# The Blazer plan is a faulty one



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

How many good players in the league started out slow, learned the game, and prospered with the team that drafted them? I can't think of any. Maybe Gary Payton and that's about it. If you look at all the top players in the league who didn't make an immediate impact, none of them are with the team that drafted them. Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Tracy Mcgrady, just to name a few. It even took our own Joel Pryzbilla three teams until he became a solid player. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Outlaw a FA after this season? If he continues at his current pace of production what should the Blazers do? You know there are going to be a few teams out there that love his potential and will offer him more money that he's worth. Should Portland overpay to keep him? Do you just hand a big contract to an unproven player? Or do you let some other team do it and all you're left with is a wasted a draft pick and three years spent developing him just so he can go flourish with some other team?

Same thing with Telfair. If he ever becomes great it's going to take him at least 5 years to get there, long after his rookie contract is up. What are the odds he will still be a Blazer when that happens? Slim to none.

Drafting high schoolers is huge risk. Unless they make an immediate impact like Lebron you are drafting a guy that is going to spend his entire first contract learning the game. Then what? Let him walk because you can't offer him enough money, or playing time, or endorsments or sunny weather or any of the other reasons a guy like Mcgrady or Jermaine O'neal left his team for. Your team just wasted their draft pick and all that time spent developing it. That's how you become the Hawks, Clippers, and Raptors. 

I don't think you can build a team through the draft anymore. Aside from hitting the mother load with a Tim Duncan, Shaq or Lebron, you are pretty much drafting players to incubate for someone elses team down the road. 

We may have to change the plan.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I've been saying the same thing, but I think the plan may already be changing before our eyes. This recent resurgence of competitive play has been accomplished through pretty much the most veteran lineup we can put on the floor. Looks to me like Nate's desire to win is edging out management's desire to stick to some unproven rebuilding formula.

Dan


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Surely you jest.

I mean, look at all the former Washington Bullets/Wizards in the NBA- you could probably form a complete allstar team twice over. As a couple of Detroit ex-Washington "scrubs" (Hamilton & Wallace) will tell you - they're favorate task is beating up the current Wizard teams. :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Goldmember said:


> How many good players in the league started out slow, learned the game, and prospered with the team that drafted them? I can't think of any. Maybe Gary Payton and that's about it. If you look at all the top players in the league who didn't make an immediate impact, none of them are with the team that drafted them. Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Tracy Mcgrady, just to name a few. It even took our own Joel Pryzbilla three teams until he became a solid player.


you're implying that they plan on keeping these guys till the end of time, no ones said they will. Should the team not stock pile talent, because afterall, not many good players started out slow, learned the game, and prospered?



> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Outlaw a FA after this season? If he continues at his current pace of production what should the Blazers do? You know there are going to be a few teams out there that love his potential and will offer him more money that he's worth. Should Portland overpay to keep him? Do you just hand a big contract to an unproven player? Or do you let some other team do it and all you're left with is a wasted a draft pick and three years spent developing him just so he can go flourish with some other team?


he's a RFA I believe. They have him signed for his 4th year, and have the option for his 5th year, Then they'll have to deal with him.



> Same thing with Telfair. If he ever becomes great it's going to take him at least 5 years to get there, long after his rookie contract is up. What are the odds he will still be a Blazer when that happens? Slim to none.


how do you know that? Why is it slim to none he'll be a blazer by that time? 



> Drafting high schoolers is huge risk. Unless they make an immediate impact like Lebron you are drafting a guy that is going to spend his entire first contract learning the game. Then what? Let him walk because you can't offer him enough money, or playing time, or endorsments or sunny weather or any of the other reasons a guy like Mcgrady or Jermaine O'neal left his team for. Your team just wasted their draft pick and all that time spent developing it. That's how you become the Hawks, Clippers, and Raptors.


see: Paul Allen.

you know, that guy who'd probably be more willing to end up paying the players more than other owners can because he's so rich? Considering that the home teams will always have the ability to offer more money, why is that an issue?

As for Jermaine, he left because TB had a panic attack. McGrady left because he was playing the same position as Carter and got an insane offer (before contracts got somewhat under control).



> I don't think you can build a team through the draft anymore. Aside from hitting the mother load with a Tim Duncan, Shaq or Lebron, you are pretty much drafting players to incubate for someone elses team down the road.
> 
> We may have to change the plan.


Or realize that the plan isn't as black and white as you think it is.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> I've been saying the same thing, but I think the plan may already be changing before our eyes. This recent resurgence of competitive play has been accomplished through pretty much the most veteran lineup we can put on the floor. Looks to me like Nate's desire to win is edging out management's desire to stick to some unproven rebuilding formula.
> 
> Dan


yah, because those grizzled vets like Joel, Viktor, Blake, Juan and Jack are sure showing that the management doesn't have a forumula and Nate's desire to win is changing things..

uh huh..

you got to realize that when they say "youth movement" they don't mean that the young guys get ALL of the minutes, but that the young guys would get a chance to play decent minutes. And guess what? they ARE.

unless you actually want to say that Dixon, Blake and Joel aren't what the management meant when they say they'd rather the team go with a different group of players.

It's not like Theo, Charles Smith and Ruben Patterson are getting 90% of the minutes.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Outlaw is a RFA after next year.

BTW You say not many players start slow, but then prosper elsewhere...That's because eiter A) their team gave up on them (Jermaine)...or B) The Player decided to leave on their own (McGrady).

McGrady left because he knew he was going to be behind Carter on the depth chart...And wanted his own team. Hermaine was dealt because Portland was at Championship contender level and was traded because Whitsitt thought Davis was the missing piece.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Outlaw is a RFA after next year.
> 
> BTW You say not many players start slow, but then prosper elsewhere...That's because eiter A) their team gave up on them (Jermaine)...or B) The Player decided to leave on their own (McGrady).
> 
> McGrady left because he knew he was going to be behind Carter on the depth chart...And wanted his own team. *Hermaine* was dealt because Portland was at Championship contender level and was traded because Whitsitt thought Davis was the missing piece.


wow, what a diss!


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)




----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I'd like to chime in on Hap's post to say, at the current rate of development of our young guys, it seems just as likely that they won't command huge offers from other teams, due to the fact they may not have broken out yet when they become RFAs. 

If the Blazers management, who will know these players better than anyone, believe a guy is on the verge of reaching the next level, why wouldn't they outbid other teams for their services, especially considering the possibility they may prove to be a bargain over the long term.

I don't know if I'm clearly conveying my question or not. But if a high-school prospect takes four years to develop, and can be resigned at that time for a long-term deal below his future market value, I feel confident that uncle Paul will not hesitate to sign him. He's always paid his players more than enough to make them happy -- even Theo, Zach and Miles AFTER the public declarations of fiscal conservatism.

The idea that Paul Allen 'can't afford' to match offers from other teams is silly. And as Hap said, the 'youth movement' doesn't mean they have to start and get all the minutes before they are ready. They are getting minutes, but they also need to be made to earn them.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't agree. Whether they stay with the team is up to management and it will be their decision on whether to match or cut players loose. As for your assumption that players always start at one place and end up better someplace else down the line, I think that is wrong too. All you need to do is look around the league and you will realize what a generalization you made. Jason Kidd made an immediate impact at Dallas, and was traded anyhow, he was not a guy who "bloomed late". He only made it to a winning team later, there is a big difference. Gary Payton while blooming late, also had a certain guy who coaches here now competing for playing time with him. He was not traded until LATE in his career, after he had played most of his peak years. Shawn Kemp took years to develope, and stayed in Seattle for most of his peak years. Michael Redd took a few years to develope, but he is now Milwaukees main guy. 

Chicago drafted their way back to the playoffs. Milwaukee drafted themselves back into the hunt too, look at their core. Redd, Ford, Bogut. 

Here is the thing that I look at the most: The truly successful franchises in the league at this point, Spurs, Pistons, Miami, Indiana, all have have used a COMBINATION of methods to build a winning franchise: a combination of drafting and trading, which is as it should be. The truth be told, the only way to build a winning franchise is to bring in talent any way you can, via draft, trade, free agency, whatever. All of the teams I listed above have had both successful drafting/trading and free agency acquisitions to keep their teams on top. The main thing to remember is, if you have talent coming in, it gives you more leverage to keep talent coming in. Don't lock yourself down to one method of bringing it in. Once you have talent on your team, it is easier for trades, easier to attract free agents who are in the stage of their career that "They just want to win". It makes it easier to fill the holes on your team in the draft. The Blazers are on the low end of that stick right now, but they are showing some signs.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Tough questions here:



Goldmember said:


> If [Outlaw] continues at his current pace of production what should the Blazers do?


By "current" I guess you mean the last few games, but really his whole nba career is recent- and if he hasn't peaked yet, he better soon because odds are he's nearing or past the midpoint of his career. Who needs odds though?




> You know there are going to be a few teams out there that love his potential and will offer him more money that he's worth.


Take the money.



> Should Portland overpay to keep him?


Going back to assuming that he is progressing fast enough to be a starter in the league soon, how much would overpaying be? Like Miles? I hope Outlaw gets that good, but I don't think anyone in the league thinks about Outlaw the way people thought about Miles a couple of years ago- potential star. So overpaying Outlaw might not be a big issue since it won't be huge $$.



> Do you just hand a big contract to an unproven player? Or do you let some other team do it and all you're left with is a wasted a draft pick and three years spent developing him just so he can go flourish with some other team?


IIRC, Jermaine got his contract and trade after his 4th year as a Blazer. That would seem to be a great time to sign & trade Outlaw, or sign him, or let him go. 

I like Outlaw, I hope he keeps improving. He still has too many missed dunks.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I have to disagree. Look at Tony Parker and Sebastian Telfair's first few years in the league. Parker has broken out this year, AT THE AGE OF *23*. So I don't get why all the Blazer fans are giving up on him because Blake had 1 13 assist game and has been average since..

Parker: 
Rookie Season-9.2ppg/4.3apg/1.96topg in *29.4mpg*
2nd season-15.5ppg/5.3apg/2.41topg in 33.8mpg

Parker bio 

Telfair
Rookie Season-6.8ppg/3.3apg/1.84topg in *19.6mpg*
2nd Season- 10.8ppg/4.3apg/1.90topg in 28.9mpg

Telfair Bio 

Not that big of a difference really, also you would have to add in the Tim duncan affect. Parker and Telfair both had the same weaknesses coming into the league, great speed and vision, but shaky jumper..Parker has finally fixed that at the age 23 and is now averaging 20/6. We need to give Telfair time to develop.

Also, like Hap said, the reason this plan will/could work would be because of Paul Allen, he'll spend the money to keep these players around, see: Darius Miles.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, when this plan started, everybody knew we had to be patient, and now that we are on a little win streak, everyone wants to win now. We gotta stick with the plan, because our players are gonna turn out good, and if not oh well, we took a chance. Even if one or 2 of them are All-Stars, we can always fill out the team with FA's and trades (this is later on down the road).


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> We gotta stick with the plan, because our players are gonna turn out good, and if not oh well, we took a chance. Even if one or 2 of them are All-Stars, we can always fill out the team with FA's and trades (this is later on down the road).


Why should we believe that one or two of them will be all-stars, other than, of course, they are ours and we have high hopes? 

Few of them were high draft picks. Excluding Theo and the other old farts, we have about 10-12 youngsters. If you pick 12 players randomly who were drafted at the positions our players were, what are the odds that one of them will be an all-star? I'd guess very very low. Certainly there are exceptions, there are players drafted late that become all-stars, but statistically, the chances are poor that we'd get an all-star out of this set of draft picks. 

So we have to be betting that Nash and his predecessor are significantly better than average judges of talent in the draft. And being able to pick the best talent from particular draft isn't even good enough in this case - we have to have future all-stars be skipped by the teams drafting ahead of us. 

All this may happen - I happen to think Nash does draft pretty well - but it still seems like a long shot to me. 

barfo


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

barfo said:


> Why should we believe that one or two of them will be all-stars, other than, of course, they are ours and we have high hopes?
> 
> Few of them were high draft picks. Excluding Theo and the other old farts, we have about 10-12 youngsters. If you pick 12 players randomly who were drafted at the positions our players were, what are the odds that one of them will be an all-star? I'd guess very very low. Certainly there are exceptions, there are players drafted late that become all-stars, but statistically, the chances are poor that we'd get an all-star out of this set of draft picks.
> 
> ...


Tony Parker, he was taken 28th, Manu Ginobli, Michael Redd, and many more players were taken late in teh draft. Draft order sometimes doesn't matter, its how hard they work. Look at Randolph, he was taken what, 19th? He worked hard and got into the starting lineup. Telfair and Webster both have a very rare attributes at their age, Top 10 NBA court vision and shooting. Telfair is getting better, didn't you hear about his work ethic? Over the summer 1000 jumpers a day, and not to mention working to make his arms and strength better. I don't know how many times I have to say this, Telfair is 20 years old, and everyone says that Blake and Jack will be fine, but people still bring up Jermaine, and if they want that to happen again I guess we should get rid of Telfair because its waaaay to early. 

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used All-Star, I meant like Zach Randolph type players, he could be an All-star, but not with the West's dominant forwards. If Telfair or Webster pan out then I think we did fine. We just have to wait 1 or 2 more years and we will be fine. Telfair will be putting up probably like 15/6-7 and Webster will have more confidence and a whole season under his belt next year. The year after, I except Telfair to have a year like Parker is this year and Webster to have a decent-good year.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> you got to realize that when they say "youth movement" they don't mean that the young guys get ALL of the minutes, but that the young guys would get a chance to play decent minutes.


Right, so "youth movement" means playing the veterans their regular minutes (or more) and having the young guys (all that's left) fill in off the bench. How exactly does that differ from a non-youth movement, other than having a higher than normal number of young guys on the bench?



> But if a high-school prospect takes four years to develop, and can be resigned at that time for a long-term deal below his future market value, I feel confident that uncle Paul will not hesitate to sign him. He's always paid his players more than enough to make them happy -- even Theo, Zach and Miles AFTER the public declarations of fiscal conservatism.


Well, there's no guarantee that a HS prospect will develop, so you're banking on your talent evaluation being better now than it was when you drafted the non-producing player 3 years ago... As for Paul Allen and his spending/decision making, I felt a lot more confident in the overall talent evaluation when Whitsitt was at the helm. I doubt Allen has a huge role in that area.



> The idea that Paul Allen 'can't afford' to match offers from other teams is silly.


So silly that reducing spending was made a higher priority than winning...

Regarding Telfair and Parker, I'd say that's a pretty large difference between the two, statistically. They've progressed similarly, but Parker started from a much higher level.



> Also, like Hap said, the reason this plan will/could work would be because of Paul Allen, he'll spend the money to keep these players around, see: Darius Miles.


See also Theo Ratliff and Zach Randolph, also known as contracts we couldn't give away if we wanted to. Anyone else a bit worried we'll overspend on all our youth just to avoid another Jermaine situation, only to end up in a worse contract bind than '01 and without a winning team to show for it?

Dan


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Goldmember said:


> How many good players in the league started out slow, learned the game, and prospered with the team that drafted them? I can't think of any. Maybe Gary Payton and that's about it. If you look at all the top players in the league who didn't make an immediate impact, none of them are with the team that drafted them. Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Tracy Mcgrady, just to name a few. It even took our own Joel Pryzbilla three teams until he became a solid player.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Outlaw a FA after this season? If he continues at his current pace of production what should the Blazers do? You know there are going to be a few teams out there that love his potential and will offer him more money that he's worth. Should Portland overpay to keep him? Do you just hand a big contract to an unproven player? Or do you let some other team do it and all you're left with is a wasted a draft pick and three years spent developing him just so he can go flourish with some other team?
> 
> ...


I disagree. 

We can probably get two more years of nearly all of these potentialy good players playing together before we have to panic. 
Even then we can look at the possibilities of trading one two or three good players for a Super Star if we need to. 
Not to mention we can have a very good draft choice both years.

It looks to me like this "plan" really has not been tried before with so many very young players. So it is unlikely that we can find precident for either view. My gut feeling is that it will work and quite well. 

Nate has shown me that he is a very good, maybe great coach, so far here. Last year he took one Super Star player and some good players to the second round folks. I think we have better players than Seattle had and will be better than Seattle was inside of two years. 

Call it optomism (?) if you want but I don't think this plan has been tried and we do have the richest owner in Pro Sports. 

gatorpops


----------



## toutlaw25 (Aug 7, 2005)

Backboard Cam said:


> By "current" I guess you mean the last few games, but really his whole nba career is recent- and if he hasn't peaked yet, he better soon because odds are he's nearing or past the midpoint of his career. Who needs odds though?
> 
> 
> > So I guess a guy who just turned 21 is halfway through is career?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dan, for the love of god, please attribute the quotes so people can actually tell who you're quoting, instead of guessing.



 dkap said:


> Right, so "youth movement" means playing the veterans their regular minutes (or more) and having the young guys (all that's left) fill in off the bench. How exactly does that differ from a non-youth movement, other than having a higher than normal number of young guys on the bench?


what "vets" are playing their regular minutes (or more)? 

because of the 'vets' that are getting regular minutes, the only one who's getting decent minutes at what would be at the expense of the "youth movement" is Ruben. And a lot of why he's getting minutes is BECAUSE of an injury.

Theo gets minutes because of the team isn't basing their "youth movement" on Ha, and Joel gets fouls and is currently injured.

I'm not sure who else you're *****ing about, or trying to imply isn't getting enough minutes and therefore the "youth movement" is malarky.

Outlaw and MAYBE Martell, but considering Dixon isn't exactly old (nor is Blake) and Outlaw hasn't exactly shown that he's earned minutes, and a young player IS getting minutes too (Viktor)..really, what the hell are you saying?


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Blazer Freak said:


> Tony Parker, he was taken 28th, Manu Ginobli, Michael Redd, and many more players were taken late in teh draft. Draft order sometimes doesn't matter, its how hard they work. Look at Randolph, he was taken what, 19th? He worked hard and got into the starting lineup. Telfair and Webster both have a very rare attributes at their age, Top 10 NBA court vision and shooting. Telfair is getting better, didn't you hear about his work ethic? Over the summer 1000 jumpers a day, and not to mention working to make his arms and strength better. I don't know how many times I have to say this, Telfair is 20 years old, and everyone says that Blake and Jack will be fine, but people still bring up Jermaine, and if they want that to happen again I guess we should get rid of Telfair because its waaaay to early.
> 
> I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used All-Star, I meant like Zach Randolph type players, he could be an All-star, but not with the West's dominant forwards. If Telfair or Webster pan out then I think we did fine. We just have to wait 1 or 2 more years and we will be fine. Telfair will be putting up probably like 15/6-7 and Webster will have more confidence and a whole season under his belt next year. The year after, I except Telfair to have a year like Parker is this year and Webster to have a decent-good year.


Are you sure you are only 15? Great post! 

Like I said in my other post in this thread, Nate is probably a "great" coach, and he took Seattle to the second round with only one true All_Star type player last year. 

Detroit who we want to be like, has maybe only one All-Star player and some other very good ones. It does not take All-Stars to make a "team"! 
Just very good players. 

I think in two years we will have several "very good" players. 
Maybe more than enough to trade some for an All-Star.

gatorpops


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

dkap said:


> See also Theo Ratliff and Zach Randolph, also known as contracts we couldn't give away if we wanted to. Anyone else a bit worried we'll overspend on all our youth just to avoid another Jermaine situation, only to end up in a worse contract bind than '01 and without a winning team to show for it?


I don't think they will get huge contracts like you are thinking. Right now, if you went around and asked, he wouldn't get a big $$ contract because he plays the wing positions, and players with potential aren't hard to find there. If he was a big man, like Eddy Curry or Chandler, that is when you have to get worried. I'm guessing if Telfair shows enough by the end of his contract he could be looking at a 5-7 million dollar starting contract for 4-6 years. That definitely wouldn't be that hard to trade because a PG with potential would always be pretty highly regarded. But all of this is moot, because we don't see what these players do in practice and how much they have really improved the little part of their games. How much muscle they have gained, etc.. There are gonna be a lot of little things that will help make the Blazers make the decision to sign these youngsters. 

BTW, I was just pulling those Telfair contract #'s out of my ***, but those wouldn't end up being that bad. 

Also, I agree with you dkap, that Telfair and Parker are similar and Parker did come in a little better. But still, if Telfair turns out as good as Parker this season, I'd be happy as hell.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

gatorpops said:


> Are you sure you are only 15? Great post!
> 
> Like I said in my other post in this thread, Nate is probably a "great" coach, and he took Seattle to the second round with only one true All_Star type player last year.
> 
> ...


Thanks. You also made a great point that I forgot to add, Nate also is gonna play a big factor in how these guys turn out, and I don't think it will be a bad thing. He is gonna make sure they work hard and do their best.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> dan, for the love of god, please attribute the quotes so people can actually tell who you're quoting, instead of guessing.


Is it that tough to remember what you wrote? If someone else was the source, then what's it matter to you who wrote it? And if you're just skimming the threads for your name in quoted responses, than it's a somewhat lacking conversation.



> what "vets" are playing their regular minutes (or more)?


All of them... Joel and Theo are combining for roughly all the minutes at center, Zach and Ruben account for all the power forward minutes, Dixon and Blake are getting more time than ever before... The only position not heavily dominated by the vets is SF, and that's largely because Ruben is the only guy we've got there and he splits time at 2 or 3 positions. Smith is the only vet not getting significant minutes, but he's getting about what we figured he'd get, notta.

Dan


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Joel, Dixon, Zach, and Blake are all a part of the youth movement. Just because they're vets on THIS team does not eliminate them from the equation. Young is young.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Those who disagree I hope you're right. But recent history suggests that players that are "under-developed" rarely reach their peak with the team that drafted them. That's what I fear may happen to the Blazers. We have things going for us like PA's money, and I don't doubt he'll spend heavily again if he thinks we can win. We also have a good leader in Nate. 

Whoever we draft this year I really hope they have a good amount of college experience. Someone that has the fundementals down and can contribute right away. I don't watch a lot of college ball but I've seen Morrison a play a couple times and he seems like a real leader, and a great shooter.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Joel, Dixon, Zach, and Blake are all a part of the youth movement.


26 (6th year), 27 (4th year), 24 (5th year), and 25 (3rd year) ... that sounds like pretty average age (and experience) to me. To be sure, I looked it up and found that for '04-05, the league average age was 27. We're not far off that with that group of key guys. And while it didn't show up in my search, manually changing the URL over to '05 shows that the league average has dropped to 26.7 this year.

http://www.nba.com/news/survey_age_2005.html

Dan


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Goldmember said:


> How many good players in the league started out slow, learned the game, and prospered with the team that drafted them? I can't think of any. Maybe Gary Payton and that's about it.


People have mentioned Tony Parker, Michael Redd and Manu Ginobili. I will add Jason Richardson, Elton Brand, Dwyane Wade to the list. And of course, Clyde Drexler. He had a rocky rookie year and was nearly traded.
And the plan is not just to build from the draft. Aren't Joel Przybilla, Steve Blake, Juan Dixon important parts of the team's future? Theo is important now but may not be here in 3-5 years so I am not including him. The plan is to draft well, trade well and sign with caution based on need. Not build a fantasy league team of overpaid aging stars and expect a coach to keep them all happy. To test players and reward those who deserve it, not automatically give everyone max contracts. And to have a solid and tough minded coach with a long term deal and no pressure to win now or else, who can develop the team.

And BTW, if you say the plan is bad you have the responsibility to suggest an alternate. Signing or trading for every veteran all star available was a miserable failure, a $100 million payroll, 7th place, first round sweep.

On another topic, Backboard Cam, I'm either dense or sleepy but I don't see the point of the portrait of the young woman in your post. Could you kindly enlighten me?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> Is it that tough to remember what you wrote? If someone else was the source, then what's it matter to you who wrote it? And if you're just skimming the threads for your name in quoted responses, than it's a somewhat lacking conversation.


no, it's called common courtesy. You quoted myself, and another poster in the same thread. Thats usually considered rude, because people don't know if you're responding to them or someone else. thats what happened to me when I was reading your post.


> All of them... Joel and Theo are combining for roughly all the minutes at center, Zach and Ruben account for all the power forward minutes, Dixon and Blake are getting more time than ever before...


yah, because Telfair is out, and Dixon is playing better than Smith, Monia or Webster. BFD.



> The only position not heavily dominated by the vets is SF, and that's largely because Ruben is the only guy we've got there and he splits time at 2 or 3 positions. Smith is the only vet not getting significant minutes, but he's getting about what we figured he'd get, notta.
> 
> Dan


still not sure how this validates your stance.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> On another topic, Backboard Cam, I'm either dense or sleepy but I don't see the point of the portrait of the young woman in your post. Could you kindly enlighten me?


I would guess it was in response to me pointing out that schilly misspelled Jermaine's name as "Hermaine" and maybe thats the girls name? I don't know what the picture is from though, so I don't know.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

dkap said:


> 26 (6th year), 27 (4th year), 24 (5th year), and 25 (3rd year) ... that sounds like pretty average age (and experience) to me. To be sure, I looked it up and found that for '04-05, the league average age was 27. We're not far off that with that group of key guys. And while it didn't show up in my search, manually changing the URL over to '05 shows that the league average has dropped to 26.7 this year.
> 
> http://www.nba.com/news/survey_age_2005.html
> 
> Dan



We're playing a 27 year old?????


:jawdrop: 

You're right! What youth movement?! Forget the fact that our team is one of the 5 youngest in the league...with guys as old as 27 getting lots of minutes, there's _no way_ it can be considered a youth movement!

:-/


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Did you scan that picture off of a poster on your wall BB Cam?

ewww.....creepy... :raised_ey 


j/k :laugh: 


As for your theory Goldmember, it is SEVERLY flawed...

The NBA is FULL of players who took several years to establish themselves...

Steve Nash comes to mind...he is a pretty good player I think..... :wink:


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

crandc said:


> On another topic, Backboard Cam, I'm either dense or sleepy but I don't see the point of the portrait of the young woman in your post. Could you kindly enlighten me?





Hap said:


> I would guess it was in response to me pointing out that schilly misspelled Jermaine's name as "Hermaine" and maybe thats the girls name? I don't know what the picture is from though, so I don't know.


If I may, she's a main character in the Harry Potter movies. The character's name is Hermione or something like that (not sure how to spell it).


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> People have mentioned Tony Parker, Michael Redd and Manu Ginobili. I will add Jason Richardson, Elton Brand, Dwyane Wade to the list.


What about Brand and Wade? Both were a revelation as rookies, as I recall.



> And the plan is not just to build from the draft. Aren't Joel Przybilla, Steve Blake, Juan Dixon important parts of the team's future?


They weren't supposed to be... Dixon and Blake were brought in largely as roster fillers; people to push our young guards in practice.



> no, it's called common courtesy. You quoted myself, and another poster in the same thread. *Thats usually considered rude*, because people don't know if you're responding to them or someone else.


That's literally the first time I've ever heard that in all the time I've been online. I find it to be a rather ludicrous statement, and since your attitude has been so snippy lately (what happened to the courtesy around here, especially from former mods?), I'm going to dismiss it. Sorry.



> yah, because Telfair is out, and Dixon is playing better than Smith, Monia or Webster. BFD.


So, you go from questioning which vets are getting regular minutes or more to casting aside the whole reply with obvious excuses... Of course Dixon is playing better and thus getting more minutes. That's the point! The vets are (and will be for some time) better. Either we're developing the young talent (i.e. youth movement) or we're trying to win the games with what veteran presence we have. I've been saying the two are mutually exclusive, and based on the above, I believe management has blinked.



> You're right! What youth movement?! Forget the fact that our team is one of the 5 youngest in the league...with guys as old as 27 getting lots of minutes, there's no way it can be considered a youth movement!


Our team average age is brought down largely by the young guys in reserve roles. Our core group that you highlighted has an average age about one year younger than the league average. Sure, every team has young guys pulling its average down, but: a) we have a lot more young guys than normal, and b) others have the Mutombo and Kevin Willis types inflating the average despite hardly playing. That would actually be an interesting stat to break down, some sort of chart of percentage of minutes going to which age group, league-wise and per team.

Dan


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

This thread establishes the basis for the 1st Potter-Portland theorem: 

Fans of the Portland Trailblazers are unlikely to have seen the Harry Potter movies.

barfo


----------



## 85 lakers (Dec 22, 2005)

I'd rather keep Telfair, Outlaw, Przy, and Miles.

The first time I saw Outlaw, at a high school tournament in Las Vegas several years ago, I was amazed by the talent. He's incredible. He will be good.

Randolph would not be a loss, IMO.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

Blazer Bert said:


> If I may, she's a main character in the Harry Potter movies. The character's name is Hermione or something like that (not sure how to spell it).


nerd alert.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

barfo said:


> This thread establishes the basis for the 1st Potter-Portland theorem:
> 
> Fans of the Portland Trailblazers are unlikely to have seen the Harry Potter movies.
> 
> barfo


But thanks to the Youth Movement, the Blazers players have probably seen those movies. Martell was only 14 when the first one came out. 

Ready or not, here they come!


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

I want the Detroit plan! Only Tayshaun Prince has played his entire NBA career with the Pistons and he's the least important of the starting five. Basically you got to have good team CHEMISTRY!


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

toutlaw25 said:


> Backboard Cam said:
> 
> 
> > By "current" I guess you mean the last few games, but really his whole nba career is recent- and if he hasn't peaked yet, he better soon because odds are he's nearing or past the midpoint of his career. Who needs odds though?
> ...


How many years is he going to play in the league? if it's more than 10, he better start getting good pretty soon. There are plenty of players who only play 6 years, I don't think it was too much to say "odds are he's nearing or past the midpoint of his career." 

In the offseason after his 4th year, after the draft, there will have been about 240 players drafted after Outlaw's draft- Plus 58 drafted the same year. Some of those players are already not in the nba, and more will be gone next offseason. But that still leaves a lot of young players. Is Outlaw better than most of them?

Maybe he will keep improving, I hope he does because I really like him.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

tradetheo said:


> nerd alert.


 :laugh: 

Hey, I'm not the one who posted the picture!

Actually, I watched a couple of Harry Potter movies with my little girls. Little kids love it when their parents sit with them and watch their shows. Plus they can bury their face in my shirt when they get scared. Good stuff (while it lasts). From what I've been told, the newest one is way too intense for them, though.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Okay lets take a look at the team's "core players". How should we divide it? By getting 25 mpg or more?

Zach Randolph-24
Darius Miles-24
Sebastian Telfair-20
Juan Dixon-27
Joel Przybilla-26

Average age= *24.7*

How about 20mpg?

Zach Randolph-24
Darius Miles-24
Sebastian Telfair-20
Juan Dixon-27
Joel Przybilla-26
Theo Ratliff-32
Ruben Patterson-30
Steve Blake-25
Viktor Khryapa-23

Average Age= *25.6*

I don't see what your whole problem is with playing some of the veterans. Even when playing two 30 year olds, it only takes our average age up a year. I think your idea of a youth movement is Telfair, Webster, Outlaw, Zach and Ha starting when really playing time isn't always the best way in huge doses. I think we are handling Webster and Ha just right. 

Team's MPG


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

dkap said:


> They weren't supposed to be... Dixon and Blake were brought in largely as roster fillers; people to push our young guards in practice.


Thats not at all true. McMillian did not want to start Dixon with Telfair but made no qualms about starting him with Jack or Blake. He just felt that they would be too small with Telfair. Smith and Dixon were always ahead of Webster on the depth chart. 

Even with Blake he is starting because Telfair went down, he plays well with Dixon, and because Jack's ability to play the 2 spot makes him better off the bench.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Backboard Cam said:


> How many years is he going to play in the league? if it's more than 10, he better start getting good pretty soon. There are plenty of players who only play 6 years, I don't think it was too much to say "odds are he's nearing or past the midpoint of his career."
> 
> In the offseason after his 4th year, after the draft, there will have been about 240 players drafted after Outlaw's draft- Plus 58 drafted the same year. Some of those players are already not in the nba, and more will be gone next offseason. But that still leaves a lot of young players. Is Outlaw better than most of them?
> 
> Maybe he will keep improving, I hope he does because I really like him.


Unless he has a major injury Outlaw will likely play about 15 years. Most guys who have short careers dont have much talent or dont improve because they lack desire. Outlaw is good enough without improving to make an NBA team for the next 8 years. If he has the desire and improves some its 15 years easy.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

tradetheo said:


> nerd alert.


Troll alert.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Schilly said:


> own (McGrady).
> Hermaine was dealt because Portland was at Championship contender level and was traded because Whitsitt thought Davis was the missing piece.


And what a mistake that was. A lot of people look back and say that the Blazers aquired DD as another guy to put on Shaq. My question is, did they WATCH the Indiana vs LA finals that year? What did Shaq average, about 40/20 against DD in that series? It was litterly one of the worst mismatches I've ever seen.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

kaydow said:


> And what a mistake that was. A lot of people look back and say that the Blazers aquired DD as another guy to put on Shaq. My question is, did they WATCH the Indiana vs LA finals that year? What did Shaq average, about 40/20 against DD in that series? It was litterly one of the worst mismatches I've ever seen.


Dale Davis was much better a few years ago, he was a hustler and he did a good job. He's a bum now, he should've retired a year or two ago, it was a decent deal for us at the time. We were trying to win a championship..man this topic has been beaten to death.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Okay lets take a look at the team's "core players". How should we divide it? By getting 25 mpg or more?
> 
> Zach Randolph-24
> Darius Miles-24
> ...


You can't put Telfair in there, because the winning streak has coincided with his absence, which is the very point I'm making: youth movement equals losing.



> I don't see what your whole problem is with playing some of the veterans.


I _don't_ have a problem with it! My problem is with the youth movement and how flawed of an approach it is. Playing the veterans is the best thing for this team, but it's at odds with management's stated vision.



> Thats not at all true. McMillian did not want to start Dixon with Telfair but made no qualms about starting him with Jack or Blake. He just felt that they would be too small with Telfair. Smith and Dixon were always ahead of Webster on the depth chart.


Where did Nate state backcourt pairing preferences? It was no secret that Martell was starting low on the depth chart but was expected to challenge for significant playing time, and possibly a starting spot, by year end. The FA signings were there to set an example and keep a warm body on the floor.



> My question is, did they WATCH the Indiana vs LA finals that year? What did Shaq average, about 40/20 against DD in that series? It was litterly one of the worst mismatches I've ever seen.


I disagree. Yeah, Shaq got his numbers and then some, but DD was physical enough with him to allow the rest of the Pacers to play Shaq's teammates pretty honest and make it a much more competitive series than expected. Shaq made everyone look silly during that stretch.

Dan


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

2k said:


> Outlaw is good enough without improving to make an NBA team for the next 8 years.


I disagree with that completely. 



> If he has the desire and improves some its 15 years easy.


That I agree with, because you said "if." And like I've said, I am a big Outlaw fan.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dkap said:


> I disagree. Yeah, Shaq got his numbers and then some, but DD was physical enough with him to allow the rest of the Pacers to play Shaq's teammates pretty honest and make it a much more competitive series than expected. Shaq made everyone look silly during that stretch.
> 
> Dan


I disagree with your disagreement as I remember one of the finals games where DD was fouled out by Shaq in about 10 minutes playing time on the floor. I recall thinking, "gee, skinny, weak, Jermaine did a better job on Shaq that one time. DD is worthless against the Diesel."

But what did I know? Seems the Blazer scouts thought DD would be helpful against Shaq. Too bad he wasn't.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

dkap said:


> I disagree. Yeah, Shaq got his numbers and then some, but DD was physical enough with him to allow the rest of the Pacers to play Shaq's teammates pretty honest and make it a much more competitive series than expected. Shaq made everyone look silly during that stretch.
> 
> Dan


"Shaq got his numbers"?? How about 38/16. Compare that to 25/12 against the Blazers in the previous series. And no, DD wasn't even close to being physical enough to keep Shaq in check on his own. Not only did Shaq get his numbers, he shot 61% FG and many of his points came within 3 ft of the basket--DD was TOTALLY OVERPOWERED/DOMINATED. The Pacers made it a series because Reggie Miller and Jalen Rose were lights out for a couple of games. I'm not here to blast DD, a lot of guys faired similarly vs The Diesel. But you're dead wrong about that match-up. How many times did Shaq dunk the ball in that series? I can still hear the stupid Superman music they used to play.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Wow, has this thread ever strayed from its well-intentioned roots of discussing whether or not the Blazers have a sound strategy or not. 

Personally, I think goldmember raises a good question and there's a facet to it that I think everyone is ignoring. 

How often do players truly reach their potential with the team that drafted them? And if they do make it all the way with one team - is it in part because that team changes significantly in order to effectuate that elevation? 

Some players, it seems to me, would achieve greatness regardless. Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Reggie Miller all played either their entire careers, or the most productive periods of their careers with the same team. Had they been traded, would they have been even better? Doubtful. But there are players - Dominique Wilkens, for example, who probably would've been a great deal more successful had he gotten out of ATL. 

And I think there are probably a number of players who were decent, or even quite good, with their first team, but needed a change in scenery, a change of personnel, a coaching change, etc. to really excel. I think that Jason Kidd is a good example of that, T-Mac, too, Shaq (coming from Orlando)... 

And then there are players like Rip Hamilton, who have stayed put (Detroit in his case), but have benefited from other players coming in (Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace). 

I think the key is that a player benefits from his surroundings and where teams allow things to stagnate, or don't allow a player to progress (Portland with Jermaine O'Neil, T-Mac in Toronto), those players will cease to develop. It's up to Portland to keep things fresh and growing, but not to do so much shuffling that any chemistry is stimied. 

Thanks for the topic, Goldmember.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Public Defender said:


> Wow, has this thread ever strayed from its well-intentioned roots of discussing whether or not the Blazers have a sound strategy or not.
> 
> Personally, I think goldmember raises a good question and there's a facet to it that I think everyone is ignoring.
> 
> ...


Rip Hamilton was traded to Washington in exchange for Jerry Stackhouse. Man did the Wizards get hosed in that deal. You also forgot Ben Wallace, I think he's the MVP of that team, gives them toughness.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

> Nate has shown me that he is a very good, maybe great coach, so far here. *Last year he took one Super Star player and some good players to the second round folks. I think we have better players than Seattle had and will be better than Seattle was inside of two years. *
> 
> Call it optomism (?) if you want but I don't think this plan has been tried and we do have the richest owner in Pro Sports.


eh, it was part Nate, part Ray, & part that everyone besides maybe 4 or 5 players were free agents.....& Rashard had a breakout season, as did Vlade....AD too I guess. Magical...yeah, I think so. Nate knew he wasn't coming back & supposedly (according to Sports Radio 950 KJR personalities) said things to those guys that he wouldn't say if he were to come back---what he said, I don't know, but seeing him this year compared to last, he seems more relaxed this year, last year he was tense & pissed off looking all the time, even when they were winning, & in his postgame interviews too....

last year, like this year (with Bob Weiss & a different system, one I can't stand btw) the team was one of the best offensively, & it's better offensively this year....whether that's coaching or that we just have very good outside shooters, I don't know. Oddly enough, Ray & Jerome James carried the the Sonics to the 2nd round---JJ was averaging a double double, & I'm sure that wasn't part of Nate's gameplan going into the playoffs, it just happened. I guess Jerome knew a GM would pay him money he wasn't worth if he had a good off season. Ray lit up Sacramento's poor defense. 

So anyway, Seattle didn't have the best players, for sure, but they did have one of the best SG's & 3 pt shooters (who wanted a big contract extension btw), a versatile SF that can hit lots of 3's & in the post, one of the better rebounders in the league (Reggie) who plays with all heart/hustle no matter the coach, & some other guys. I credit Nate for the good rotations, halftime speeches, & defining each players roles very well. Weiss is clueless on how to use certain players.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> How many good players in the league started out slow, learned the game, and prospered with the team that drafted them? I can't think of any. Maybe Gary Payton and that's about it. If you look at all the top players in the league who didn't make an immediate impact, none of them are with the team that drafted them. Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Tracy Mcgrady, just to name a few.


Actually, Steve Nash IS with the team that drafted them.

But I'm with you. We've become a farm team. There are two kinds of players on the Blazers:

1) Fat Cats= These players played well for a short stretch of time so as to earn a multi-million dollar contract. Now that they're getting paid, they are coasting. Miles, Randolph, Ratliff- all of whom played better before the big contract.

2) Prospects= These players are using their Blazer gig as an opportunity to impress a bunch of other teams that they'd rather play for. All these guys want to do is to get their stats so that they can get paid and advance their career elsewhere. Webster, Telfair, etc. Even Pryzbilla.

Well, I guess there is a third category too: Just Happy To Be Here- see Ha

Go Blazers. Watch Bones.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

NathanLane said:


> 2) Prospects= These players are using their Blazer gig as an opportunity to impress a bunch of other teams that they'd rather play for. All these guys want to do is to get their stats so that they can get paid and advance their career elsewhere. Webster, Telfair, etc. Even Pryzbilla.
> 
> Go Blazers. Watch Bones.


But...we drafted Randolph. So, evidently it's possible to keep the young prospects around. So we CAN keep Webster and Telfair, if they prove they're worth keeping.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Backboard Cam said:


> I disagree with that completely.


So you are saying that Outlaw could not make a bunch of other teams right now? The Blazers are fat at SF and Outlaw still gets PT. He played a lot of PF last year and held his own downlow. He could play 2 guard for some teams. Outlaw is talented enough to last in the league right now.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Public Defender said:


> Wow, has this thread ever strayed from its well-intentioned roots of discussing whether or not the Blazers have a sound strategy or not.
> 
> Personally, I think goldmember raises a good question and there's a facet to it that I think everyone is ignoring.
> 
> How often do players truly reach their potential with the team that drafted them? And if they do make it all the way with one team - is it in part because that team changes significantly in order to effectuate that elevation?


I don’t think it’s a good point. If you ask me its just typical fans of a below 500 team with young talent overanalyzing everything. Lost of teams have built dynasties with free agents lots of teams have built them with the draft. There are plenty players like Shawn Kemp, Dirk Nowitzski(sp) and Rashard Lewis who grew slowly on one team. There are plenty players that benefited from going elsewhere. The bottom line with Portland is that they are two stars away from being a contender right now. I’m serious. You put a young Reggie Miller on Portland and a prime Kevin Garnett and you have a dynasty. Heck Webster could even be that young Reggie Miller so they might be one player away. People are just overanalyzing. Miles and Randolph are already close to being top ten at their position and Przybilla is at least a top ten center in the west. Blazer fans just have to wait and enjoy watching a fairly entertaining team.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

From the original post, it sounds like every young player on our team started out with our team. Blake and Dixon aren't exactly on the brink of retirement. Zach doesn't seem to be doing too bad. Miles didn't start out his career with us.

Yes, it could be true for Outlaw, Telfair, and Webster, but we definitely have other players that are the opposite of this case. Isn't this true for a lot of NBA teams though?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

2k said:


> The bottom line with Portland is that they are two stars away from being a contender right now. I’m serious. You put a young Reggie Miller on Portland and a prime Kevin Garnett and you have a dynasty.


Yes, but that's true of every team (except the ones with two stars already). The crowds are only a few thousand empty seats away from being a sellout. I'm only 2 feet shy of being 8 feet tall. A woman is only a Y chromosome away from being a man.

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Backboard Cam said:


> But thanks to the Youth Movement, the Blazers players have probably seen those movies. Martell was only 14 when the first one came out.
> 
> Ready or not, here they come!


I just happened to see this on the blazers official website:



Martell Webster said:


> Last night me and Darnell (Valentine) went to see that new Harry Potter movie, it was great, there is a second half to it that will be coming out soon, so I’m looking forward to checking it out.


barfo


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Weird.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

2k said:


> So you are saying that Outlaw could not make a bunch of other teams right now?


What I disagree with was this:



2k said:


> Outlaw is good enough without improving to make an NBA team for the next 8 years.


Understand that I am a big Outlaw fan, and I want him to succeed- but he is NOT "good enough without improving to make an NBA team for the next 8 years." I don't even think I need to support that statement- he is not that good. The proof is what he does in games, and he's not there right now. I'm not saying that he won't ever get there, but the odds are against him and he doesn't seem to be proving the odds wrong. 

If the Blazers give up on him this offseason or next, he'll probably get a contract with another nba team. But it wouldn't be a huge contract, he is still unproven. Potential can only go so far, and Outlaw doesn't have the same potential that Miles used to have.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Backboard Cam said:


> What I disagree with was this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can name a lot of players that have lasted in the league with less talent and versatility. If Patterson was not playing so well he would be getting 20 minns a game but lately Patterson's play has benched Outlaw. He would get a lot more minns with a team like the Lakers that lacks the forwards.



barfo said:


> Yes, but that's true of every team (except the ones with two stars already). The crowds are only a few thousand empty seats away from being a sellout. I'm only 2 feet shy of being 8 feet tall. A woman is only a Y chromosome away from being a man.
> 
> barfo


There is a difference from being a contender and a dynasty. The Blazers are two stars from a dynasty and there are couple players who might be that one star. Malone and Stockton would have won a bunch of rings with McMillan, Miles, Randolph, and Przybilla and Portland does not even need that type of talent.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> There is a difference from being a contender and a dynasty. The Blazers are two stars from a dynasty...


How exactly do you support that belief? I can't really argue with it, because there's no underlying logic that I can see to contend with.

Dan


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

Let's get this straight, if not for the miraciously horrible, Late-game 76ers, they would've swept us. Worse then that, imagine, Miami or the San Antonio Spurs. I think you are over-rating our roster to the finest. If anyone can win a world championship(s) with Darius " **** you" Miles on the b-ball team, I'd say it be LB no one else otherwise. Zach Randolph, by no means is super-star player but he's nice, and seemingly Przybilla is having a 'decent' year. This will NOT defeat the current Detroit Pistons, not even close. The Miami Heat? Well I can name about 5 all-stars: Shaquille O'Neal, Dwyane Wade, Gary Payton, Alonzo mourning, James Posey (I can tell he'll break out in Miami). Portland, wouldn't come close, hell, they'd be scared to light up Red Auerbach's cigar, for fear of being burned. BTW, how old is Red? Can he return to coaching? It'd be nice for the league if he could.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

dkap said:


> How exactly do you support that belief? I can't really argue with it, because there's no underlying logic that I can see to contend with.
> 
> Dan



What I’m saying is that Portland is one or two young Hall of Famers from being a dynasy. A lot of teams reach a level in which they are contenders but cant take the next step. An example of that would be the Knicks with Ewing or Philly today. Porltand is in a position in which it would be easy to make some deals and trade a couple of their younger players and they would have a team that could win about 50-60 games. That team would be a fringe contender in the playoffs. They would be older so they might not have that initial core talent for more then five years. The riskier but potentially more promising scenario would be to keep the talent they have and build slowly in the draft while looking to deal veteran players like Patterson and Ratliff. This scenario would probably put them back in the lottery in 07 or the middle of the draft but if McMillan could keep the team together and focused 06, and 07’s picks and a minor trade or two combined with the development of some of the players they already have would give them a possible dynasty. 

Its tough to build with the draft. Some teams spend a decade in the lottery before they reach pay dirt but Portland has some advantages other teams don’t. Portland has money and some good young talent already, they also have a coach. I have seen Portland trade away players like Drazen Petrovic and Jermaine O’Neil just for a quick fix that makes them a stronger contender for a year or two.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> What I’m saying is that Portland is one or two young Hall of Famers from being a dynasy.


I'm aware that's what you're saying. What I questioned is the rationale. Just because we have more young guys than most teams doesn't mean we can easily turn them around for star players. We're no better off with the salary cap than others and Portland has never been a hot spot for established stars. Like barfo said, any team in the league that isn't already "there" is just two young star players away from being the best. It's a hollow argument. It's long been established that two stars is a great formula for winning NBA titles.

Dan


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

2k said:


> I don’t think it’s a good point. If you ask me its just typical fans of a below 500 team with young talent overanalyzing everything. Lost of teams have built dynasties with free agents lots of teams have built them with the draft. There are plenty players like Shawn Kemp, Dirk Nowitzski(sp) and Rashard Lewis who grew slowly on one team. There are plenty players that benefited from going elsewhere. The bottom line with Portland is that they are two stars away from being a contender right now. I’m serious.


I think the point was "what's the proper formula for putting the right players together to make a great team?" And I think the question of whether or not players need to move or not is a valid question to ask. Whether or not Goldmember is right, is what I discussed I never said he "had a good point." I said he "raised a good question." I think if you read closely you'll see that you and I raised several of the same points. 

BTW: My bad for forgetting Hamilton's roots in Washington. Silly me.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

dkap said:


> I'm aware that's what you're saying. What I questioned is the rationale. Just because we have more young guys than most teams doesn't mean we can easily turn them around for star players. We're no better off with the salary cap than others and Portland has never been a hot spot for established stars. Like barfo said, any team in the league that isn't already "there" is just two young star players away from being the best. It's a hollow argument. It's long been established that two stars is a great formula for winning NBA titles.
> 
> Dan



How often do you see teams with a couple stars, or even perennial allstars and hall of famers never reach the finals. That’s been the Blazers story for the last 20 years. The difference between the Blazers of today and other teams is that Portland is headed to the lottery for at least one year and they already have a few potential stars and a player in Randolph who close to being an allstar right now. The Blazers have an odd concoction of talent. They are strong in areas where its tough to find talent. Its tough to find a PF that score with his back to the basket, and its tough to find a center that can grab 15 rebounds as often as Przybilla, and before Miles went down he was finally playing to his potential. 

I think it would be pretty easy to trade for some good vets that could help Portland win now. Indy is about to just give Artest away. The Blazers have a lottery pick in a draft that’s loaded with big men. That pick could score them a quality guard. Webster, Khryapa, Telfair, Ha and Outlaw could score Portland some vets that could help them win sooner then later if they wanted to make a deal.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> How often do you see teams with a couple stars, or even perennial allstars and hall of famers never reach the finals.


Utah is the only one that comes to mind, and they only failed because they ran into a Bulls team with two even bigger stars.



> That’s been the Blazers story for the last 20 years.


Hardly. Remember "Two Deep vs. Too Deep?" The Blazers have only had two true superstars in the past 20 years, Drexler and Walton. They've been successful through team depth, usually losing out to the teams with more star power (Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, etc.).



> The difference between the Blazers of today and other teams is that Portland is headed to the lottery for at least one year and they already have a few potential stars and a player in Randolph who close to being an allstar right now.


1) This doesn't look to be a great year to be in the lotter.

2) Every team has a few potential stars. Until that potential is realized, it's meaningless.

3) Zach puts up all-star numbers but is nowhere near a franchise player at the NBA Championship level yet. He'd be a great 3rd cog of a superstar-led team, but he's not the one championships are built around.

Dan


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

2k said:


> How often do you see teams with a couple stars, or even perennial allstars and hall of famers never reach the finals. That’s been the Blazers story for the last 20 years.


1992 was only 13 years ago.










How many teams have not reached the finals since 1992? How many allstar players have not? Lots and lots.

I'm not really sure what your argument is. Every nba team is two hall-of-famers away from a dynasty.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

dkap said:


> Utah is the only one that comes to mind, and they only failed because they ran into a Bulls team with two even bigger stars.


Utah is the only team to do it for a decade but there are always teams that have a couple big time players and never win a title. That’s the norm in the NBA. There are always teams with a couple stars that are too good to fall into the lottery and not good enough win with the talent they have. The Blazers are in a unique position because they are close to having playoff talent now. They just lack the chemistry; experience and they have had injuries. Also the west is pretty deep too. So even though the Blazers have this talent they are still on their way to the lottery for at least one more years.



> Hardly. Remember "Two Deep vs. Too Deep?" The Blazers have only had two true superstars in the past 20 years, Drexler and Walton. They've been successful through team depth, usually losing out to the teams with more star power (Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, etc.).


They had Pippen and Wallace. Add a young Wallace and Pippen to this Blazer team. The problem was that the team was old and lacked the defesive commitment of the Pistons. They were only young enough for a few runs, and again they were too good to fall into the lottery but they had talent. Bad trades and age killed that team. If those players were still together in their prime I think they might have won a couple titles. Ahh I digress Sabonis and Steve Smith in their prime is asking for too much.




> 1) This doesn't look to be a great year to be in the lotter.


For big men I like it. I would love for Portland to add Shelden Williams or that Itallian player. The Blazers need a big man who can defend and score. Not at an allstar level but well enough so Patterson does not play the 4 and Ratliff can sit the bench.



> 2) Every team has a few potential stars. Until that potential is realized, it's meaningless.


And it means a lot when it is. Everyone knows the ying and yang to that argument. Its jut a cliché. 
Portland is different. The Blazers have much more potential then the average team with such a record as theirs. If you just dismiss potential as some cliché you are being naïve to the type of roster the Blazers have. The Blazers aren’t supposed to win with this team. If you draft a player out of highschool and you are expecting them to help you in the first two or three years you are making a mistake. 





> 3) Zach puts up all-star numbers but is nowhere near a franchise player at the NBA Championship level yet. He'd be a great 3rd cog of a superstar-led team, but he's not the one championships are built around.
> 
> Dan


That’s probably true.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Backboard Cam said:


> How many teams have not reached the finals since 1992? How many allstar players have not? Lots and lots.
> 
> I'm not really sure what your argument is. Every nba team is two hall-of-famers away from a dynasty.


There have been quite a few teams that have had two hall of famers and did not win with them. Most of the time one of the Hall of Famers is past their prime or the rest of the team is no good.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Utah is the only team to do it for a decade but there are always teams that have a couple big time players and never win a title. That’s the norm in the NBA.


Who? Name a team with two Hall of Fame players who were at least somewhat in their prime (Pippen and Sabonis, if he ever makes it in as the start of the Int revolution, don't count) and couldn't win a title. Barkley was just entering the league and Dr. J near retirement... Anyone else that I can't think of?



> The Blazers are in a unique position because they are close to having playoff talent now. They just lack the chemistry; experience and they have had injuries. Also the west is pretty deep too.


This is by far the weakest the West has been since the Bulls were reeling off titles. The Blazers have a lot of redundant, middle of the road talent. Nothing more. Except for PF, we're 2-3 deep at every position of players that are pretty much interchangeable and none of them sure-fire starters for other teams. I don't consider that close to playoff talent.



> Portland is different. The Blazers have much more potential then the average team with such a record as theirs. If you just dismiss potential as some cliché you are being naïve to the type of roster the Blazers have. The Blazers aren’t supposed to win with this team. If you draft a player out of highschool and you are expecting them to help you in the first two or three years you are making a mistake.


That seems to contradict your position. If drafting HS'ers and expecting them to contribute on their rookie contract is a mistake, how can a team full of them be only two star players away from a dynasty, when all that youth won't be coming into their own until the established stars are likely on the downside of their window of opportunity?

On average, most young players will become average... There's no evidence that Portland's youth is different, just wishful thinking.

Dan


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

dkap said:


> Who? Name a team with two Hall of Fame players who were at least somewhat in their prime (Pippen and Sabonis, if he ever makes it in as the start of the Int revolution, don't count) and couldn't win a title. Barkley was just entering the league and Dr. J near retirement... Anyone else that I can't think of?


The old Lakers teams with West, Wilt, and Baylor, The Warrior's run TMC, and the old nuggets teams with Issel, English, and Vandeweghe might have had three or at least two. Kemp and Payton may both see the HoF. Heck even todays Sonics might have two HoF. Lewis has had many 40 point games. He is one of the best SF's in the west and Allen is a lock. Kidd and Carter might both see the Hall. Sabonis will likely make it for his international career. Put Randolph, Patterson and Przybilla on those teams and they have a good chance of getting over the hump.




> This is by far the weakest the West has been since the Bulls were reeling off titles. The Blazers have a lot of redundant, middle of the road talent. Nothing more. Except for PF, we're 2-3 deep at every position of players that are pretty much interchangeable and none of them sure-fire starters for other teams. I don't consider that close to playoff talent.?


The West is not very top heavy but damn they are deep. Every team has at least 10 wins. Its easier for a great team to reach the finals but its tougher for a team like Portland to make the playoffs. You rarely see a team with as much talent as Seattle fighting to make 500. Denver has a lot of talent too but that is the state of the West. The Northwest is not weak its deep. A lot of teams in the Northwest lack chemistry but they dont lack talent and they beat up on each other. There are no pushovers in the West. There was a time when the Clippers, Nuggets, Warriors, and Grizzlies were passing out wins.




> That seems to contradict your position. If drafting HS'ers and expecting them to contribute on their rookie contract is a mistake, how can a team full of them be only two star players away from a dynasty, when all that youth won't be coming into their own until the established stars are likely on the downside of their window of opportunity?



I don’t see the contradiction. To me that makes a lot of sense. You add two hall of famers and the guys I named above will help you win now, the younger players will help you win later. With the right chemistry that’s a potential dynasty and that’s all us fans can ask for. I don’t think they will magically add two perennial allstars or Hofers but do to the fact they have as large a pull of potential as any other team in the league and they are headed to the lottery I like their position. By the time they add more talent other players will have improved.



> On average, most young players will become average... There's no evidence that Portland's youth is different, just wishful thinking.
> 
> Dan




There is a major and obvious difference. Most teams have a couple players they expect significant improvements from. With the Blazers its ¾’s of the roster, the players I named above are already good enough to start on a championship team, and they are young enough to be part of a dynasty.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

2k said:


> There is a major and obvious difference. Most teams have a couple players they expect significant improvements from. With the Blazers its ¾’s of the roster, the players I named above are already good enough to start on a championship team, and they are young enough to be part of a dynasty.


Blazer managment is undoubtably crossing all their fingers and toes that the young guys they've selected and locked up finacially start making major improvements... their employment depends on in. 

Ruben, Joel, and Randolph are capable of starting on a championship team? Sure I guess, but you're going to need to add some pretty major pieces to make that the case... MJ or Duncan types. Thats the wishful thinking part IMO. The next lotto is thought to be very weak, and Portland has no FA dollars to lure difference makers to a market UFAs historically don't come to. It's also very likely that Joel walks after this season and Rube the season after that, making the half empty Blazer boat (missing only the HOFers) even more spacious. 

I think the club is likely to look up at 500 for at least a season or two past this one.

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> The old Lakers teams with West, Wilt, and Baylor, The Warrior's run TMC, and the old nuggets teams with Issel, English, and Vandeweghe might have had three or at least two. Kemp and Payton may both see the HoF.


A lot of these players you mentioned aren't Hall of Famers and most likely won't ever be....The old Lakers players all were...but Tim Hardaway, Chris Mullin and Chris Webber won't be hall of famers....Vandeweghe, was an all star but not a hall of fame type player...Kemp won't be and Payton arguably won't be....

Meanwhile, teams like the Pistons who have no players who will likely be Hall of Famers and the Spurs who have one future hall of famer and a bunch of good role players have been winning championships recently..


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

STOMP said:


> Blazer managment is undoubtably crossing all their fingers and toes that the young guys they've selected and locked up finacially start making major improvements... their employment depends on in.
> 
> Ruben, Joel, and Randolph are capable of starting on a championship team? Sure I guess, but you're going to need to add some pretty major pieces to make that the case... MJ or Duncan types. Thats the wishful thinking part IMO. The next lotto is thought to be very weak, and Portland has no FA dollars to lure difference makers to a market UFAs historically don't come to. It's also very likely that Joel walks after this season and Rube the season after that, making the half empty Blazer boat (missing only the HOFers) even more spacious.
> 
> ...


The next lottery is strong in one of the two areas the Blazers need help. There is plenty depth at the PF/C hybird position. Also I just picked Rube because he would be a great Kurt Rambis type player on a team with talent but really he is still a backup. 

Portland has rarely let players that contribute walk in free agency unless they wanted the cap space. The only way Portland would let Joel walk is if they had their eyes on another center and that’s unlikely. The last player that I remember Portland losing that they really wanted to keep was Robert Pack.. The Larry Bird rule should help the Blazers keep him.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> A lot of these players you mentioned aren't Hall of Famers and most likely won't ever be....The old Lakers players all were...but Tim Hardaway, Chris Mullin and Chris Webber won't be hall of famers....Vandeweghe, was an all star but not a hall of fame type player...Kemp won't be and Payton arguably won't be....
> 
> Meanwhile, teams like the Pistons who have no players who will likely be Hall of Famers and the Spurs who have one future hall of famer and a bunch of good role players have been winning championships recently..


With the Warriors the M in run TMC was Mitch Richmond. Richmond has a good chance. For years he was a top 5 SG on a bad team and made allstar game after allstar game. My point with the two hall of famers might be misinterpreted. I don’t think they need that much talent but what I’m saying is that they only need a couple pieces and with all of the potential they may have one of the pieces. Then when you consider how young the team is and how diverse and spread around the potential and actual talent is it makes more sense to stay the coarse even if they could make deals that would help them win now.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

2k said:


> There is a major and obvious difference. Most teams have a couple players they expect significant improvements from. With the Blazers its ¾’s of the roster, the players I named above are already good enough to start on a championship team, and they are young enough to be part of a dynasty.


Unfortunately, I don't have hard numbers for any of the following analyses, so I used the official BBB.net data tool: I made the numbers up. If you disagree with them, feel free to provide your own guesses for the right numbers, or better yet, references to actual data.

Ok, so we've got 10 or 12 guys who could improve. There are 30*15 = 450 players in the NBA today. Maybe 50 guys enter and 50 guys leave the league each year. Of the current 450, there are what, maybe 50?, who could be considered stars. There are about 150 who are scrubs and rarely get off the bench. Then there are another 250 who play but are neither stars nor scrubs.

So, a random guy _currently in the league_ statistically has a 1/9 chance of being a star and a 1/3 chance of being a scrub. But that doesn't mean a young guy entering the league has a 1/9 chance of becoming a star - the chances are much lower than that. If everyone was average, according to the numbers above, everyone would be out of the league after 9 years. But we know that's not true, some players have much longer careers and some much shorter. Thus to consider whether a young guy will be a star in a few years, we have to factor in the chances he won't even be in the league in a few years. Let's say that 1/2 of the young guys wash out before reaching the age of stardom (which I'm saying is maybe 5 years in the league). So then the chances of stardom have been reduced from 1/9 to 1/18.

Finally, we have to recognize there is a correlation between stardom and draft ranking. It isn't random at all. Certainly there are exceptions - yes, Jermaine was drafted #17, yes, Steve Nash was #15, yes, LaRue Martin was a bust. But those are _exceptions_. The general trend is that higher draft picks do better. Tim Duncan went #1. Jordan went #3. LeBron went #1. KG went #5. AI went #1. What fraction of stars were not lottery picks? I'll guess only 10%. That reduces the chances of our young non-lottery pick to just 1/180. [We do have 4 lottery picks: Miles, Webster, Joel, and Telfair, who statistically have a higher probablility of making it than the others on the roster]. 

Put all that together, we have 10 or 12 mostly low draft picks which we are hoping become stars. What are the chances of having one of group - any one - turn out to be a star? Maybe 20-25%. Two stars out of the lot? Maybe 5%.

The hope for the future rests not on the statistical probability of us having lots of guys who might turn into stars, but rather on the possibility that Nash is an uncommonly good judge of talent, and that he was able to draft guys that should have been taken much higher. That, and pure dumb luck, which I suspect may be our only real hope. Luck happens, let's hope it happens to us.

barfo


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

2k said:


> The next lottery is strong in one of the two areas the Blazers need help. There is plenty depth at the PF/C hybird position.


Plenty??? sure. Strong? You're welcome to your opinion (and I sure hope you turn out to be right) but both what I've seen from the college players and impressions I've gathered from the sites that cover the international talent disagree with what you're saying. Outside of Bargnani and Aldridge there is very little real (big man) talent in the next draft and only Oden in the next... plenty of possibilities but not much in the way of realized talent. Heck, I'm more optimistic about the pro potencial of Sinanovic and Ha than I am of those other birds in the bush like Sheldon Williams and Splitter. 



> Portland has rarely let players that contribute walk in free agency unless they wanted the cap space. The only way Portland would let Joel walk is if they had their eyes on another center and that’s unlikely. The last player that I remember Portland losing that they really wanted to keep was Robert Pack.. The Larry Bird rule should help the Blazers keep him.


You're confused here as Portland does not hold Joel's Bird rights. He is an UFA after this season and the most they'll be able to offer him is the full MLE. Others will be able to offer him much more. Resigning with the Blazers could mean leaving tens of millions on the table.

STOMP


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> ..You're confused here as Portland does not hold Joel's Bird rights. He is an UFA after this season and the most they'll be able to offer him is the full MLE. Others will be able to offer him much more. Resigning with the Blazers could mean leaving tens of millions on the table.
> 
> STOMP



In essence, there probably would have to be some awfully big _winks_ involved.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

STOMP said:


> Plenty??? sure. Strong? You're welcome to your opinion (and I sure hope you turn out to be right) but both what I've seen from the college players and impressions I've gathered from the sites that cover the international talent disagree with what you're saying. Outside of Bargnani and Aldridge there is very little real (big man) talent in the next draft and only Oden in the next... plenty of possibilities but not much in the way of realized talent. Heck, I'm more optimistic about the pro potencial of Sinanovic and Ha than I am of those other birds in the bush like Sheldon Williams and Splitter.



Bargnani is the only big man that I see as a possible star in the at the next level. Portland will have a chance at him. They could also draft and trade Morrison or another one of their SF’s for help down low. I’m not sold on Splitter either but I would rather have Shelden Williams then Aldridge. He had his way with Aldridge head up and Williams is polished and defensive enough to help out sooner then later. 




> You're confused here as Portland does not hold Joel's Bird rights. He is an UFA after this season and the most they'll be able to offer him is the full MLE. Others will be able to offer him much more. Resigning with the Blazers could mean leaving tens of millions on the table.
> 
> STOMP


What I’m saying is cant they resign him with the so he would be protected by the rule outside of 2006 which should be the last year the Blazers have cap problems or just give him a contract that pays fat in 2007 and 08. I do worry about his home town Timberwolves I could see them paying bank and it is his home town.


----------

