 guy on their draft board, a player with the potential to be the top talent in this draft. While Aldridge will be able to come in and play immediately, I think it will be a season or two, as he develops physically, before we will see his true impact. 

At #7, I was really hoping to see the Blazers take Gay, but I do think Roy will be a good addition to this team. 

I like the idea of a starting line up of Jack/Roy/Webster/Randolph/Lafrentz. It gives the Blazers two sharp shooters, two guys adept a penetrating and getting to the basket, and an offensive presence in the post (provided Nate can keep him from drifting). All five guys in that line up are capable of knocking down a mid range jumper as well.

Everything beyond the first two picks was just gravy. Sergio Rodriguez and Joel Freeland give the Blazers some solid long term prospects. Rodriguez is going to be a fun player to watch develop, whether he stays in Europe another year or in the NBDL. I think the Telfair lovers will quickly take a liking to this guy. As far as Freeland goes? How often do you see 'hustle' players that are nearly 7 feet tall? I suspect we will see him in the summer league, but more than likely he will spend a few season back in Europe. 

Like many others have said, the numerous second round picks acquired throughout the day will mostly be used to facilitate additional moves. There is no way Miles ever plays another game in a Blazers uniform. I don't see him netting the Blazers a large return, but about now we could trade him for a new ballboy and I wouldn't be too disappointed. 

I think Zach gets another year in Portland, if not to see how he plays and acts sans Miles, to prove to the rest of the league that his knee is healthy.

It's been a busy 24 hours for my favorite basketball team, and frankly my head is still spinning a bit trying to keep up. But looking back on it this morning, I like the direction this franchise is pointed. I expect some serious improvement now that Nate has had his year to evaluate what he has on his roster, and I expect we will see a much more defined player rotation this season. When does next season start?


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

Pain5155 said:


> ur putting ur franchise on the backs of two rookies. not gonna work.


You're making useless posts. Feel free to stop anytime.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Pain5155 said:


> ur putting ur franchise on the backs of two rookies. not gonna work.



Just like it didn't work in Chicago 2 years ago. :angel:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

hasoos said:


> I honestly don't see what people are griping about trading up to the #2. The team needed to drop crappy players and get good players. IMO Khryapa was a player I was glad to see gone. I think management saw it the same way. Chicago thinks they got a player, I think they got a bench scrub who will be lucky to still be in the league in 2 years, and free'd up a roster spot for the Blazers, while ensuring we got our player. The most important thing is you get the players you targeted, and maintain your roster within the size limit so you are not forced to cut talented players when you are not ready to yet. If you are forced to do that, then other teams just wait like Jackals and snap them up when you cut them because of roster size limits.
> 
> As for Steven Smith and Greg Anthony, they both were all ready to rip on Portland with venom from the start, it didn't matter how it went down, they were ready to rip Portland a new one because Portland is the media's whipping boy.
> 
> ...


Good post. I have already been at the watercooler explaing to my Laker fan workmates about how the Blazers will have the option of switching when they have Jack and Roy at the guard spots - something Phil would love to have. Nate will love it. I will enjoy it too.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

hasoos said:


> I honestly don't see what people are griping about trading up to the #2. The team needed to drop crappy players and get good players. IMO Khryapa was a player I was glad to see gone. I think management saw it the same way. Chicago thinks they got a player, I think they got a bench scrub who will be lucky to still be in the league in 2 years, and free'd up a roster spot for the Blazers, while ensuring we got our player. The most important thing is you get the players you targeted, and maintain your roster within the size limit so you are not forced to cut talented players when you are not ready to yet. If you are forced to do that, then other teams just wait like Jackals and snap them up when you cut them because of roster size limits.
> 
> As for Steven Smith and Greg Anthony, they both were all ready to rip on Portland with venom from the start, it didn't matter how it went down, they were ready to rip Portland a new one because Portland is the media's whipping boy.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything, and I've been saying the same thing. EXCEPT for Aldridge. I think he'll be our center unless we get Oden next year. 

I seriously think that management will keep Zach thinking he will behave better after getting away from bad teammates like Darius.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> F-
> We dealt away the best pg in the draft in Telfair.
> Took on a longer contract in Raef.
> Traded VK for absolutely nothing.
> ...


Who was this imposter?!?!?! Ooops, my bad. I actually liked the LMA pick, but nothing that night was going to make me happy unless we got Telfair back.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Who was this imposter?!?!?! Ooops, my bad. I actually liked the LMA pick, but nothing that night was going to make me happy unless we got Telfair back.


I felt your pain that the club moved your favorite player, but I'm happy to see that you've turned the page and embraced the new guys... way to go. 

From my personal perspective it's much harder to do that when the moves you don't support at the time look bad in hindsight. Thankfully thats not the case here.

Go Ducks! 

STOMP


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

A++++++++


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Man... I forget how much I like to hear myself type when I'm engaged in a discussion.

I remember there were a lot of threads happening on draft day. I wonder where I landed on my grade after the completion of the draft. I remember being more enthusiastic than a B/B+ grade...

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

A++++++, wuld have been a A++++++++++++ if we would have drafted Paul Millsap..man that would have been a gran slam times 10.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

This was the draft that potentially saved this franchise. Amazing work by our scouts, GM, owner and everyone in general that was involved.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Revisiting this thread has been extremely fun.

I remember thinking, "Roy's alright, but I definitely don't want to give up Telfair, and Aldridge for Viktor? Does this team know what they're doing?" Can't find any of my old posts on the matter, but I definitely wasn't going to bust out with "A+++++++++++++" on draft day.

That's why I'm not a GM. :biggrin:


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

LameR said:


> C+
> 
> I accepted us getting rid of Telfair for the 7 because I assumed we'd get a good pick out of it. I was busy until just now when I read we got Foye. I was pretty excited, only to read on the next line we traded him for Roy. I Was also hoping we would get Morrison, but I guess I'm somewhat content with Aldridge. The problem I have right now is our two remaining SFs (once a logjam) are:
> 
> ...



I bought into the Foye hype! The next D-Wade, oh my gosh! It's a good thing Roy's basement was higher than I thought his ceiling would be.

I was also a Morrison lover, and it tainted my opinion haha.

I was also kind of attached to Viktor.

I definitely didn't foresee Udoka coming, so that helped answer my SF question. I was right about how young we would be, but I really didn't expect us to do this well with the youth. I had pretty low expectations out of our rookies.

And this is why I'm not an NBA scout.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Damn, some people were all up on Bassys' hoo haa. And dissing Roy to no end. I thought ammo was a good choice from a marketing standpoint, and before the draft, Roy was considered the "boring/safe" pick.
Damn we were wrong, and i for one am glad.


----------

