# For those who still have questions about the draft...



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

...read Barrett's blog:

http://mikebarrettsblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/blazers-get-their-man-again.html

It explains a _lot_ if you buy it, and I do.

This link has been provided in other threads, but with all the confusion that still seems to be lingering, it seemed worth it's own thread.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

yep, we never had arthur so people need to stop saying that was a bad trade..instead we got a player who both KP and San Antonio likes..


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Comeon, talk about spin! If we had gotten TJ Ford, or Westbrook, the story would have been how _that _was KP's master plan all along. Gimme a break!


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

In about 20 years, I would be geeked out if Pritch wrote a book about his time with the team, detailing all the behind-the-scenes juicy tidbits!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> Comeon, talk about spin! If we had gotten TJ Ford, or Westbrook, the story would have been how _that _was KP's master plan all along. Gimme a break!


Maybe. I'll particularly buy that with Ford. I'm ready to believe, though, that Bayless _is_ the guy they had as their target draftee.

To run with Barrett's log a little further, I think Pritchard has been setting up for this for awhile. For example, he told the world over and over again how important the interview process was for him, citing Roy and Aldridge and, to a lesser degree, Oden. While I don't think he was lying per se, I _do_ now think he was establishing an MO for other GMs, anticipating doing something else in other drafts, such as this one.

Bayless was never worked out by the Blazers. Some have suggested he turned them down but Pritchard talked a lot about others (such as Love) turning them down, really kind of playing it up, without ever that _I_ recall mentioning Bayless. Bayless _was_ also ranked ahead of both Westbrook and Augustin for most of the time leading up to the draft, talked about as the best guard in the draft not named Rose or Mayo.

I think the Blazers did everything they could, including "leaking" to Quick "privately" how excited McMillan was about Augustin, to raise the stocks of both Westbrook and Augustin. Even the local media was excluded from most of most workouts, but both Westbrook and Augustin reportedly had _amazing_ workouts.

Also, we all know how Allen named the Roy/Aldridge draft the Pritchard draft and how Pritchard went on to name the next one (with the Randolph trade that made possible adding Frye, Jones, and Fernandez) the Penn draft. Pritchard yesterday named this the Smoke Screen draft. I think they saw this as their last chance to significantly improve the team through the draft and pulled out this last stop -- _if_ Barrett and I are right about their MO for this draft, it seems like the kind of tactic that only works really well once, after having been set up with all the talk about the importance of interviews.

Now they'll refocus on improving the team through non-draft related trades and free agent signings, with only minor tweaking done through the draft, likely.

I know some here will claim I'm giving Pritchard too much credit and maybe I am. But it seems to me the pieces all fit and since we'll almost certainly never really know for sure, I'm going with it until I see real evidence to not.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Nice analysis. Hard to buy, but if true, all I can say is Wow! 

It seems more likely to me that Bayless slipped and the blazers picked up a player who fell too far ( ala Paul Pierce), and now have concocted a story about how this was the plan all along.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I don't understand how anyone can not give KP full credit.

He has done this **** for 3 years in a row. The guy is smart.

IMO, he knew he was going to get Westbrook, Augestin or Bayless before the draft. One of them would be available at 11, and Indiana was going to pick one of them for us, and we were going to pick Rush for them. Turns out Bayless fell and we got him. KP had it all worked out before time. Guy is a genious.

BUT, i am kind of skeptic about the fact that BAYLESS was his target the whole time.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> Nice analysis. Hard to buy, but if true, all I can say is Wow!
> 
> It seems more likely to me that Bayless slipped and the blazers picked up a player who fell too far ( ala Paul Pierce), and now have concocted a story about how this was the plan all along.


The pieces fit too well, though. Pritchard coyly asking about Bayless after that long conversation with the media about Westbrook vs. Augustin and the otherwise _total_ lack of conversation about him? He was on both radio stations for weeks talking about Mayo, Love, Westbrook, Augustin, Gallinari, Alexander, etc. There were even times when he or someone with him from the scouting team would call in to Courtside saying that they were in Europe but that they didn't want to say anything more than that because they didn't want to tip off who they were there to see. I really think it _was_ all smoke and he's now being totally straight with us, now that it's over, that Bayless really was the target all along.

And keep in mind, while it was useful that guys like Love, Gallinari, and Alexander _all_ climbed, given team needs it was only critical that they get the couple of teams needing guards to value Westbrook and Augustin above Bayless. I predict that over the course of their careers, Bayless will significantly outplay both of them.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> I don't understand how anyone can not give KP full credit.
> 
> He has done this **** for 3 years in a row. The guy is smart.
> 
> ...


Why so skeptical? I mean, if you're all about giving Pritchard full credit, and if you read Barrett's blog....


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

just because a team does not work out a player, it does not mean that there is no possibility of having another team work out the player for them or even video conference in as the technology is there. 

I give KP a lot of credit for this draft solely for ridding themselves of Jarret Jack!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

deanwoof said:


> just because a team does not work out a player, it does not mean that there is no possibility of having another team work out the player for them or even video conference in as the technology is there.


I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm confident the Blazers did their homework on Bayless, but I think they did it pretty subtly -- more subtly than asking another team to set up a video conference. Whether or not they somehow managed a private conversation with him I don't know, but I'd be surprised if they'd have risked it. I think they very intentionally watched him from a distance while pumping up Westbrook and Augustin and it worked out.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Kids, on the night of the draft, KP said this was plan "1A" - so obviously this was not the main plan. Comeon, drink a little less Koolaid.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> Kids, on the night of the draft, KP said this was plan "1A" - so obviously this was not the main plan. Comeon, drink a little less Koolaid.


I assume Plan 1 was getting Westbrook.
Getting Bayless is a pretty nice consolation, if you call it that. And it could end up that Bayless is a better player in the end.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> Kids, on the night of the draft, KP said this was plan "1A" - so obviously this was not the main plan. Comeon, drink a little less Koolaid.



Er... what's higher than 1A? 1B? 2A? I don't get where you're coming from here. It seems to me that plan 1A would be what they most wanted to make happen.

That said, I can believe that they preferred getting Ford to adding Bayless but that the price was higher than they wanted to pay. That doesn't contradict anything Pritchard has said post-draft, such as that they had Bayless listed 4th on their board behind Rose, Beasley, and Mayo.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

alext42083 said:


> I assume Plan 1 was getting Westbrook.
> Getting Bayless is a pretty nice consolation, if you call it that. And it could end up that Bayless is a better player in the end.



Further, I suspect Bayless will be a better backcourt mate for Roy _and_ Fernandez than Westbrook would have been, at least on the offensive side of the court.

On the defensive side, Westbrook is clearly right now the better defender of the two and will probably always be better able to defend SGs, but on this roster he wouldn't be asked to defend SGs much and Bayless may, in fact, eventually become the better defender of the two against guys like Parker and Paul because he's faster than Westbrook.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

We will never know!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pritchard was quoted as saying the first 11 picks went exactly as he expected.

True? Do you buy it? Doesn't matter...the Pritchard mystique grows!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Pritchard was quoted as saying the first 11 picks went exactly as he expected.
> 
> True? Do you buy it? Doesn't matter...the Pritchard mystique grows!



If, by that, he means the guys they thought would go in the first 11 did, I'll buy that. If he's trying to say they got the _order_ right, too... that seems like more of a stretch to me, though I suppose it's _possible_ they foresaw things like the Love/Mayo trade. After all, they have a bunch of information we don't, such as when two teams they may have been talking with suddenly stopped talking with them.

You're right, though, the mystique grows either way, for good and/or ill. Rumor has it that he's started to get GMs balking based in part on his reputation, but on the whole I'd think West has even more of that kind of reputation and it hasn't seemed to be much of an issue for him.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Plan 1 was to get Rose.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Pritchard was quoted as saying the first 11 picks went exactly as he expected.
> 
> True? Do you buy it? Doesn't matter...the Pritchard mystique grows!


draftexpress did very well themselves in predicting the first 11 picks, so it wouldn't surprise me if we had an accurate mock as well. Maybe we're lucky that it was Bayless who dropped, but you're right, it doesn't matter. The guy's got the mystique of a great drafter, even if he might have been lucky. If nothing else, that should help him get top prospects in for workouts.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

#10 said:


> draftexpress did very well themselves in predicting the first 11 picks, so it wouldn't surprise me if we had an accurate mock as well. Maybe we're lucky that it was Bayless who dropped, but you're right, it doesn't matter. The guy's got the mystique of a great drafter, even if he might have been lucky. *If nothing else, that should help him get top prospects in for workouts*.


That's a good point and one I'd not thought of quite like that before. That said, I _was_ surprised that Love, for example, declined to come workout -- Pritchard has established he goes to get guys he likes.

I'm sure you're right that every draft like this helps, but it probably only helps a few steps in most folks' minds, despite the way they got Roy. Given that Pritchard is gonna now be looking at picks in the 20s and beyond (presuming all goes well), it's unlikely to help get the guys who really are "top prospects."

Still, this staff seems to turn over stones and find gold pretty regularly and with the roster as set as it seems to be, they can afford some misses with all the 2nd rounders they'll be working with over the upcoming drafts.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Why so skeptical? I mean, if you're all about giving Pritchard full credit, and if you read Barrett's blog....


because i believe that he didn't think Bayless would fall so low from day 1. Notice i said the WHOLE TIME.

and one more note about this draft, before the draft KP asked the people in a room what they thought about (who they liked more) Augestin and Westbrook. Then at the end he said, "what about Bayless"?

so...


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> and one more note about this draft, before the draft KP asked the people in a room what they thought about (who they liked more) Augestin and Westbrook. Then at the end he said, "what about Bayless"?
> 
> so...


Right. What do you conclude from that? To me that sounds very much like he dropped that not so much as a hint, as Barrett called it, but as foreshadowing so we could all be clear he'd been thinking about Bayless going in.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

yea. He knew that Seattle might pick Westbrook over Bayless, which would make Bayless be the one slipping. That info only came later though, as all reports were that Seattle wanted Bayless from the start.

I'm sure that he did lots of research on Bayless the whole time and stuff. I just don't think Bayless was the primary target from day 1. I could be wrong, but that is just my feeling.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> yea. He knew that Seattle might pick Westbrook over Bayless, which would make Bayless be the one slipping. That info only came later though, as all reports were that Seattle wanted Bayless from the start.
> 
> I'm sure that he did lots of research on Bayless the whole time and stuff. I just don't think Bayless was the primary target from day 1. I could be wrong, but that is just my feeling.


It might depend which day you consider to be "day 1." Myself, I'm pretty confident he's been their target for some weeks, if not months.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Here's another way to look at it, Jay -- which PG of Westbrook, Bayless, and Augustin would _you_ say is the best fit next to Roy (and Fernandez)? I'd say Bayless by a ways, then Westbrook, and Augustin well beyond those two.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

That is a tough one, P.

If all 3 were at #13, i'd take Bayless, because i feel he is the best player.

It is tough for me to asses fit because i haven't really seen them play in the NBA, but speculation wise, it would be close with R-dub and Jay-Bay cuz Westbrook is such a good defender.

But as of today, I say Bayless. Yes, i'm a homer! I love Bayless. I love the Blazers. Our team is sooo awesome. I wouldn't change ONE THING we have done the past couple of years. I'm happy with how everything turned out.



> It might depend which day you consider to be "day 1." Myself, I'm pretty confident he's been their target for some weeks, if not months.


I think he has been their target for a bit also. Just not the whole time. I'm sure KPs initial mock had Bayless goin' to Seattle at 4.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Stevenson said:


> Kids, on the night of the draft, KP said this was plan "1A" - so obviously this was not the main plan. Comeon, drink a little less Koolaid.


I know that I am late to this conversation but, Plan 1a could mean that in plan *"1"*, they had three options and they were designated *1a=Bayless*, 1b=Westbrook, 1c=Mayo etc. Don't ya think?

gatorpops


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> Kids, on the night of the draft, KP said this was plan "1A" - so obviously this was not the main plan. Comeon, drink a little less Koolaid.


I'm not sure I get your point? He may well have had Rose/Beasley/Mayo rated higher than Bayless - so did everybody else. Are you saying our failure to get into the top 3 makes the draft a failure? 

All KP's statement proves is that he was smart enough to plan for more than *one* contingency. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> That is a tough one, P.
> 
> If all 3 were at #13, i'd take Bayless, because i feel he is the best player.
> 
> ...


Then presuming Pritchard is thinking about it they way you and I are, he got his first choice.




> I think he has been their target for a bit also. Just not the whole time. I'm sure KPs initial mock had Bayless goin' to Seattle at 4.


I don't think there _was_ a specific target until a few weeks or months ago, and with that, I _do_ think Bayless was their target for as long as they had a specific target -- they never bothered to "target" guys like Rose and Beasley I don't think.

As for luck, sure there's luck involved, much like there's luck involved with any given shot that's put up. And if you, Reggie Miller, and I stand out at the 3pt line and take 100 shots, there will almost certainly be at least one moment when he misses one and either you or I happen to make one -- luck. And at some point in there, you have to factor in skill. I think Pritchard is _that_ kind of skilled. After all, who's had a better draft (from a GM skill set perspective) even _one_ of the last three years? The _only_ person I can think of off the top of my head might be Ainge this last year, and how's he compare to Pritchard the year before?


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Then presuming Pritchard is thinking about it they way you and I are, he got his first choice.


totally agree that he got his first choice (not counting Rose).



> I don't think there was a specific target until a few weeks or months ago, and with that, I do think Bayless was their target for as long as they had a specific target -- they never bothered to "target" guys like Rose and Beasley I don't think.


ah, see, That is where me and you differ.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

There is one thing that makes Barrett's account ring true for me: the fact that the Blazers never worked Bayless out in Portland. If Bayless, Westbrook, and Augustin were the best point guards after Rose, then it would only have made sense for Portland to work ALL of them out, on the assumption that any one of them may be there at #11. 

That is, UNLESS they were trying to make people think they didn't have their eye on Bayless for that pick . . .


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> There is one thing that makes Barrett's account ring true for me: the fact that the Blazers never worked Bayless out in Portland. If Bayless, Westbrook, and Augustin were the best point guards after Rose, then it would only have made sense for Portland to work ALL of them out, on the assumption that any one of them may be there at #11.
> 
> That is, UNLESS they were trying to make people think they didn't have their eye on Bayless for that pick . . .


Right. I think that's pretty spot on, TH, and I think you just said it better than I've been managing. Thanks!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> There is one thing that makes Barrett's account ring true for me: the fact that the Blazers never worked Bayless out in Portland. If Bayless, Westbrook, and Augustin were the best point guards after Rose, then it would only have made sense for Portland to work ALL of them out, on the assumption that any one of them may be there at #11.
> 
> That is, UNLESS they were trying to make people think they didn't have their eye on Bayless for that pick . . .


Or unless Bayless's agent didn't want him working out for a team at the end of the lottery. It takes two to tango.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Or unless Bayless's agent didn't want him working out for a team at the end of the lottery. It takes two to tango.
> 
> Ed O.



True, but Pritchard was _very_ public in his disappointment about Love's agent holding Love back from working out for the Blazers. _Nothing_, by contrast, was said about Bayless' agent.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> True, but Pritchard was _very_ public in his disappointment about Love's agent holding Love back from working out for the Blazers. _Nothing_, by contrast, was said about Bayless' agent.


Not mentioning Bayless AT ALL could have been a strategy.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> ah, see, That is where me and you differ.


Agreed. So here's another question: When you're buying something relatively significant (stereo, car, gift, etc.) do you go into the process with a target and then keep changing targets until you finally make your decision?

As for myself, I don't. I do a bunch of research, check out things like Consumer Reports, and so on, until I have a firm decision, my target, and that's what I get unless somehow new information (that makes me think otherwise) gets to me before I've committed, (which as happened maybe a handful of times in my life).

In the end, I suppose it's possible that the actual process could be very much the same and that the difference is little more than semantics revolving around mind-set.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Not mentioning Bayless AT ALL could have been a strategy.



Barrett is absolutely claiming it was, and I'm inclined to agree, in hindsight.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Further, I suspect Bayless will be a better backcourt mate for Roy _and_ Fernandez than Westbrook would have been, at least on the offensive side of the court.
> 
> On the defensive side, Westbrook is clearly right now the better defender of the two and will probably always be better able to defend SGs, but on this roster he wouldn't be asked to defend SGs much and Bayless may, in fact, eventually become the better defender of the two against guys like Parker and Paul because he's faster than Westbrook.


What gives you the idea that Bayless is "faster"?

Lane agility scores:

Bayless: 11.26
Westbrook: 10.98


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Agreed. So here's another question: When you're buying something relatively significant (stereo, car, gift, etc.) do you go into the process with a target and then keep changing targets until you finally make your decision?
> 
> As for myself, I don't. I do a bunch of research, check out things like Consumer Reports, and so on, until I have a firm decision, my target, and that's what I get unless somehow new information (that makes me think otherwise) gets to me before I've committed, (which as happened maybe a handful of times in my life).
> 
> In the end, I suppose it's possible that the actual process could be very much the same and that the difference is little more than semantics revolving around mind-set.


IMO, this is what happened. He had 4 targets from the beginning. Rose, Bayless, Westbrook, Augestin in that order. When he saw that Seattle took Westbrook (which he thought might happen) and Bayless start to fall, he did everything in his power to get our #2 ranked PG to drop to 11, where it was pre-arranged that Indiana would get us a PG.

I honestly don't think he just had one target the whole time. 

I think that a month or so ago when he heard that Seattle might have interest in Lopez or Westbrook over Bayless, is where he started to plan everything. Where he started putting massive smoke-screens and stuff.

Its mighty hard for me to believe that his target was Bayless from the start, when everyone thought he would go 4. Might be wrong though, but that is what i get from the articles i read and interviews i listened to.



> When you're buying something relatively significant (stereo, car, gift, etc.) do you go into the process with a target and then keep changing targets until you finally make your decision?


Yea, that is a good point. I guess what i think about this is, to relate it more toward a draft, I think about it in the sense that you have the thing you want, but you realize that other people want it also, and it is in finite supply.

So i would have a plan a, and do research on it and find the thing you want, but you also have to be realistic and since the item you want is high quality, it might not be there, and you would need to have backup plans and do your research on the rest of the stuff also, to see what another option would be.

IDK if that makes sense. It does in my head, lol. I'm not the best at explaining thing i suppose.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> What gives you the idea that Bayless is "faster"?
> 
> Lane agility scores:
> 
> ...


It's all kind of a blur now but I recall someone on one of the radio broadcasts (maybe Barrett?) saying that Bayless was faster than Westbrook. Maybe he (they) was (were) talking about one kind of speed vs another or maybe the information is bad.

Regardless, it seems to me that Augustin is a pretty pure PG, Westbrook is a combo guard split fairly evenly, and Bayless is a combo guard split maybe 65/35, leaning toward PG. While all of those qualities would potentially be useful on the team, maybe it's just the homer in me but it seems like Bayless is the best fit of the three for this team -- his outside shooting combined with his ability to finish at the rim should be big.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> IMO, this is what happened. He had 4 targets from the beginning. Rose, Bayless, Westbrook, Augestin in that order. When he saw that Seattle took Westbrook (which he thought might happen) and Bayless start to fall, he did everything in his power to get our #2 ranked PG to drop to 11, where it was pre-arranged that Indiana would get us a PG.
> 
> I honestly don't think he just had one target the whole time.
> 
> ...


You keep saying "from the start" or "from the beginning" and seem to keep changing whether you're taking about the start of draft day, lottery day, or some other "beginning." :thinking2:

If/when you mean draft day, I don't think it's reasonable to call Rose a target -- by then it would've been clear that he was going either 1st or 2nd and Pritchard had (apparently) decided by that point to not bother trying to trade up that high.

Further, I don't think there was much "smoke" draft day itself, though of course I wasn't in the "war room." But the way they've been taking about it, all the "smoking" they did was _in_ the fact that they never had Bayless in or otherwise showed any interest in him, suggesting that they knew from before they started having guys in for workouts that he was the guy they wanted.

I hear you about your difficulty believing Pritchard might've had Bayless targetted when most of the mocks had him listed 4th or 5th. Consider, though, that Pritchard might _well_ have been ready to part with a player like Webster or Outlaw to trade up into that range and, thanks in part to the smoke-screens, other teams' wants/needs, and "luck", got to the last day or two before the draft with the sense that they might not need to do that, and that the trade with the Pacers would bring in their guy while giving up a lot less.



> Yea, that is a good point. I guess what i think about this is, to relate it more toward a draft, I think about it in the sense that you have the thing you want, but you realize that other people want it also, and it is in finite supply.
> 
> So i would have a plan a, and do research on it and find the thing you want, but you also have to be realistic and since the item you want is high quality, it might not be there, and you would need to have backup plans and do your research on the rest of the stuff also, to see what another option would be.
> 
> IDK if that makes sense. It does in my head, lol. I'm not the best at explaining thing i suppose.


Your point about the finite supply is a good one -- hence the need for the smoke. But the research and process would, I think, still be similar. So arguably plan "A" would have been Rose but I think that was probably abandoned shortly after lottery day -- quickly enough that it never really was a "plan." 

I think Bayless was the "next" (and from my perspective, first real) plan, and they got him while giving up a player most of us thought needed to be moved anyway and a player who was maybe 13th (after Wafer and Miles) on the "value" list from last season. Given that they added (and the _way_ they added) both Batum and the future 2nd rounders, I'd say it was, once again, a pretty incredible draft, masterfully pulled off. :iwon:


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> I think Bayless was the "next" (and from my perspective, first real) plan, and they got him while giving up a player most of us thought needed to be moved anyway and a player who was maybe 13th (after Wafer and Miles) on the "value" list from last season. Given that they added (and the way they added) both Batum and the future 2nd rounders, I'd say it was, once again, a pretty incredible draft, masterfully pulled off.


agree completely. I think Bayless was their #1 guy (realistic.. so after Rose).



> You keep saying "from the start" or "from the beginning" and seem to keep changing whether you're taking about the start of draft day, lottery day, or some other "beginning."


Probably when the season ended and we roughly knew where teams would pick. It seemed like the most sure thing in the draft was Bayless at 4.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Probably when the season ended and we roughly knew where teams would pick. It seemed like the most sure thing in the draft was Bayless at 4.


The most sure thing in the draft? If you mean for the league (which I don't really think you do) I'd say that was Rose and Beasley going some combination of 1 and 2. If you mean for the Blazers (which seems more likely) then at that point I'd say the most sure would have been Augustin or Westbrook -- for weeks and weeks Westbrook was virtually the only player going to the Blazers on ESPNs mock draft randomizer. Then for awhile several mocks had the Blazers taking Gallinari.

_Maybe_ what you meant is that Bayless seemed the most sure player Pritchard might be able to snag if he also was giving up someone like Webster? If so, then I think we're pretty much back on the same page. That's roughly the point Barrett is suggesting Pritchard and company decided to _not_ invite Bayless to workout, to _not_ talk much about him, and to start talking up guys like Westbrook, Augustin, Love, and Alexander, all of whom ended up going ahead of Bayless.

I'm pretty much ready to let this conversation go at this point, though I've very much enjoyed it.  In then end, I think our perspectives either are closer than they were or they were closer all along and we misunderstood each other some. I would be curious, though, to hear whatever final thoughts you might have about the above, Jay (or anyone else who's wanting to chime in).


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Well from reading Chad Fords earlier mock drafts and draft reports, he said that the most sure pick in the lottery was Bayless at 4 to seattle. In the final 2 weeks before the draft though, they started having 2nd thoughts between Bayless, Westbrook and even Lopez.



> I'm pretty much ready to let this conversation go at this point, though I've very much enjoyed it. In then end, I think our perspectives either are closer than they were or they were closer all along and we misunderstood each other some. I would be curious, though, to hear whatever final thoughts you might have about the above, Jay (or anyone else who's wanting to chime in).


hey man thanks. I've really enjoyed talkin' to you, as you are reasonable and don't go for personal attacks when you disagree. 

You made really good points that i can't argue with, i can just state what i believe. I would love to hear KP talk about it (maybe tomarrow once the trade is approved?) and let everyone know what the thoughts were throughout the draft process. I think that would be sweet! 

Repped anyway.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Well from reading Chad Fords earlier mock drafts and draft reports, he said that the most sure pick in the lottery was Bayless at 4 to seattle. In the final 2 weeks before the draft though, they started having 2nd thoughts between Bayless, Westbrook and even Lopez.


Ah, okay. So your point is that you think it was in that final two weeks that Pritchard started targetting Bayless, then? Maybe. By then, though, most of what Barrett thinks were the smoke screens would have been done -- the hyping of Westbrook and Augustin while continuing to not mention Bayless, etc. It's starting to feel fairly chicken-or-eggish to me.



> hey man thanks. I've really enjoyed talkin' to you, as you are reasonable and don't go for personal attacks when you disagree.


Thanks -- same with you. One can only hope we've provided a good model for a couple of posters around here, though just in saying that I'm probably undoing whatever small good we might've just done. 



> You made really good points that i can't argue with, i can just state what i believe. I would love to hear KP talk about it (maybe tomarrow once the trade is approved?) and let everyone know what the thoughts were throughout the draft process. I think that would be sweet!
> 
> Repped anyway.



I agree that it'll be great to hear Pritchard talk at least a _little_ more plainly about this stuff, though even then there'll be some of us who (perhaps rightly) will claim it's all post-draft spin, pretty much regardless of what he actually says.

And thanks for repping me, though I confess that, in however many years I've been here, I've yet to figure out how or why one reps or what one does with the points.  :whoknows: :laugh:


----------

