Technically you guys are right. Get the best value. But lots of late round footaball players make it on a 53 man nfl roster. Not many late second rounders make it in the NBA. I would much rather have our guys get the guys they want then fuck around and get cute and miss out on someone, just for a useless 2nd round pick.
With much smaller rosters, you don't need nearly as many draftees to "make it." I don't think the difference in roster sizes or hit-rate on draft picks between the NFL and NBA changes the good sense in trying to maximize the talent/value you get from the draft. You want as much talent as you can get. You can use free agency and trades to balance the roster.
Which is why I assume the Blazers drafted Nolan Smith when they did. They likely weighed the consequences of getting better "value" (which I think is a dumb concept, anyhow, since draft value is largely based on people outside of the NBA), and decided their best value was to draft Smith at #21. The other explanation is that the Blazers are a bunch of incompetent boobs, and as you know, I'm willing to consider that possibility as well.
If the Blazers thought Smith was clearly the best talent available at #21 and that there was a major risk of him being gone at any lower pick they could have acquired, then I have no philosophical problems with the selection. We'll just have to wait and see if they were right.
After thinking it over, I have a third theory; they weren't lying so the fans wouldn't know how much they gave up; they were lying because they did something against the rules. I think Denver demanded that they switch picks without a formal agreement (presumable so they could pay Faried a little less). I'm thinking this is a violation of NBA rules; there is probably a rule that all the subagreements in a trade need to be presented in writing to the league office, so the Trailblazers could be in trouble if this got out. It's also possible that the players union could make a stink on behalf of Faried. I think this theory also explains why the Blazers took Smith so early. They could not trade down with this pick because they had to be there at that spot to insure that Denver could select Faried. Is this theory plausible? I don't know. I don't want to think that Blazers were so desperate to make this trade that they let Denver really bend them over, made them bend the rules, and put them in a position where they had no room to maneuver with their pick. But to me, this theory makes more sense than anything else.
Me, neither. I might disagree with their opinion, but I totally acknowledge that I haven't spent 1% of the time that they have in researching players. I don't hesitate, though, in complaining about the PROCESS of their decision-making. If he was the best player at 21... OK. I'm not sure that the quote from Buchanan would have been made, though, if that was the case. They didn't trade up to get Smith. They just waited for him. The quote seems to say that the Blazers know they might have been able to get him later, but he was so important to him that the could not risk losing him... and that maybe there were better players at 21, but that they wanted Smith so they took him there. Both of those decisions (procedurally) are bad ones. Ed O.
I know it's all we have to go on, but there is a danger in reading too much into the quotes. The quote might mean their process was flawed as you suggest, but it might also be intentionally or unintentionally misleading. barfo
