Dejounte Murray isn't their 14th or 15th player--he's a rotation player for them. Granted, he's a more interesting player than Portland's counterpart (Shabazz Napier?), but he's not really comparable to a player who won't be on Portland's active 12 man roster. After waiving and stretching Nicholson, Portland still has an open roster spot with Connaughton on the roster. So he's not even an opportunity cost at this point. Are there two players you think the Blazers can reasonably sign who would be better than Connaughton? We probably also have to consider Portland constrained not to add any significant net (after deleting Connaughton's minimum) salary, since it appears that they don't want to be in the luxury tax til they re-sign Nurkic.
I'm only arguing about this because there's fuck-all else Blazer-related to talk about, but if there AREN'T better people out there than there are a lot fewer decent players than I believe there are. Obviously Gutierrez is a better player, but the argument against signing him is that we have Shabazz (who can shoot but who is smaller, a much worse defender and not really a PG) but we're thin on the wings. So yes, there are better players (TONS) certainly playing in Europe (and that's just the Americans). I think keeping Connaughton is the fallacy of sunk costs. I'm just glad I'm not the one paying him OVER A MILLION DOLLARS. In fact, I have to avoid talking about money in the context of sports, otherwise I'll never be able to enjoy it.
No, it was RJ that they were playing at PG. He's terrible at it, but at least better than Connaughton.
I don't think they're concerned about Connaughton's salary--if they had cut him, they would have been free of his salary, no? I don't think this is a case where the money was already spent so they decide they might as well keep him and play him. I think they're more concerned with better players than Connaughton costing more and pushing them further into the luxury tax. I can understand not really want to talk about money when it comes to sports, but if that's a constraint Portland is operating under (which may or may not be a wise constraint), then that's where we are*. I personally don't think Connaughton is significantly better or worse than other team's inactives and I think he has a chance to provide most of what Crabbe did (which is not a high standard to meet). *Is "that's where we are" any better than "it is what it is?"
Why? Its not Pat Connaughtons' fault they aren't on an NBA roster. He is a 14th/15th man on a min contract. He is appropriately paid for his role and his ability. There are worse players making a lot more money. BNM
Listened to some Blazers podcast earlier this year (can't remember which) and there was a lot of focus on Pat, and two recurring themes kept coming up: 1. He's a natural leader. Eh, I know, leadership doesn't mean much if you aren't NBA-level talent, but if you see that trait in a guy who also has a lot of athleticism and some NBA upside, well, it's an intangible that tips the scales over another guy with similar stats. If somewhere down the line he develops into a Derek Fisher-level utility player, well, it's nice to know he's got that ability to bring along younger players on the team down the road. 2. He sees Allen Crabbe as his role model for sticking in the league. Work hard, develop a bankable skill or two, and that contract will come. If you look at Crabbe's three point shooting in 3 years of college (.382) and Pat's 4 years (.386) you can kind of see how he connects those dots in his mind. In Pat's mind there's a template for success, and I think it's pretty realistic (as compared to, say, Meyers Leonard, who seems to just drift with the wind.) I'm also a big believer in trajectory. Crabbe had a nice little growth curve. CJ and Dame did too. Not just in scoring but overall production over multiple years early in their careers. It can be a small, incremental stat improvement that just sneaks up on you. In Pat's first year, he played 4mpg and had a PER of 4. In his second, he was trusted with 8mpg and had a PER of 11.8. The PER is less important than the minutes, in my mind--the coach actually saw more ways he could help the team the longer he was on our team. That's encouraging. Does that mean he plays 16mpg this year with a PER or 22? Probably not. But he improved from his first season to the second. Seems pretty likely he can do that again. (A complete absence of even the smallest incremental trajectory in Vonleh and Meyers is why I've pretty much given up on them.) I'm glad we picked him up for the year. There's limited downside, he seems like a positive personality on the bench, and I think given the lack of pressure on him and the opportunities he'll see this year with Crabbe gone, he's got a good chance to get to be a Crabbe-level utility player.
Part of those sunk costs, though, is the investment in teaching the guy your system, and bringing him into your culture. You are probably right that there are other guys with similar talent out there at the same age (or even younger), but when you factor in that Pat knows his role, knows what the coaches and star players want out of him, well, it's probably going to waste less of everybody's time to just bring Pat back. The opportunity cost of dumping Pat for somebody who might have slightly more talent is real. It's not massive, but for a fringe position I can see why the team might prefer to go with the player they know. Between Nurk, Vonleh, Meyers, Harkless, Swanigan and Collins, Portland has a lot of young guys with upside they need to focus on developing. Pat's professionalism and experience means Portland doesn't have to worry about integrating somebody new.
One other thought--Portland really seems to have a great three point shooting culture. Between Dame and CJ, you've got two of probably the top 5 three point shooters in the league, and Crabbe was the most accurate in the league last year. Portland guards are going to hit their threes. Pat took 33 last year and made 51% of them. Given that Crabbe didn't do much of anything else beside hit wide open threes (at a phenomenal rate, to his credit) you can see how the Front Office probably just figured they could get the same production as Crabbe at 1/18th the price.
So we make a move with 0 repercutions whatsoever and people still find a way to get pissed about it Aaaaah, sports fans
Year-over-year, Vonleh's MP, TRB, and most importantly his FG% have seen incremental improvement each season. More significantly, Vonleh showed significant statistical improvement from the first half of the year to the second half. Check out his splits through the end of January as compared to after Feb. 1: It's like night and day. Does that meet the threshold of incremental improvement? Definitely much too early to give up on him. Now Meyers--that's a different story...
Drtg going down is a good thing. The TRB% decrease was almost imperceptible (17.0 to 16.6)--it basically stayed consistent. Steals and blocks are a very minor part of his job, so who really cares? I didn't say he improved in every facet of the game, so that's a pointless nitpick, but it's indisputible that he improved overall.
Eh, given his featured role as a starter, getting to play major minutes with our best players this year, I'm not really sold on his improvement. I'm particularly not impressed with his stats raising with the arrival of Nurkic--I think that says a lot more about Nurk than it does Vonleh. Having watched Swanigan and Collins in SL and some youtube highlights, I'm not convinced at all that he's better than either of those guys. His best year was actually his rookie season (after which his former team was so impressed they dumped him for Batum). So his trajectory looks great if you just forget he was better 3 years ago. He reminds me a lot of Webster, Outlaw, Jack....you see him do a little better when given more of a role but it's not like it's mind-blowing. Does that sound hypocritical given my endorsement of Pat? Maybe, but then Portland isn't handing over to Pat the starting position for a year. Vonleh got that. That's a golden opportunity, and in the end he was maybe the 4th or 5th worst starting PF in the NBA. You shouldn't get to be that bad as a starter multiple seasons, even if you are young.
His rookie year was basically garbage time for 25 games--that's not even worth looking at. On a different team in a different system with a different role. Claiming he was better then is just silly. And still, his actual efficiency (not PER) has increased significantly since then. And yes, his youth is a factor. He is still at this moment younger than Pat was before he got drafted. Way too early to give up on him or claim he hasn't improved. Not saying he's a star, but he's a player.
Eh, if we'd given Pat the starting role for 82 games I'd be a lot harsher in my judgment. But Vonleh shouldn't be compared to Pat--his yardstick is our rookies. Vonleh got a massive opportunity last season and I just don't think he proved it was worth it. It's not like we had any better options, so I'm not angry. But this season is a hell of a lot different--we (very rightly) drafted two bigs who will hopefully ensure we don't make the same mistake a second season. If Vonleh comes out in practice and somehow beats out Collins and Swanigan, well, that's great. More power to him. But if he gets handed the starting position again by default, well, fuck that. He, Collins and Swanigan are basically in a wide-open contest for the job, IMO. If I had to put money on which one of those three is least likely to be in the league in 5 years, it's Vonleh hands down.
