Well if you missed it I'm sure they will replay it about 300 times. Basically he said endlessly he didn't criticize Charlie Villaneuva, her was bashing the pick by Rob Babcock. It's still a load of crap as far as I'm concerned. The guy wants to make up a story after the fact because he looks like a moron along with the rest of his analyst panel. Charlie is still BAT at his pick and he's developing nicely, considering some of the picks behind the raptors that didn't look too great and the fact that we got ripped on was garbage. The guy wanted to turn Rob Babcock (an easy target) into a nice sound bite and he did it. Greg Sansone actually asked some pretty good questions but apparently steven a. Smith's comprehension of the english language is bordering on negative because he couldn't answer anything. Sample (not exact quotes): Sansone: What do you think of the panel criticizing the villaneuva pick and then suggesting Joey Graham instead? Doesn't what played out in the draft contradict the panel's analysis? Steven A Smith: I've been in sports journalism for 12 years. nice comeback … it was funny to hear Sansone talk about instand pannel analysis being a bunch of reactionary talk and then asking smith to respond to it … which he did – with a typical sample of his usual garbage.
YES, I just saw this. And i was actually laughing because he's not even answering the questions straightly. And damn straight that you're Toronto's #2 hater. #1 is VC of course. He's pushing all the comments over to Babcock now, so just to tell you what a fool this guy is. It's nice to see that Charlies still have love for him, and that he didn't do the same thing to him. I will try to find some source, it was a good interview.
Smith can stick with that argument as long as he wants, but all of his criticisms of the pick have turned out to be false. First he meant that Villanueva was a reach at that position. But CV's been arguably the 2nd best rookie out of this draft. Then he says that he had a problem with them choosing someone at the same position as Bosh. But, Charlie's played great at the 3 and complemented Bosh well. Any moron can bash someone that's been fired already. Try to make a logical argument, Stephen.
I don't think anyone questioned Villanueva's ability to play. Everyone knew he was a talented player, but they did, question his desire to play. Villanueva played very lazy at UConn and with a couple of million dollars in his pocket, no one knew how he would play. Knowing this, I still think Danny Granger would have been the better pick, especially since Villanueva would have most likely been available by the time the Raptors picked 16th. I'll give Charlie his props though. The real test will be if he keeps it up for the rest of his career. We'll see.
His comments were taken out of context anyways. Although I didn't like the way he voiced his thoughts during Charlies big moment, his arguement and opinions seem justified. Raps fans took it out of context and bashed him because they thought he was saying something bout Charlie and his ability to play.
I'd still disagree ... his agrument was that our daft pick was rediculous move - which as it turns out it wasn't. Now he's clarifying himself by making statements on things he never said ...
I remember watching the draft, and all SAS said was that Villaneuva was drafted too high. The panel also discussed the fact that the Raps already had Bosh, so why pick CV? He obviously wasn't the only one that had that initial reaction. Look at this thread from draft day: http://www.justbball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39280 I think it's easy to look back and call him an idiot for questioning the pick, but that's because you have hindsight on your side. Stephen A. is an idiot, but not because of this.
LoL, its hilarious reading everybody's reactions to that pick. I definitely succumbed to some of that early shock, but at least I was willing to reserve my judgment until I saw him play. The main problem I had with Smith's opinion was that it was at a much bigger stage than JBB. Other commentators tended to look at the possible position conflicts and issues over his work ethic, but Smith just put too much emotion into it. I remember thinking that it sounded like he had a bigtime grudge against Babcock and Charlie, because he sounded so angry. I thought it was especially classless, because the rookies can hear the broadcast too. On side note, I'd say the Granger vs. Graham debate has to go to Voodoo Child.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting MrJ:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think anyone questioned Villanueva's ability to play. Everyone knew he was a talented player, but they did, question his desire to play. Villanueva played very lazy at UConn and with a couple of million dollars in his pocket, no one knew how he would play. Knowing this, I still think Danny Granger would have been the better pick, especially since Villanueva would have most likely been available by the time the Raptors picked 16th. I'll give Charlie his props though. The real test will be if he keeps it up for the rest of his career. We'll see.</div> except that granger said that he didnt want to come to toronto. babs wanted to draft players that actually WANTED to be here.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting a13x:</div><div class="quote_post">I'd still disagree ... his agrument was that our daft pick was rediculous move - which as it turns out it wasn't. Now he's clarifying himself by making statements on things he never said ...</div> From his conversations with Babcock, we drafted him and planned to play him with Bosh, interchanganble at the PF/C spots. Mitchell and Embry were the ones that wanted to draft CV and plan to have him with Bosh, interchangable at the Forward spots. Babcock wanted to draft Antoine Wright, so it was basically Mitchell and Embry overulling Babcock. To Raps fan on this forum, most Raptors fans wanted to kill Babcock after we picked Villanueva (me being one of them), so lets not be hypocrites and act like we actually thought it was a good choice at the time. Stephen A. had a reaction that was common for many fans.
Well, I was actually one of the ones who finally realized that it was a good pick a couple of days later. I'll admit I didn't like the pick, but I knew it wouldn't be another Rafael Araujo fiasco. Props to me.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting P.A.P.:</div><div class="quote_post">From his conversations with Babcock, we drafted him and planned to play him with Bosh, interchanganble at the PF/C spots. Mitchell and Embry were the ones that wanted to draft CV and plan to have him with Bosh, interchangable at the Forward spots. Babcock wanted to draft Antoine Wright, so it was basically Mitchell and Embry overulling Babcock. To Raps fan on this forum, most Raptors fans wanted to kill Babcock after we picked Villanueva (me being one of them), so lets not be hypocrites and act like we actually thought it was a good choice at the time. Stephen A. had a reaction that was common for many fans.</div> I understand where you are coming from and the PF/C idea is stupid, I agree. But we can't take picks and just mold logic around them why we can / can't blame the gm for their results ... in the end he ultimately has to be accountable. While I would like not to give Babcock credit for the picking Charlie I think it's only fair that we do. No one blames Jack McCloskey for picking Arujo. Everyone did bash the pick when it came out. My initial reaction to the pick wasn't positive either - but it made a lot more sense once things moved down the board and the guys we thought we were going to draft at the first spot were still available with the 2nd. It definitely took a while to consider it legitimate though. The difference between what we have on the board here and SAS is that at least the people here can admit they were wrong ... he just wants to play the situation off and act like he made an argument which he never used in the first place...
I don't think Smith is trying to change his story. I looked up his exact quote, and this is what I found: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> "That pick makes no sense whatsoever. When you think about the fact this team got hoodwinked when they traded away Vince Carter virtually for nothing," ESPN analyst Steven A. Smith said. "We sit here today wondering what on earth Rob Babcock is thinking. What is he doing?" </div> http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/20...cock050629.html
I'd type it out but my point is basically what Chutney said above... <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">Smith can stick with that argument as long as he wants, but all of his criticisms of the pick have turned out to be false. First he meant that Villanueva was a reach at that position. But CV's been arguably the 2nd best rookie out of this draft. Then he says that he had a problem with them choosing someone at the same position as Bosh. But, Charlie's played great at the 3 and complemented Bosh well. Any moron can bash someone that's been fired already. Try to make a logical argument, Stephen.</div> Oh, ya and his interview was crappy too .. he couldn't even get to the point or explain any of his actions ... All he could say is "I've been mis-quoted" "Charlie can ball man, I never said he wasn't a good player" ... funny he never mentioned that on draft day - or clarified it after until it was clear he was wrong and he just wanted to cover himself …
It was quite entertaining, and annoying at the same time. Looking back at the draft thread, all i could do is laugh. And it looked like CV was Mitchell/Embry's pick not babcocks(which i said in the draft pick thread last year).
He totally ripped Nesterovic, lol... he's a pretty good guy (Nesterovic). Steve had some good points though.
charlie can play i am sure almost everybody knows that however it's the work ethic that is questionable the moment toronto drafted him especially with their first of the two picks If charlie was drafted 16th, then i don't think people will bash loud maybe smith probably will still since he is a moron i believe the beloved former GM stated that he grabbed charlie knowing that he will be grabbed sooner than the 16th pick anyways, i still think toronto should have gotten granger if not with the 7th, then at least...the 16th? the draft pool coming up this summer is not super deep hopefully colangelo can do something meaningful with it either draft an explosive but not selfish guard and/or trade down or just sign and trade mike james
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting hohoyoyoyo:</div><div class="quote_post">charlie can play i am sure almost everybody knows that however it's the work ethic that is questionable the moment toronto drafted him especially with their first of the two picks If charlie was drafted 16th, then i don't think people will bash loud maybe smith probably will still since he is a moron i believe the beloved former GM stated that he grabbed charlie knowing that he will be grabbed sooner than the 16th pick anyways, i still think toronto should have gotten granger if not with the 7th, then at least...the 16th? the draft pool coming up this summer is not super deep hopefully colangelo can do something meaningful with it either draft an explosive but not selfish guard and/or trade down or just sign and trade mike james</div> Granger was expected to go no later than the 9th pick (Warriors). I'm still not sure to this day why he slipped, but more likely than not it was because of his past injury problems.
