# Race for the #1 overall pick



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Reverse Theory than normal standings, not for 1st place but for the #1 overall pick.








*Updated to reflect Lottery odds*


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

You mean the race for the most ping pong balls.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> You mean the race for the most ping pong balls.


Yes you are correct.


----------



## m_que01 (Jun 25, 2003)

We actually have 38 losses. That brings us a game and a half closer to the worst record. I really don't see us falling down to Charlotte and New York. It's pretty much gonna be a battle between Portland, Atlanta, Orlando and Toronto for the third worst record. I see us holding onto that 3rd spot, worse case scenario we move down 3.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I don't believe we'll be able to catch Charlotte or NYK this year barring major injuries in the next month. We'll have to hope our ping-pong ball is an aggressive one!!!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

m_que01 said:


> We actually have 38 losses. That brings us a game and a half closer to the worst record. I really don't see us falling down to Charlotte and New York. It's pretty much gonna be a battle between Portland, Atlanta, Orlando and Toronto for the third worst record. I see us holding onto that 3rd spot, worse case scenario we move down 3.


Good call I adjusted it.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Anyone know how many ping pong balls for 1st, 2nd and 3rd?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> I don't believe we'll be able to catch Charlotte or NYK this year barring major injuries in the next month. We'll have to hope our ping-pong ball is an aggressive one!!!


Well the beauty of NY, is it is actually Chicago that gets that Pick...Unprotected. They already are pretty good t the wing (Deng) and overloaded in Backcourt) their focus will be on Aldridge 1st then Bargnani 2nd.

With Charlotte, Everything I am hearing is Rudy Gay is their #1 priority. My Guess is if those 2 teams are 1 and 2, Morrison is still there at #3.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't really see why New York is out of reach. If they go on a four game win streak, they're tied with us. that's certainly a possibility, given how much talent that team has. all it takes is for Francis and Marbury to figure out how to coexist for a few games. 

our guys are going to have to really focus on losing, though, if we have any hope of ever catching Charlotte.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

I know this is about the "race" for the #1 pick but keep in mind NY's pick belongs to CHI and it's unprotected.

Hehehe stupid Zeke...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hey, we aren't mathematically eliminated from these playoffs quite yet...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Anyone know how many ping pong balls for 1st, 2nd and 3rd?


I updated it with the odds of getting #1 overall.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

It's going to be a good race, given how close teams 3 to 8 are. One hot streak, or one key injury could really mix things up. 

Just taking a quick peek at the remaining schedules, i'd say Portland's is the toughest, so you guys could make a run at the top spots.

Atlanta's schedule looks quite favorable, and they've been playing well for the last month or so. I wouldn't be surprised to see them finish with 30 or so wins and be almost right out of the race. Orlando's is also pretty good, but they're in full tank mode.

Here's my guess at how things turn out...

1. New York (Chicago)
2. Portland
3. Charlotte
4. Orlando
5. Seattle 
6. Toronto
7. Atlanta
8. Boston


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I looked up the answer to my question (what good is this damn board if I have actually spend time looking up the answer :biggrin: )

As of 2005, with 30 NBA teams, 16 qualify for the playoffs and the remaining 14 teams are entered in the draft lottery. These 14 teams are ranked in reverse order of their regular season record and are assigned the following number of chances:

1. 250 combinations, 25% chance of receiving the #1 pick

2. 199 combinations, 19.9% chance

3. 156 combinations, 15.6% chance

Given that information, I don't want to see the Blazers playing for the #1 spot. It will be tough go through for the fans and the players. All for a 25% chance of the number one pick=75% chance of not getting the number one pick.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Reverse Theory than normal standings, not for 1st place but for the #1 overall pick.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


anyone remember the web site tha thad the %'s that each team had to get each pick?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Schilly said:


> I updated it with the odds of getting #1 overall.


 Oops. I was in the middle of a post, steped away from my desk and then posted. I see during that time you anwered my question. Thanks


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I looked up the answer to my question (what good is this damn board if I have actually spend time looking up the answer :biggrin: )
> 
> As of 2005, with 30 NBA teams, 16 qualify for the playoffs and the remaining 14 teams are entered in the draft lottery. These 14 teams are ranked in reverse order of their regular season record and are assigned the following number of chances:
> 
> ...


That's what I worry about too. We sorta got lucky last year with the #3 pick. Statistically, weren't we supposed to be around 5/6?? I'm just afraid last years good luck turns into this years bad luck and we end up with the 3rd worst record and like the 8th freeking pick or something.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

We can only slide at most 3 positions from where we finish. Example: Finish #3 - worst pick #6.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Wow. Finish with the 3rd worst record and have less than a 50% chance for a top 3 pick. That bites.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I don't think having a top 3 versus a top 6 will have that much of an impact this year, especially with Nash/Pritchard's current view on the draft:



> “We have so much youth on our roster right now, we’ll lean toward an experienced player,” General Manager John Nash says. “It would be nice to take a player with a little more seasoning. But I wouldn’t rule out some of the promising big men in the draft.”
> Nash says the Blazers would consider packaging one or more picks in a trade for some veteran help.
> The ’06 draft crop is average at best.
> “It starts medium and stays flat,” Director of Player Personnel Kevin Pritchard says. “There is no LeBron James. It’s a meaty draft with some good players, but there are no difference makers.”


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Blazer Bert said:


> Wow. Finish with the 3rd worst record and have less than a 50% chance for a top 3 pick. That bites.


That does bite, but I still like the system. I think it is wrong for teams to tank the season and try to lose games so that they can get a higher draft pick. Especailly in basketball wher the number one pick can have such a dramatic impact to a team, the incentive to lose games is higher. I like the idea of the worst team getting the top draft pick. But with teams purposely trying to lose, there is no guarentee that the worst team will have the worst record. 

I don't think the current system is perfect, but at least it avoid teams trying to lose.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> That does bite, but I still like the system. I think it is wrong for teams to tank the season and try to lose games so that they can get a higher draft pick. Especailly in basketball wher the number one pick can have such a dramatic impact to a team, the incentive to lose games is higher. I like the idea of the worst team getting the top draft pick. But with teams purposely trying to lose, there is no guarentee that the worst team will have the worst record.
> 
> I don't think the current system is perfect, but at least it avoid teams trying to lose.


Don't you think the system corrects itself by causing these bad teams to have extremely low revenue? These teams that tank frequently go through ownership and front office changes that cause them to bleed money. Almost incentive enough NOT to lose.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "brain trust" over at the Blazers traded the pick if it's lower than 3 along with a vet for a pick next year and a vet or an expiring contract, or an upgrade at the possition we are trading


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "brain trust" over at the Blazers traded the pick if it's lower than 3 along with a vet for a pick next year and a vet or an expiring contract, or an upgrade at the possition we are trading


or Miles & the pick for an expiring and Morrison. For some reason, I feel like the Blazers are going to do everything they can to get him. He's so well known in the Northwest that he'd be an injection for the franchise whether or not he turned out to be the real deal.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> or Miles & the pick for an expiring and Morrison. For some reason, I feel like the Blazers are going to do everything they can to get him. He's so well known in the Northwest that he'd be an injection for the franchise whether or not he turned out to be the real deal.


I guess thats why they've gone out of their way to get Luke Jackson, Fred Jones and David Lucas, eh?

If they get Adam (or want him) it won't be based on him being well known in the NW, and what kind of impact he has on the team whether or not he turned out to eb good.

thats a free agent signing, or a 2nd round pick (LATE 2nd round)..not the 1-3 picks.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> I guess thats why they've gone out of their way to get Luke Jackson, Fred Jones and David Lucas, eh?


I agree that Portland shouldn't draft based on local publicity. But when you're talking about a team already in the market for a developed player who commands the ball AND is in the worst shape in franchise history... well, I think it'd be crazy not to take that factor into consideration as an added bonus. If it comes down to 2 guys who are completely even, I'm going to go with the local guy.

Also, Morrison is on a completely different level than the guys you mentioned. Jackson had no business going that high in the draft.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> I agree that Portland shouldn't draft based on local publicity. But when you're talking about a team already in the market for a developed player who commands the ball AND is in the worst shape in franchise history... well, I think it'd be crazy not to take that factor into consideration as an added bonus. If it comes down to 2 guys who are completely even, I'm going to go with the local guy.
> 
> Also, Morrison is on a completely different level than the guys you mentioned. Jackson had no business going that high in the draft.


I agree (in retrospect) Luke didn't, but I guess I missunderstood what you were saying. I thought you said that they would take him regardless of whether or not he might be a nobody or not. But I guess you meant that regardless of if he's a bust or not, he'd be a good PR move. 

Im not sure we're ever going to get back to that point as a fanbase. We don't want a feel good player who turns into Jeff Lampe or Steve Alford. Granted, Alford was shorter and "peaked" at 22 ppg, but he was such a good player in college and it didn't translate into the NBA.

we've missed out on too many players that could be stars or are stars, to put up with another "feel good" player.

We want a star damnit. And if the team drafts morrison at #1 - #3, damnit all to hell, he better be one.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> I agree (in retrospect) Luke didn't, but I guess I missunderstood what you were saying. I thought you said that they would take him regardless of whether or not he might be a nobody or not. But I guess you meant that regardless of if he's a bust or not, he'd be a good PR move.
> 
> Im not sure we're ever going to get back to that point as a fanbase. We don't want a feel good player who turns into Jeff Lampe or Steve Alford. Granted, Alford was shorter and "peaked" at 22 ppg, but he was such a good player in college and it didn't translate into the NBA.
> 
> ...


From what I've heard from Pritchard and Nash, they're going to draft a guy who is ready to step in and play next season. It's okay to have one or two projects on any team, but Portland has several. What guys are good enough to step in next season who are being considered 1-6 (and when I say step in, I mean at least put up 8-12 pts off the bench)?

My guesses: Morrison, Aldridge, and maybe Thomas.

After the lottery, if it looks like they don't have a shot at one of these guys they might trade down again.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Samuel said:


> *From what I've heard from Pritchard and Nash, they're going to draft a guy who is ready to step in and play next season*. It's okay to have one or two projects on any team, but Portland has several. What guys are good enough to step in next season who are being considered 1-6 (and when I say step in, I mean at least put up 8-12 pts off the bench)?
> 
> My guesses: Morrison, Aldridge, and maybe Thomas.
> 
> After the lottery, if it looks like they don't have a shot at one of these guys they might trade down again.


That certainly is not Bargani thankfully...I think he could be a good player someday but if we draft him it's just adding another couple years to the rebuilding plan IMO. 

Not to say any player in this draft is a guaranteed star as noted earlier.

If we do draft Morrison and he ends up sucking will we hang ZagsFan from his ankles in front of the RG and throw rotten food at him? j/k Zags... :biggrin:


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> That certainly is not Bargani thankfully...I think he could be a good player someday but if we draft him it's just adding another couple years to the rebuilding plan IMO.
> 
> Not to say any player in this draft is a guaranteed star as noted earlier.
> 
> If we do draft Morrison and he ends up sucking will we hang ZagsFan from his ankles in front of the RG and throw rotten food at him? j/k Zags... :biggrin:


No, we'll just re-send him the "Ha family photo" everyday :biggrin: 

But, I hope we do get AM, and I doubt he'll suck.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Just watched the Knicks blow a 16pt 3rd quarter to the Bulls and lose by 7...man they're bad.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Tince said:


> Just watched the Knicks blow a 16pt 3rd quarter to the Bulls and lose by 7...man they're bad.


That's one of those unique situations where Chicago *winning* actually *helps* their potential draft choice.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Samuel said:


> That's one of those unique situations where Chicago *winning* actually *helps* their potential draft choice.


As educated as that statement is, you could also think one level deeper and realize that losing that game would have helped their potential draft situation even more than winning. :biggrin:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tonight vs. Louisville..

Gay had 8 points, 3 rebounds and 1 assist....

I say shoot what the heck, he has potential, lets draft him...


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Is anybody else thinking along the lines of using the pick if one of the players in a group of players you like is still on the board but trading it if all of them are gone? If so, I have two questions. How many players are on the list and who are they? If you traded the pick, would you want to trade up, trade down, trade for a pick next year or trade for a veteran?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I have horrible visions of Portland taking Sheldon Williams with the #5 pick. Or JJ Reddick. Or Brandon Roy. You know, someone with "experience".

They're horrible visions, I tell you.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

gambitnut said:


> Is anybody else thinking along the lines of using the pick if one of the players in a group of players you like is still on the board but trading it if all of them are gone? If so, I have two questions. How many players are on the list and who are they? If you traded the pick, would you want to trade up, trade down, trade for a pick next year or trade for a veteran?


Trade up. Target a top 2 or 3 that you really like and get one of them, assuming the player will be a long-term upgrade as a prospect over what we have.

We don't have any players that are top-tier prospects, and if we can consolidate some of our assets into one, then I'd say do that.

I'm not convinced that, say, Morrison is going to be all that. But if PatterNash is, I hope that they do everything they can to get him. Given their track record, I'm not sure that they're going to be right, but I'd prefer them to take that course of action than trading down for multiple inferior prospects (like with our last pick) or getting out of the lottery altogether to add a veteran.

Ed O.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i would say the draft board for portland looks like this

1. Adam
2. Bargnani
3. ALdridge
4. gay

but if the top 3 are gone i think they will trade the pick.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I have horrible visions of Portland taking Sheldon Williams with the #5 pick. Or JJ Reddick. Or Brandon Roy. You know, someone with "experience".
> 
> They're horrible visions, I tell you.
> 
> Ed O.


At least we know if John Nash screws up again, he'll be gone.... hopefully.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

gambitnut said:


> Is anybody else thinking along the lines of using the pick if one of the players in a group of players you like is still on the board but trading it if all of them are gone? If so, I have two questions. How many players are on the list and who are they? If you traded the pick, would you want to trade up, trade down, trade for a pick next year or trade for a veteran?


1. Trade it to a potential lotto team for their unprotected pick next year (like that would ever happen).
2. Trade up for a higher pick this year.
3. Trade the pick and a player for a star. We don't need another mediocre "veteran".
4. Use the pick and swing for the fences on an under-recognized talent (it seems like there always is one).


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Seems to me that we can't really afford to trade down in order to get two picks for this year. We've already got more projects than we know what to do with. 

I like the idea of trading our pick to get into the top 3 if we don't wind up there via the lottery.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

theWanker said:


> Seems to me that we can't really afford to trade down in order to get two picks for this year. We've already got more projects than we know what to do with.
> 
> I like the idea of trading our pick to get into the top 3 if we don't wind up there via the lottery.


Who would you put on that trading block, then?

Can't trade Outlaw, he's too much of an investment not to keep around at least one more year.
Can't trade Khryapa, Nate likes him too much.
Can't trade Jack, he's the most effective guy we've drafted since 2001.
Can't trade Martell, he's too green.

If you're keeping the trade small, that leaves Telfair, Blake and Dixon. Who goes?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Can't trade Outlaw, he's too much of an investment not to keep around at least one more year.


Sure we can. I like Outlaw, and I'm glad we have him, but if the team thinks Gay/Morrison/whomever is a better prospect, or if they think Webster is going to slide over to the 3 eventually, then there's no reason to HAVE to hang onto Outlaw.



> Can't trade Khryapa, Nate likes him too much.


I don't think that's a reason not to trade him.



> Can't trade Jack, he's the most effective guy we've drafted since 2001.


He's also almost certainly a backup PG for as long as he's in Portland. If we can get good value for him, I can easily see us moving him.



> Can't trade Martell, he's too green.


While we CAN trade Martell, I think he'd be the last guy you mention I'd be willing to give up. He's so young and he's got such a developed skill already in his jumper that I think he's got a very good future.



> If you're keeping the trade small, that leaves Telfair, Blake and Dixon. Who goes?


I think that Telfair is a guy we do NOT want to trade. I'd put him right behind Webster, or maybe even on par with him, in terms of importance to the franchise.

I don't see a team giving anything of consequence for either Blake or Dixon, so I don't see them being traded.

Outlaw and/or Jack are the prime candidates for trade... along with Miles, of course. And maybe Skinner as an expiring contract if we need to take on salary to move up.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I disagree that Khryapa or Jack are untouchable. One day I think they'll both be very quality role players, but we need a cornerstone now. You worry about finding those guys after you find your Duncan or Dirk or Kobe or LeBron. 

Heck, I don't think we've got an untouchable guy on our team. For the right package, I'd even trade Webster. For example, if I could go back in a time machine and trade Webster, Jack and Telfair for Chris Paul, I'd do it. 

I never really care that much about high schoolers, college players or foreign leagues, so I'll admit my opinion on current draft candidates and who is worth trading for is worthless. So it's no use asking me who I'd specifically give up to get a certain draft pick, because I'm just ignorant on what this draft class will be like. 

Anyway, my point is that I absolutely hate following a really bad lottery team, but as long as we're here, we should do everything possible to get a franchise cornerstone, and not worry much about giving up complimentary players in the process of doing so. 

(The one caveat is that I draw the line at intentionally tanking. Giving up Randolph and Miles for nothing is doing that.)


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

trade our pick plus 30th and cash for higher pic

or 

draft our first pick then trade 30th plu sour 2nd for highest possible pick


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Sure we can. I like Outlaw, and I'm glad we have him, but if the team thinks Gay/Morrison/whomever is a better prospect, or if they think Webster is going to slide over to the 3 eventually, then there's no reason to HAVE to hang onto Outlaw.
> I don't think that's a reason not to trade him.
> He's also almost certainly a backup PG for as long as he's in Portland. If we can get good value for him, I can easily see us moving him.
> While we CAN trade Martell, I think he'd be the last guy you mention I'd be willing to give up. He's so young and he's got such a developed skill already in his jumper that I think he's got a very good future.
> ...


Re: Jack;
He's been one of the few pleasant surprises of the season, but I agree with you here. His value over a replacement player is negliable, and he's still young.

Re: Outlaw;
Similar to Khryapa, I think Portland moving him would be an indication that Portland isn't confident that he'll develop into a starter. I haven't seen the practices or the scrimmages where he plays all the time, though, so I'm not able to give a confident recommendation. From what I've _seen_, he seems to have every tool you'd want in a small forward, including outside shooting. Other teams are excited by him. You're correct in your judgement that he's one of the more valuable pieces on the team, however I'm not so sure that jumping from #5 to #3 or #2 would be worth Outlaw (specifically in this draft). 

Re: Telfair;
dealing him now would be 'selling low,' which is something I generally advocate against. But I'm not certain he'll be the player people expect him to be. In that scenario, moving him now before the hype balloon has fully deflated wouldn't be a bad idea.

---
The general question is, how much does Nate see in this team? Does he see a lot of potential in them, or are they the hollow prospects that many suspect they are? 

If deals are made this summer, it'll show us that Nate has successfully finished the evaluation stage and has notified management of his keepers. Hopefully Nash has the ability to swing something that brings us fair value for Miles. 

As for Ratliff, I think he'll become more valuable in February of '08 than this summer. 
Randolph won't be moved until this team adds a few more pieces.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

theWanker said:


> we need a cornerstone now. You worry about finding those guys after you find your Duncan or Dirk or Kobe or LeBron.


I'm not sure there are any cornerstones in this year's draft. Are you? That's what Pritchard/Nash have been saying.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think there are four potential cornerstone players, and possibly 1-2 more who surprise)...I am not syaing all or any for that matter WILL be such players, but if you are a team looking for such a player, like POR is, then you want to draft one of

Aldridge, Morrison, Gay or Bargnani....

I do think there are darkhorses...guys like Carney, Tyrus Thomas, Foye? Fernandez?...


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> I'm not sure there are any cornerstones in this year's draft. Are you? That's what Pritchard/Nash have been saying.


I don't know for sure. However, when you look at drafts historically (with the exception of 2000), it seems like there's always at least one or two "cornerstone" level players in every draft. 
2005 Paul
2004 Howard, Okafor
2003 LeBron, Carmello, Bosh (maybe), Wade
2002 Yao, Amare
2001 Gasol, Parker
2000
1999 Brand, Davis, Artest (if he hadn't gone nuts)
1998 Carter, Nowitzki, Pierce
etc

I probably missed some. Anyway, you get the idea. Nearly every draft has at least one guy (usually two) who will be in half a dozen All Star games and be the main man of a franchise for a decade. Sure, it could be another 2000 draft, but the odds are against it. 

The only way I will concede that all this losing has been worth it is if we land the guy who can eventually be on the above list.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

One caveat--my above list/oddsmaking may not be valid, I'll admit, if it's thrown off with the new age limits. It may be that the one or two conerstone guys who were going to get drafted this year were either taken last year or will be next year because of the rule change.

I think the age limit thing is a little overrated, but I could be wrong.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

theWanker said:


> I don't know for sure. However, when you look at drafts historically (with the exception of 2000), it seems like there's always at least one or two "cornerstone" level players in every draft.
> 2005 Paul
> 2004 Howard, Okafor
> 2003 LeBron, Carmello, Bosh (maybe), Wade
> ...



Michael Redd is the cornerstone player you're looking for in the 2000 draft...Of course, if you look at some of the guys drafted ahead of him it makes me chuckle a little bit...


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

It sure would be nice to have the ny's pick this year but definetly not as nice as next draft.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Michael Redd is the cornerstone player you're looking for in the 2000 draft...Of course, if you look at some of the guys drafted ahead of him it makes me chuckle a little bit...


I think even that's a stretch.


----------

