1) Blake. 2) So you pulled the Qyntel card, eh. Oldest trick in the book. You still haven't disproved my (apparently challenging) thesis that it's not at all obvious we should hold on to all young players who may or may not turn out well, since doing so blocks development of others in the same boat.
Supposedly?.... interesting. And who would you have taken at 15? You remember, of course, that we actually DID trade for a mid-first pick and selected Babbitt at #16. Rudy potentially has much more value than a mid-first pick in a weak draft. What was the incentive to unload him for table-scraps? Rudy can do whatever he likes, as long as it doesn't involve playing for another team until his contract runs out. He can jump on a plane, he can fly back to Spain. Of course, he will forfeit two years of salary, and I suspect he can't afford to make that sacrifice or he already would have. Rudy is 25 years old. He can't afford to throw away two years of playing while he's in his prime. That would be extremely foolish. He only had one option and that was to return to Portland, play his ass off, and wait for a trade. He could wait the two years and return to Europe, but I suspect Rudy still wants to prove he can play in the NBA, and that's why he's throwing such a huge fit. He left all that money on the table for a reason.
Disprove what? At this point we know that Bayless has talent. We know he has potential. He has proven it at various points of his first two seasons in the league and the playoffs last year. What has Williams shown? He's an unknown. He didn't even play in the summer league. You're going to trade or bench Bayless in favor of a complete unknown? Really? You're vastly under-rating Bayless' potential, and tossing him in under the wide-sweeping statement of "all young players who may or may not turn out well". Let me break it down for you: All young players who may or may not turn out well = Williams, Johnson, Patty Mills, and Babbitt. Rotation players who have earned their minutes = Bayless, Cunningham, Rudy, Matthews Core rotation players who play the bulk of the minutes = Roy, Miller, Aldridge, Batum, Camby, Oden (when healthy), Przybilla Do you honestly believe that Williams, Johnson, Mills, or Babbitt deserve minutes over Bayless at this point?
Your 1st paragraph: I guess i didn't make myself very clear. I anticipated your saying he's worth more than that, with your hidden assumption that he stays. So I discussed how easy it would be to leave. If that happens, a mid-1st will seem like a lot, compared to the nothing we will have gotten. Your 2nd paragraph: I guess I didn't make myself very clear. I anticipated your saying that he will sacrifice pay if he leaves, so I said he'll probably fight our slave possission of him in court. (It's the recent agreement between FIBA and NBA to honor each other's contracts.) If he convinces a European court to take jurisdiction, they will rule in his favor and let him out of the 2 year nonsense. If the NBA fights him in a court (of either country), the league will turn ordinary Europeans against future NBA visits, expansion, and sales of merchandise (jersies, trinkets, etc.). The league will shoot itself in the foot with lost revenues if he takes it on in a court--of any continent. He'll probably win if it's in Europe and lose in the US. But either way, the league will lose big revenues. So they will settle (=he will win for himself, but not for future players).
It's an American contract, so I don't see how he's going to be able to fight it in Europe. He might be able to sue FIBA, but I don't see how that's going to hold much water. He signed the contract with the Blazers. That contract is honored by the NBA and FIBA. They are private organizations. He has nobody to blame but himself. Textbook slippery slope if I've ever seen it.
I anticipated your forgetting what we're talking about, so I repeated it for you. See the words after "You haven't disproven my thesis that" in the quote in your own post. I don't know what you're arguing with yourself about, but what I'm arguing is that the following general statement isn't always the best way to go, because you have to keep moving some of the players out so the ones under them can rise up. In the very next post, someone agrees with me in principle, that the underlings will become a problem if they see no room to move up.
No, the international contract is between FIBA and NBA. He can sue in Europe on the basis of employee rights. The unions there will back him (=pay for the lawyers). In fact, if something that happens this season riles him up enough, he can have his agent try to get the NBA union on his side. My point is that even if he's going to lose a court fight, the millions it will cost the NBA (lawyers, lost merchandising, lost goodwill in Europe, lost expansion) will cause Stern to settle with him. My overall point is that your assumption that he'll definitely stay is not assured, and so maybe we should have taken the mid-1st rounder, even if he's worth more.
The contract he would try to overturn, of course, would be the recent agreement between the two leagues to honor each other's contracts.
This is absolutely true. And it's a problem if you believe that the players behind Bayless are as or more talented or might be. Personally, I don't think any of the three players you mentioned are as talented as Bayless, so I'm fine with that opportunity cost. Every minute allocated to any player, even Roy, has an opportunity cost. That isn't an argument against the concept that it's worth being patient with someone who's young and talented but may not be the perfect fit at the moment, since the team can afford it, being set in the starting lineup. It's simply a constant reality that can only be dealt with via talent evaluations from the coaches/front office.
Because you still thought it long past the point I thought it reasonable. (And actually, for all I knew, you still thought it. I obviously hadn't been paying attention.)
Thing about talent: it's not a single-axis kind of thing. Bayless is certainly more talented than any of those three at several things. But he's also less talented at several others. The question is, is he more talented in areas we need, or areas we're already well-stocked? Here's what I think is true of Bayless: he's a very useful backup to Brandon Roy if Roy gets injured, because he can drive to the basket and get fouled with the best of them. What he ISN'T very good at, is what he's currently being made to do: run the offense. I think it's fairly obvious that Johnson is already better than Bayless at (1) Running the offense (2) Playing guard defense. Now, Bayless is a better shooter than Johnson and Williams (although not Babbitt, I'd bet a fair amount). Is that enough to warrant playing him as backup PG? I don't think so. I think part of the reason Bayless will get minutes ahead of Johnson is because he's "earned minutes" (by playing hard, being a good soldier, filling in fairly well for Roy in the playoffs) and because Nate, being old-school, believes in the Pecking Order. But I don't think he deserves them, certainly not at PG.
How is it relevant to this thread? Also, I thought it only after the 2007-08 season, just after Bayless had been drafted. At that time, Rondo hadn't been all that impressive. Midway into the next season I changed my opinion and said so (unprovoked) in a thread we were talking in (and you responded to it, so definitely saw it). So, you didn't think I still thought it. You just decided to go for a random shot at me, since we disagree on Bayless. I guess you take enough random shots (though not from me) on all the European players you tend to be wrong on, though.
Other than the fact that they were both flashy backup PGs with big holes in their games? Neither really knows how to play basketball, I guess...
Just because I responded to it didn't mean it registered. Okay, okay, I apologize for needling. Can I help it if I'm a prescient talent evaluator? Me-OW. Since you keep better track than me, perhaps you can point me to some obvious errors I've made about my Euro-loves.
Agreed, we can break down talent among various facets of the game. When I refer to "talent" in a monolithic fashion, I'm referring to overall effectiveness. There were things that Blake did better than a prime Shaq, but I'm comfortable saying that Shaq was more talented. My point/opinion was exactly the opposite: we don't necessarily need to worry about fit, because the team is deep enough and well-rounded enough overall to absorb using a roster spot on a player who may not be an ideal fit but is more talented (than the other young options on the team or than what the team could currently get for him in trade). As I said earlier in the thread, if Portland could get an equally talented player who fits better, that's fine...though you and I surely will differ on who is "equally talented." However, I'm not in favour of downgrading the talent represented by Bayless in order to get a player who fits better. In the end, the most talented teams win, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think a team (that is trying to compete) should ever leave talent on the table (either by swapping talent for fit in trade or by drafting need over talent). A good front office should always maximize/preserve talent while swapping pieces around to create a team that fits.
Kitty haz claws? You and me both. Rudy Fernandez and Sergio Rodriguez for two. Navarro is another. If we expand this to non-US (rather than simply European), Oberto fits in.
Those are just names. What are the errors? I believe I was one of the first to point out that the comparisons between Rudy and Manu were way overblown because Rudy can't dribble anywhere close to Ginobili's ability. And I don't think Oberto's going to get ANY PT as soon as either Joel or Greg is halfway healthy, and haven't ever thought that. Talking of Sergio, he's having fun in Europe again, something that's probably another thorn in Rudy's flesh. (Oh: and just to prove I don't love EVERY Euro: I'm pretty sure that Claver's a total scrub. Every time I check up on him he looks worse. I don't think he'll make the next Spanish team, because San Emeterio and Carlos Suarez will supplant him.)
How many recent young ex-Blazers went on to blow up for other teams? Blake? Outlaw? Telfair? Monia? Khryapa? Qyntel? Rodriguez? Green? Dixon? The only two that come to mind are Zach Randolph and Jarret Jack. And that's an extremely loose definition of "blow up," because Randolph mostly just did what he always did (score, rebound), and Jack has just a slightly above-average PER. Neither is really a "Jermaine O'Neal"-type example. In fact, it's really instructive that Portland fans always reference O'Neal when worrying about losing a talented youngster, or missing out because he was buried on the bench. People, that was a full decade ago. And as has been pointed out, it's not like we didn't get anything good for him. You may criticize Nate and Cho (and Pritchard before him) for many things, but notice how hard it is to pin "poor young talent evaluators" on them? (At least when we get the players on the roster. Drafting, of course, is more debatable.) Just look at the track record. Until they prove otherwise, I think you have to go with what they want to do. If they think Bayless and Armon are both worth keeping around, it's hard for me to see how you can argue otherwise. Eventually they'll make some big mistakes (everybody does), and then I'll be more circumspect. But man, just look at the recent track record.
The errors are that you thought all of those players would be good NBA players. So far, none of them have been, though Rudy was solid for one season. We all have our minor successes in the midst of an overall failure. Even when I said I wouldn't trade Bayless for Rondo (back before the 2008-09 season) I did say that I thought Rondo was an excellent defensive player. Score.
To add to my point, I think there are far more examples of where we were committed the sin of over-valuing young players than under-valuing. Imagine if we'd traded Rudy or Sergio when they were at their peak value. I think Sergio was worth a top 10 pick at one point, maybe top 5. Rudy was definitely worth a top 5 in his rookie year when he was busting the three pointer record. Ditto with Qyntel Woods and Zach Randolph and Bonzi Wells. Remember how many panties got in a bunch when we threw in Khryapa with Tyrus Thomas to get Aldridge? I specifically remember people saying, "I'd just hate to see Khryapa go Jermaine O'Neal on us!" Seems pretty laughable now, right? Nobody remembers much the trades that didn't happen. Seeing Jermaine O'Neal go for 20/10 in Indiana sticks in the memory because it's a powerful visual. A young Amare Stoudemire not playing in Portland because we never offered them Randolph or whoever for his draft pick isn't. But in hindsight, I'd say holding on to our guys when the Amare pick was rumored to be available was a bigger mistake than dumping Jermaine. So the next time you hear somebody say, "Oh god, I just don't want to see him go Jermaine!" think to yourself, "You also don't want to see him go Sergio."
