# Lottery less than a week away!



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

The lottery is this coming Tuesday, May 23. Where will the Blazers be picking, and who will they choose? The suspense is killing me.











Andrea Bargnani?











Adam Morrison?











LaMarcus Aldridge?











Tyrus Thomas?











Rudy Gay?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

one of the reasons I want the #1 pick is because it will allow the blazers to speak openly about who they are interested in without being afraid that another team will swoop in and get their man.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

thylo said:


> one of the reasons I want the #1 pick is because it will allow the blazers to speak openly about who they are interested in without being afraid that another team will swoop in and get their man.


Agreed. And if they get the No. 1 pick, they're really in the catbird's seat, because they can field all kinds of offers for the pick. This will give them tremendous leverage, and a lot of control over the draft.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

thylo said:


> one of the reasons I want the #1 pick is because it will allow the blazers to speak openly about who they are interested in without being afraid that another team will swoop in and get their man.


True. At the same time, if they have reason to believe that a team picking after them wants a certain player, they could pretend to want the same player, and maybe con something out of them. 

Trust No One! :biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Blazer Bert said:


> True. At the same time, if they have reason to believe that a team picking after them wants a certain player, they could pretend to want the same player, and maybe con something out of them.
> 
> Trust No One! :biggrin:


 Blazer Bert = Bob Whitsett :biggrin:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

thylo said:


> one of the reasons I want the #1 pick is because it will allow the blazers to speak openly about who they are interested in without being afraid that another team will swoop in and get their man.


Thats a good point, I hadnt thought of it that way.


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

Does anyone expect any teams to move up or down on the 23rd? (From the projected order).


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

shookem said:


> Does anyone expect any teams to move up or down on the 23rd? (From the projected order).


Unless a team is after one of the top 5 or 6 guys in particukar, Idon't see a main reason to do so.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Nothing should happen until draft day or the day before at the earliest as far as trades go. Bye Darius!~!~


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Watch the Blazers wind up at #4. It would be karma. We moved up last year, and pissed it away. The universe has a way reprimanding you for that sort of thing. :naughty:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Watch the Blazers wind up at #4. It would be karma. We moved up last year, and pissed it away. The universe has a way reprimanding you for that sort of thing. :naughty:


How did we piss it away exactly?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> How did we piss it away exactly?



By passing on Paul. That's what his answer will be. What he doesn't get is that Telfair, Jack and Webster will most likely end up being more valuable combined than Chris Paul. I mean Telfair's ststs over 48 minutes are just about as good as Chris Paul's. Throw in Webster and Jack and Portland came out better.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Maybe if we have the #1 pick, players will actually show up to our workouts... we couldn't even get Paul to show up when we had the #3 pick. That sucks.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> By passing on Paul. That's what his answer will be. What he doesn't get is that Telfair, Jack and Webster will most likely end up being more valuable combined than Chris Paul. I mean Telfair's ststs over 48 minutes are just about as good as Chris Paul's. Throw in Webster and Jack and Portland came out better.


You have it half right.

You draft Paul, then trade Telfair to plug another hole.

Paul (a potential all-star) + an average player (obtained in a trade) trumps 3 average players.

Now, if you want to believe that someone from Telfair/Webster/Jack is going to be more than average, so be it. Nothing I can say is going to change your mind.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> You have it half right.
> 
> You draft Paul, then trade Telfair to plug another hole.
> 
> ...


that almost seems to be purposely setting the bar low on Webster, Jack and Telfair, just to make it so no matter what anyone says you can say they're "average".

thats an unfair arguing tactic.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> that almost seems to be purposely setting the bar low on Webster, Jack and Telfair, just to make it so no matter what anyone says you can say they're "average".
> 
> thats an unfair arguing tactic.


Webster/Jack/Telfair aren't average, but Blake is?

Who are you to talk about "unfair arguing tactics?"


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Webster/Jack/Telfair aren't average, but Blake is?
> 
> Who are you to talk about "unfair arguing tactics?"


yes, blake is average. he was average in college, and he's been average in the NBA. And he'll continue to be average, because after 7 years of organized ball, he's never shown that he has the ability to be anything _but_ average. 

so yes, he's average. and thats being kind.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> By passing on Paul. That's what his answer will be. What he doesn't get is that Telfair, Jack and Webster will most likely end up being more valuable combined than Chris Paul. I mean Telfair's ststs over 48 minutes are just about as good as Chris Paul's. Throw in Webster and Jack and Portland came out better.


 This what I don't like about stats. You imply that Telfair is as good as Paul based on stats over 48 minutes. But do you really think at this stage Telfair is as good as Paul? To me (and I suspect the rest of the league) there is no question that Paul is the superior player. 

I understand the logic behind trading down for Webster (already had Telfair and not knowing Paul was going to be that good) . . . but unless Webster does something special, it was the wrong decision.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> yes, blake is average. he was average in college, and he's been average in the NBA. And he'll continue to be average, because after 7 years of organized ball, he's never shown that he has the ability to be anything _but_ average.
> 
> so yes, he's average. and thats being kind.



To be accurate all these players have had more than seven years of "organized" ball. All these kids have been playing in an organized league since grade school and they all have been going to summer camps for years.

I don't get the organized ball argument. It implies that Blake can't improve because he has played 4 years of college and 3 years in the pros. Yet Telfair has only played two years in professional and no years in college so he has can improve???????

Some evaluators feel that fundmentals are best learned in college, the NBA doesn't teach that and kids are shorting themselves for not going to college. Maybe the ones out of high school have less chance of developing because they never learned the game the right way. 

Also what makes you say Blake was average in college? And saying Blake has been average for the last seven years and hasn't shown the ability to be anything else but average over the last seven years is kind? I hate to see what you being mean is . . . oh strike that last thought


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> that almost seems to be purposely setting the bar low on Webster, Jack and Telfair, just to make it so no matter what anyone says you can say they're "average".
> 
> thats an unfair arguing tactic.


Why? Would it be more "fair" to declare that Telfair is going to be "great" player?

I admit this is all educated guesswork - but it is also an honest, logical opinion. If you really want to hear my reasoning......

The 05-06 season was a golden chance for our young players (Outlaw, Telfair, Webster, and Jack). You had a level playing field created by a new coach installing a new system. This wasn't Jermaine competing with Sheed/Grant, or McGrady competing with Carter, or even Kobe against Eddie Jones. The vets in question weren't that good - and the new coach had no irrational loyalty to them. The kids still wound up spending much of the season as spectators.

I am NOT saying that Telfair, Jack, or Webster are going to be "bad" or useless. An "average" NBA starter is a useful (and well paid) commodity. OTOH, a player with "star" potential, would have "seized the day."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Chris Paul was a potential all-star player as a rookie. Right now, he's a likely multiple-time all-star and a potential hall of famer.

Any Blazers fan who's not regretting that we passed on him didn't pay very close attention this year.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Paul might not even be better than Felton from what I've seen. If it wasn't for Knight and injuries, I think Felton could have taken the ROY award.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Chris Paul was a potential all-star player as a rookie. Right now, he's a likely multiple-time all-star and a potential hall of famer.
> 
> Any Blazers fan who's not regretting that we passed on him didn't pay very close attention *this year*.
> 
> Ed O.


You assume way to much on one-year of play IMO. Give it a couple years...Paul to prove he is consistently as good as he was this year and Webster a chance to grow into the player he will be like most players taken straight out of HS. 

Is Paul clearly the best player out of the 05 draft right now? Of course but it may not be that way 3, 5, 7 years down the road.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

Sambonius said:


> Paul might not even be better than Felton from what I've seen. If it wasn't for Knight and injuries, I think Felton could have taken the ROY award.


yep


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Toronto will win #1. Not because I want it, but because it is the worst year in 6 years to get the 1st pick.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

blowuptheraptors said:


> Toronto will win #1. Not because I want it, but because it is the worst year in 6 years to get the 1st pick.


Gee I hope you're wrong! 

Maybe Portland can package it to Toronto if they get the number one pick.......How about Randolph and the number one for Bosh and your number 3 pick? :whoknows:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Why? Would it be more "fair" to declare that Telfair is going to be "great" player?


it's not an either or situation. I am not suggesting that you (or anyone) declare Telfair is going to be "great". 


> I admit this is all educated guesswork - but it is also an honest, logical opinion. If you really want to hear my reasoning......
> 
> The 05-06 season was a golden chance for our young players (Outlaw, Telfair, Webster, and Jack). You had a level playing field created by a new coach installing a new system. This wasn't Jermaine competing with Sheed/Grant, or McGrady competing with Carter, or even Kobe against Eddie Jones. The vets in question weren't that good - and the new coach had no irrational loyalty to them. The kids still wound up spending much of the season as spectators.
> 
> I am NOT saying that Telfair, Jack, or Webster are going to be "bad" or useless. An "average" NBA starter is a useful (and well paid) commodity. OTOH, a player with "star" potential, would have "seized the day."


there's a difference in being allowed to make mistakes and stay in the game (Paul) and being taken out when you do something wrong (jack, telfair and webster).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> To be accurate all these players have had more than seven years of "organized" ball. All these kids have been playing in an organized league since grade school and they all have been going to summer camps for years.


organized "summer league" ball is not the same as a NCAA college system for 4 years, and 2 years (prior to this one) in the NBA.


> I don't get the organized ball argument. It implies that Blake can't improve because he has played 4 years of college and 3 years in the pros. Yet Telfair has only played two years in professional and no years in college so he has can improve???????


it seems to be that players who haven't shown much improvement over a 7 year period, aren't going to magically show something they haven't shown the previous 7 years.

Whereas Telfair (and Jack) have shown that they are more offensively gifted (and have a wider spectrum of offensive moves/ability). They have both shown, at much younger ages, that they're as good in most of the aspects of the game, as Blake is. And it's not like Blake has shown that he's really all that good at anything in particular. He's an average PG, who more than likely is not all the sudden going to start showing incredible improvement from what he's been for the last 7 years. 

whereas Nash showed incredible skills (offensively too) in college, Blake peaked (read that again..PEAKED) at 11 ppg. 



> Some evaluators feel that fundmentals are best learned in college, the NBA doesn't teach that and kids are shorting themselves for not going to college. Maybe the ones out of high school have less chance of developing because they never learned the game the right way.
> 
> Also what makes you say Blake was average in college? And saying Blake has been average for the last seven years and hasn't shown the ability to be anything else but average over the last seven years is kind? I hate to see what you being mean is . . . oh strike that last thought


outside of assists (which the other "career assist leaders" were absolute no-names in the NBA) he WAS average. 8 ppg for his career isn't exactly great. Woopty doo.

Blake is what he is. A decent PG, who isn't worth keeping over younger and equally as good players who have each shown marketable improvement in the amount of time they've played in the NBA and in college.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Blake Hater said:


> it seems to be that players who haven't shown much improvement over a 7 year period, aren't going to magically show something they haven't shown the previous 7 years.


Why 7 years? How about 6 years instead? Blake couldn't have possibly been better in his 7th year than he was in the previous 6, right? Wrong.



> ...it's not like Blake has shown that he's really all that good at anything in particular. He's an average PG, who more than likely is not all the sudden going to start showing incredible improvement from what he's been for the last 7 years.


Why can't Blake improve next year? He improved last year.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Why 7 years? How about 6 years instead? Blake couldn't have possibly been better in his 7th year than he was in the previous 6, right? Wrong.


you're confusnig improving each year, to vast improvements that jack and telfair both can have. They've both shown they're top is higher than his...because they're already both almost as good as he is, despite being several years younger (in telfairs case) and had less college (in both cases).



> Why can't Blake improve next year? He improved last year.


you're confusing improving, with not improving much. He'll be better next year, but that doesn't mean he'll be anything more than average.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Backboard Cam said:


> Why 7 years? How about 6 years instead? Blake couldn't have possibly been better in his 7th year than he was in the previous 6, right? Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't Blake improve next year? He improved last year.


Did he really? The biggest difference is that his minutes almost doubled because our starter at the beginning of the season got injured and Nate probably didn't think a rookie was quite ready to start at that point, and he played as well as could be expected and had good chemistry with Dixon so he kept his playing time for a while after the starter at the beginning of the season came back. Which stats improved more than can be explained by his minutes doubling? His assists went up a little bit per minute, but they went down the year before, so I don't know if we can count on it. His 3-pt% went up, and it has gone up each year he has been in the NBA, so I'll give you that one, but I don't know how much higher it can go and it hasn't translated into a higher PPG. Anything else? His rebounds went DOWN this year. I can't find anything else that improved more than double, if at all.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> you're confusnig improving each year, to vast improvements that jack and telfair both can have.


I'm confusing improving with potential improving? No, I'm not doing that. That would be stupid.



> They've both shown they're top is higher than his...because they're already both almost as good as he is, despite being several years younger (in telfairs case) and had less college (in both cases).


Holy cow that logic is horrible. The grammar is too, but mostly the logic.



> you're confusing improving, with not improving much.


I'm guessing you mean that I think Blake has improved, when in reality he has only improved some. "Not improving much" means he improved but not as much as I think he did? How much do I think he improved? And how much would be too little? I hope my response was as confusing as your... confusion.



> He'll be better next year, but that doesn't mean he'll be anything more than average.


How the hell do you know? 


A huge percentage of your posts are Blake-bashing, even when no one mentions Blake. I would think that Telfair & Jack don't feel as threatened by Steve Blake as you do.

And for the record, I'm not a Telfair hater- I'm sure he'll be a solid nba player for a long time.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Holy cow that logic is horrible. The grammar is too, but mostly the logic.


I'm not sure when grammar became important on a message board.



> I'm guessing you mean that I think Blake has improved, when in reality he has only improved some. "Not improving much" means he improved but not as much as I think he did? How much do I think he improved? And how much would be too little? I hope my response was as confusing as your... confusion.



so basically you're saying what I said earlier.



> How the hell do you know?
> 
> A huge percentage of your posts are Blake-bashing, even when no one mentions Blake. I would think that Telfair & Jack don't feel as threatened by Steve Blake as you do.


not blake bashing, being realistic about blake. have I ever said that telfair WILL be a star or great? nope. I'm saying that blake hasn't shown in 7 years now (4 college, 3 nba) to have any great "wow, we gotta keep him!" factor. I'm saying that to act as tho he's going to all the sudden improve into Steve Nash (or even a "poor mans" steve nash) is homerism at it's best.

I have never said, nor will I ever say, that telfair WILL be great, or that he's the next so and so, or compare him to another player who's unrealistic to compare him to. What I will do, and have done, is compare him to Blake (with Jack also being compared to Blake) and show that in 5 years of organized ball more than telfair, he's not that much better than telfair (or jack) and in reality, not that good.

So when a 20 year old, 2 years removed from high school is almost as good (if not AS good) as someone who's *7* years removed from high school...well, do the math.

how come you didn't respond to gambit's post, which basically _backed up_ what Ive been saying for a long time now?

steve blake is what he is. an average PG, who didn't really improve enough to justify keeping him over 2 younger players who have much higher ceilings.

there's a reason why he was taken in the 2nd round and barely got a contract this last year...and it's not because he's a diamond in the rough that no one knows about. It's because everyone knows about him, and weren't giddy to get him.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I am so bleeping sick of this crap! This is only the 205683290682360980629825682th time that we have been told the Blazers blew the draft because they did not draft Chris Paul. And an equal number of times the same people have been asked how can you say Paul will be a multi all star based on one year but at the same time say Webster and Jack won't be based on one year? And an equal number of times the same people say that Portland pissed away the draft by not picking Chris Paul. And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

I have not the SLIGHTEST doubt that, had the Blazers drafted Chris Paul, these SAME indivduals would be saying the Portland blew it because after all Paul did not lead them to the playoffs and therefore never will.

Because the issue is NOT Chris Paul. The issue is Whitsitt loyalists who are going to say that the current team (who have, I admit made their share of mistakes) has done EVERYTHING wrong, no matter how much they have to stretch.

Dammit, you have said it!! 205683290682360980629825682 times! Is that enough or do we really need it 205683290682360980629825683 times?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> I am so bleeping sick of this crap! This is only the 205683290682360980629825682th time that we have been told the Blazers blew the draft because they did not draft Chris Paul. And an equal number of times the same people have been asked how can you say Paul will be a multi all star based on one year but at the same time say Webster and Jack won't be based on one year? And an equal number of times the same people say that Portland pissed away the draft by not picking Chris Paul. And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
> 
> I have not the SLIGHTEST doubt that, had the Blazers drafted Chris Paul, these SAME indivduals would be saying the Portland blew it because after all Paul did not lead them to the playoffs and therefore never will.
> 
> ...



I assume you could replace "Paul" with "telfair vs blake", no? :angel:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> I assume you could replace "Paul" with "telfair vs blake", no? :angel:


Yeah, that one has been beaten to death as well. And I don't even see it as Telfair vs. Blake. Telfair is a very inexperienced player who shows flashes of brilliance and may potentially be a terrific player. Blake is a solid and respectable, experienced player who will never be brilliant but will be decent and would be a backup on most teams. It does not have to be either/or.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> I have not the SLIGHTEST doubt that, had the Blazers drafted Chris Paul, these SAME indivduals would be saying the Portland blew it because after all Paul did not lead them to the playoffs and therefore never will.


Then you're clueless. There's no way in hell that I would say that.

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crandc said:


> I am so bleeping sick of this crap! This is only the 205683290682360980629825682th time that we have been told the Blazers blew the draft because they did not draft Chris Paul. And an equal number of times the same people have been asked how can you say Paul will be a multi all star based on one year but at the same time say Webster and Jack won't be based on one year? And an equal number of times the same people say that Portland pissed away the draft by not picking Chris Paul. And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
> 
> I have not the SLIGHTEST doubt that, had the Blazers drafted Chris Paul, these SAME indivduals would be saying the Portland blew it because after all Paul did not lead them to the playoffs and therefore never will.
> 
> ...


I think that rant has to go both ways. There have been numerous posts that Nash has done a good job citing Webster and Telfair. Do we really need to hear for the 205683290682360980629825682 that Nash has done a good job when the team is at it's lowest point in history? And if we do, I think it is fair that the response for the 205683290682360980629825682 time is, to date he has made the wrong decision in the 2005 draft.

This has nothing to do with Whitsett, but whether Nash deserves to keep his job. With regard to the stretching, depending on how you feel, that stretching can go both ways too. I think the posters trying to show Nash did a poor job when the team was 21-61 is stretching less than posters trying to say he is doing a good job. Heck posters are down on Kiki and his team went to the playoffs.

In Nash's defense I think it should be mentioned that Baylor got GM of the year from his peers. Maybe I have under estimated Nash and the 20 year plan.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> organized whereas Nash showed incredible skills (offensively too) in college, Blake peaked (read that again..PEAKED) at 11 ppg.
> 
> outside of assists (which the other "career assist leaders" were absolute no-names in the NBA) he WAS average. 8 ppg for his career isn't exactly great. Woopty doo.
> 
> Blake is what he is. A decent PG, who isn't worth keeping over younger and equally as good players who have each shown marketable improvement in the amount of time they've played in the NBA and in college.




You are just way into stats to prove this "improvment" idea. Personally I think Telfair has improved from year one to year two. But please explain why the stats show that per minute Telfair's assists went down from year one to year two and that there was no noticible "improvement" (stat wise) in any other category.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't think the answer to the Chris Paul choice in the draft will be answered for about 2 more seasons, you can argue until you are blue in the face. I have seen about every possible thing since I have been watching the NBA, from guys having an excellent rookie season and then turning into a nobody (Damon) (Who had a better season then Chris Paul his first season IMO), to guys like Richard Dumas who had an excellent rookie season and then washed out as a coke addict. Do I expect any of that to happen to Chris Paul? No. But I think there is a very good possiblity in 2 seasons that we will look back at the Blazer draft picks and figure they made the right choice.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

hasoos said:


> I don't think the answer to the Chris Paul choice in the draft will be answered for about 2 more seasons, you can argue until you are blue in the face. I have seen about every possible thing since I have been watching the NBA, from guys having an excellent rookie season and then turning into a nobody (Damon) (Who had a better season then Chris Paul his first season IMO), to guys like Richard Dumas who had an excellent rookie season and then washed out as a coke addict. Do I expect any of that to happen to Chris Paul? No. But I think there is a very good possiblity in 2 seasons that we will look back at the Blazer draft picks and figure they made the right choice.


 Fair enough. But don't you think it is also too early to declare Webster a successful draft pick or to use it to prove Nash is doing a good job. 

I don't know if it was you using Webster to show Nash is doing a good job. But I just point out Paul whenever someone tries to use the draft choices to show Nash is dong a good job . . . overall I agree that the real answer to whether Nash made the right call will be known in about 2 years. But what fun is that? :biggrin: 

If you were a betting man (maybe you are), who is going to be better in two years, Paul or Webster?


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Hasoos, the voice of reason! 
Remember how Harold Minor was "Baby Jordan"? Not even close.
Remember how Nowitzki was considered a joke his first year in the league? No one is laughing any more.

So I decided to be scientific and look up rookies of the year since 1990. That is not the whole story as it does not tell the early "busts" who became good to great or how well the runner up ended up doing. But it's a start:

1989-90 - David Robinson, San Antonio 
Became a dominant center, but it took Tim Duncan's arrival for him to win 2 titles
1990-91 - Derrick Coleman, New Jersey
Derrick who?
1991-92 - Larry Johnson, Charlotte
Decent for a while. Hardly a hall of famer
1992-93 - Shaquille O'Neal, Orlando
No problem
1993-94 - Chris Webber, Golden State
Very good player but bounced around the league a bit and could not get Philly to the playoffs this year
1994-95 - Grant Hill, Detroit (tie), Jason Kidd, Dallas
Hill very promising, felled by injuries; Kidd a top point guard
1995-96 - Damon Stoudamire, Toronto
No comment
1996-97 - Allen Iverson, Philadelphia
Very good player but is his head always in the game? And considering who else was in his draft class - Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'Neal among others - was he the best overall player in that draft?
1997-98 - Tim Duncan, San Antonio
No problem
1998-99 - Vince Carter, Toronto
Exciting player
1999-00 - Elton Brand, Chicago (tie), Steve Francis, Houston
Brand did not stay in Chicago but turned out pretty damn good. Francis? Wouldn't you rather have Rip Hamilton, Manu Ginobili, Andrei Kirilenko, Shawn Marion or even Wally Szczerbiak from that draft year?
2000-01 - Mike Miller, Orlando
Who?
2001-02 - Pau Gasol, Memphis
Not bad choice, but I'd still take Tony Parker from that draft year. 
2002-03 - Amare Stoudemire, Phoenix
If he comes back as good as new, great
2003-04 - LeBron James, Cleveland
No problem
2004-05 - Emeka Okafor, Charlotte
Injured most of last year, let's see how he comes back
2005-06 - Chris Paul, New Orleans
Great first year. Can he sustain it?

So in other words, of the ROY since 1990, how many turned out to be best in their class with the perfect wisdom of hindsight? 
Robinson, O'Neal, Duncan, James definitely
Webber, Kidd probably
Carter, Brand, Iverson, A. Stoudemire maybe
Coleman, Johnson, Hill, D. Stoudamire, Francis, Miller no way 
Okafor, Paul too soon to tell

A good rookie year is a good start, but does not guarantee a great career.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crandc said:


> Hasoos, the voice of reason!
> Remember how Harold Minor was "Baby Jordan"? Not even close.
> Remember how Nowitzki was considered a joke his first year in the league? No one is laughing any more.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the list I found it intersting. To me that list is an impressive group of basketball players, but that is just my impression. (Remember Larry Johnson and the grand mama commercials . . . that is right up there with Spike Lee and the "had to be the shoes" commercials)

What would be interesting if you have time is compare all of those ROY to the 6th draft pick in the draft for that year and see how many had a better career that their ROY counterparts.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

I wonder what the odds are that Chris Paul would have won ROY if the Blazers had drafted him. First, he'd have had to deal with shared minutes with Telfair and Blake (the Blazers don't get Jarrett Jack if they take Paul). Second, the Blazers injury problems and other issues resulted in an awful year for the team. Third, the Blazers' image problems around the league may make it less likely that a Blazer player gets selected for a major award.

I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that he wouldn't win the award.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Fair enough. But don't you think it is also too early to declare Webster a successful draft pick or to use it to prove Nash is doing a good job.
> 
> I don't know if it was you using Webster to show Nash is doing a good job. But I just point out Paul whenever someone tries to use the draft choices to show Nash is dong a good job . . . overall I agree that the real answer to whether Nash made the right call will be known in about 2 years. But what fun is that? :biggrin:
> 
> If you were a betting man (maybe you are), who is going to be better in two years, Paul or Webster?


Yep I do agree with you its too early to declare Webster a successful draft pick. I do see some things that give me hope though. :clown: Just remember what happened to JR Smith in his second year....


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

hasoos said:


> I don't think the answer to the Chris Paul choice in the draft will be answered for about 2 more seasons, you can argue until you are blue in the face. I have seen about every possible thing since I have been watching the NBA, from guys having an excellent rookie season and then turning into a nobody (Damon) (Who had a better season then Chris Paul his first season IMO), to guys like Richard Dumas who had an excellent rookie season and then washed out as a coke addict. Do I expect any of that to happen to Chris Paul? No. But I think there is a very good possiblity in 2 seasons that we will look back at the Blazer draft picks and figure they made the right choice.


Good god.

Damon was "crap" as a rookie of the year. Possibly the worst Rookie of the Year winner in ages. I did not like his game, and thought he was overrated. Imagine my delight when we traded for the Mouse. Imagine my thrill when we gave him a MAX contract. Damon was NEVER GOOD - EVER.

PER is an overall rating system that adjusts stats for pace and minutes, so you can compare players in different roles, but cannot account for defense and other contributions not reflected in stats. 15.0 is the yearly normalized "average" score.

15.82 was Damon's PER rating for 95-96. Damon was slightly above average. He was 18th among Point Guards. When you factor in his bottom of the barrel defense, his overall game was well below average. Like I said - crap.

13.1 was Telfair's PER rating for 05-06. I still have higher hopes for him than I ever did for Damon. But still, Telfair has a LONG way to go - and there is no guarantee he will be good, let alone have a better career than Damon. He could start by using his speed to his ultimate advantage, instead of just blowing by people to little end, and he could figure out how to finish.
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_Blazers.htm

22.2 was Chris Paul's PER rating for 05-06. That is pretty good by the way. It puts him at 5th (as a rookie!) among point guards, behind AI, Arenas, Nash and Billups, but ahead of Parker, Bibby, Cassell, Kidd, etc.
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_Hornets.htm

I am surprised there is even a debate about how impressive Chris Paul has been. Kinda ridiculous, in that the argument is so one sided.

Let's argue over Kobe vs LeBron. Or Dirk vs Duncan. Or which of the 3 point guards on our team should be traded. You know, something worth debating.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Interesting post CRANDC. I have just 1 quibble. Hill And Johnson WERE the best in their class. (yes, at one time Hill was better than Kidd) Getting hurt should not be equated with failure.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> how come you didn't respond to gambit's post, which basically _backed up_ what Ive been saying for a long time now?


Sorry gambit



> Which stats improved more than can be explained by his minutes doubling?




```
.....  04/05  05/06
min  .. 14.7   26.2
fg%  .. 32.8% 43.8%
3%   .. 38.7% 41.3%
asst .. 1.6   4.5
```
you commented on his 3% going up, it didn't go up that much- it's only noticable because he was the best 3-point shooter on the team.

fg% might not be worth mentioning since his was so bad in 04/05, but Blake improved his shooting dramatically last season.

gambitnut played down Blake's assists, but he had three times as many assists as the year before and he didn't get three times the minutes. And oh yeah- team assist leader.

Best guard on the team, and there's no logical reason to think that he can't improve as much as the other Blazer guards next season. Is he one of the three you keep next year? I'm not sure what my decision would be, but he's the best guard on the team right now.


I'm not a Blake nut like I probably sound, I'm just trying to counter some of the Blake dissing that happens here.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I agree getting hurt and failure are not the same thing. You can't blame a guy, usually, for injuries. But we are evaluating who you would rather have on your team. Longevity is one factor.

No one questions Paul's rookie season, it was great, the only thing being said is you can't judge a career on one great rookie year. True it is too soon to judge Webster. But overall I think we can be pleased; he showed improvement, worked hard, has his head on straight. We have solid reason to believe he is going to be a good player.

As for how well #6 picks did, well, it has not been a lucky number at all. Following are #6 picks with the ROY in parentheses. Let's hope Martell is an exception. 1990 ROY was a special case as David Robinson was actually drafted earlier but had military obligations so did not play.

1990: Felton Spencer (Coleman)
1991: Doug Smith (Johnson)
1992: Tom Gugliotta (Shaq)
1993: Calbert Cheaney (Webber)
1994: Sharone Wright (Hill/Kidd)
1995: Bryant Reeves (Stoudamire)
1996: Antoine Walker (Iverson)
1997: Ron Mercer (Duncan)
1998: Robert Traylor (Carter)
1999: Wally Szczerbiak (Francis/Brand)
2000: DerMarr Johnson (Miller)
2001: Shane Battier (Gasol)
2002: DaJuan Wagner (Stoudemire)
2003: Chris Kaman (James)
2004: Josh Childress (Okafor)
2005: Martell Webster (Paul)

A few decent players (Gugliotta, Walker, Cheaney, Kaman, Szczerbiak maybe Mercer) and some gaggingly awful busts (Traylor, Reeves).

BTW, was the trade of Traylor for Nowitzki the most lopsided in NBA history or only in the top 5?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Good god.
> 
> Damon was "crap" as a rookie of the year. Possibly the worst Rookie of the Year winner in ages. I did not like his game, and thought he was overrated. Imagine my delight when we traded for the Mouse. Imagine my thrill when we gave him a MAX contract. Damon was NEVER GOOD - EVER.
> 
> ...


Are you blue in the face yet? Or do you want to get some more off your chest? :clown:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Thanks for doing that. I thought we were going to see a bunch of no names, but that's not the case. 

I agree there are some positive aspects about Webster that give Blazer fans some hope and I get the idea that the Blazers have Webster so that is where the focus should be v. Paul. Again, the only reason I bring up Paul is when posters start pointing to Webster as an example of the good things Nash has done.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee's post is an excellent one.

I find it amazing that people are seriously arguing that Chris Paul has been anything short of excellent as a rookie. He had the best rookie season for a PG in decades. Hollinger was claiming he was the best rookie PG since Robertson (and that includes Magic). It's pretty easy to put Paul, at age 20, in the top 10 PGs in the entire league.

Paul winning the RotY has nothing to do with why he had a good year. He won the award because he was so good, rather than being perceived as so good because he won the award.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Paul winning the RotY has nothing to do with why he had a good year. He won the award because he was so good, rather than being perceived as so good because he won the award.


and yet I seriously doubt he would have won that award had he been playing for POR....

WHERE you play and WHO you play WITH and FOR certainly have a large effect on HOW you perform....

Nontheless....Paul had a good year...

and Player Efficiency Ratings are not the be all\end all to a debate on how good\crappy a player is...

Statistics are there for both sides of the debate to massage in their favor....PER is no different...


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

HOWIE said:


> Gee I hope you're wrong!
> 
> Maybe Portland can package it to Toronto if they get the number one pick.......How about Randolph and the number one for Bosh and your number 3 pick? :whoknows:


 :biggrin: 

No Tanx.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> and yet I seriously doubt he would have won that award had he been playing for POR....


OK. But that doesn't matter. I'm not saying it doesn't matter what you think, but that whether Paul won the award or not is irrelevant to how good he is.



> and Player Efficiency Ratings are not the be all\end all to a debate on how good\crappy a player is...
> 
> Statistics are there for both sides of the debate to massage in their favor....PER is no different...


What else is there in this case that runs contrary to it, though? Statistically he totally kicked ***. He won the media over. He helped "make his teammates better".

He succeeded on every level.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> but that whether Paul won the award or not is irrelevant to how good he is.


Agreed, He is a good player...but I do think where he was playing and who he played for\with helped his play last year.....

And I agree he had a very good year...statistically as well...

I am just saying that a particular stat as THE key factor in pegging an player's worth...can be a little misleading....and that isn't so for a guy like Paul, who had great stats and his team improved...but moreso for other players...who are much better players than there PER reflects in a given year (particularly young players)...

I couldn't access it...but Boris Diaw is a good example...I wonder what his PER was in Atlanta? Compared to now (17.5)....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> I couldn't access it...but Boris Diaw is a good example...I wonder what his PER was in Atlanta? Compared to now (17.5)....


http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/diawbo01.html

It was 10.0 last year and 17.3 this year. 

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Agreed, He is a good player...but I do think where he was playing and who he played for\with helped his play last year.....


It surely helped his stats to be put in a situation where he could be the first option, but the thing is, not only did he put up fantastic stats - he also got a cellar dwelling team a LOT of wins. They didn't end up making the playoffs but they weren't that far off.

If he would have been drafted by Portland, I'm pretty sure he still would have gotten ROY because he's better than any player on our team besides Randolph. Any coach who would have benched him for Telfair should be fired... let's just face it, Chris Paul is damned good and we could have had him.

Here's to hoping Martell and Telfair give us a reason to not think of this as a complete failure. I think we're in the same boat as Atlanta in that regard...


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

The lottery is held in Seacacus, NJ. Its a small town nothing special but NBC HQ are there and they've been always doing it there. Its very close to me as well.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I can't wait for the lottery and draft.


----------

