2006 was a very different year for the Blazers - they had a crappy team and had to roll the dice as much as possible with the hope that one of these guys will turn into stars. It turns out that it was the obvious choices - Roy/Aldridge that did come out of it - but since no one was sure at draft time - it is not a surprise that the Blazers did all the wheeling and dealing later in the draft to get Sergio and Petteri. In 2007 they had a good draft pick in Rudy (not a star, but a good player for sure) and a home run in the Batum pick after. When you analyze the deal with 20/20 hindsight - you also have to remember where the team was when the selection was made. They have gone for high-risk, high-reward - and these things either turn fantastically well - or crap all the way. They needed to go that way in 2006 for an obvious reason - so crying about passing on a role player at the time (even if Milsap turned out to be a very good role-player) - just has to be done when you remember why the selection was made.
I disagree on the timing. The tide turned when Josh Childress got more money to play in Europe than he was offered in the NBA. That really highlighted that playing in the NBA was no longer the financial windfall it once was and that if a guy you drafted and stashed to develop in Europe actually did pan out, he could very well make more playing there than in the NBA. Here's some relevant comments I made when we drafted Claver: Claver is years away from being NBA ready - and if he has any success in Europe, he'll stay there where he can make more money. We should have just traded out of the first round and taken him at 31. Also, if Claver stays in Europe for another year or two and shows promise, he'll likely get offers from European teams that will far exceed what he would get under the NBA rookie salary scale. If he was a 2nd round pick, we'd be able to bid against the European teams for his services without the limit of the rookie salary scale. So, drafting him in the 1st round actually reduces the chances he'll play for the Blazers down the road. BNM
That's not 100% true. We lost the opportunity cost of taking someone productive (like Paul Millsap) with that 30th pick and as a first round draft pick Freeland also counted as a cap hold of about $1 million against our available cap space even though he wasn't under contract with us and has never played for us. We would have fared far better if we would have taken Millsap at 30 and Freeland at 31, where as a second rounder there would have been no cap hold and we would not be limited to the rookie salary scale when competing for Feeland's services against teams in Europe. Of course, since six years (at the minimum) will have passed before we sign Freeland, he will no longer be subject to the rookie salary scale limitations, but in general, you can offer more money sooner to a second round pick than you can to a first rounder due to the rookie salary scale imposed on all first round picks. So, if you think that player you plan to stash to develop on Europe may actually someday be good enough to play in the NBA, you're better off taking him in the second round than the first. BNM
No, but Millsap would have been a better pick - and if the Blazers REALLY wanted Freeland, they could have taken Millsap at 30 to address an immediate need and Freeland at 31 to stash in Europe for the future. BNM
woulda coulda shoulda, not sure where you are going with all of this, only one team got milsap, it wasnt us, i suggest we all move on
No, that's a dumb strategy, for this reason: a low first rounder is very likely to be a big waste of money. A large proportion of them never pan out (go back and look!), and they get three years of guaranteed money. If you pick an American kid, you're stuck with him (unless you've got the nads to do what Jerry Krause did with Travis Knight and just let him walk for nothing). If you pick someone in Europe then it's win/win: if he turns out to be good, you bring him over when he's good, and you get the value of a higher draft pick for a low one, without having to pay to develop him. If he turns out bad, then it costs you no money. The second round, on the other hand, is the place to go for the good four-year college player who's short for his position or who might be a good role player. Then you can get him in camp and decide if he's good, and YOU set the terms of his contract. There's a reason that San Antonio has pursued this strategy for years. Sure you whiff on a few Millsaps, but getting one of those is blind luck. You've dug up text of yourself advocating drafting Milsap - great. But full disclosure: let's see ALL the players you've EVER advocated us taking.
You forgot one angle, however: Marketing. Much-hyped international players create more intrigue and interest than decent but not great college ones, and that sells tickets.
At any rate, I wouldn't expect him to want to play for a team that has already convinced themselves he's mediocre and will never improve and announced it to the world.
agreed. This is why I've been advocating Portland drafting a foreigner in this upcoming draft. Not only are they picking pretty late, but the draft is thought to be especially weak sauce. Then again, maybe they'd want another smallish contract on board to help flexibility in trades? For reference, Elliott Williams was drafted #22 last year and is due about 10M over 5 years. STOMP
There is some sense in what you say, but here's what can be said in response: 1. Good Euro players have come over nonetheless. Navarro came over, Spanoulis came over, Rudy came over. All of them were total rockstars in Europe, but they wanted to try out the NBA. Now Rubio is coming over. 2. We don't know what the new CBA will say. 3. The economy is tanking in Europe much worse than it is here. Two of the countries most affected? Spain and Greece, the only countries whose salaries can even come close to rivaling the NBA minimum (for a small fraction of players). 4. Childress came back, you notice. 5. You're assuming Claver would have been available at 31. You have no way of knowing that, and in fact, it seems unlikely, given the number of teams who practice the Eurostash method with low first-rounders (the red-headed stepchild of draft picks).
The vast majority of college players taken at the end of the first round tend to suck in the NBA. The same is true of international prospects. That's simply the nature of the end of the first round: most players taken there are not likely to be successful in the NBA. So your best chance to actually mine a good NBA player at that point is not to limit your pool by things like need or nationality. You take the guy who you evaluate to have the best talent, whether he's a US collegian, a player from another country or a big man when you have five All-Star centers.
Minstrel: I think it's a little more complicated than that. College players are (a) so much better scouted and (b) age limited. It's still possible to draft teenagers from overseas (if they declare). If a player falls to the bottom of the first it's either because every other GM has decided he's not worth it or because they're not prepared to take the risk on a youngster that won't pan out. But taking a foreign youngster isn't a risk, because you keep him over there and don't have to spend money on him. BNM keeps going on and ON about Milsap because he's one of the TINY fraction of second-rounders who turned out to be slightly more than a role player (now that Arenas and Michael Redd aren't looking like such shining examples any more) but the numbers of players just like Milsap who were Mil-crap are legion. It's almost certainly the same % for foreigners taken low (Ginobilis and Marc Gasols are rare) but they don't cost anything until you want them.
If cost is a consideration, I agree. "Euro stashing" is a better gamble. Perhaps having had Paul Allen as the owner of my favourite team has inured me to cost considerations, but I tend to think in terms of opportunity cost, not cash cost. The risk of taking a teenager (European or not) who busts is a wasted draft pick. I'd like to maximize draft picks as a cap (distinct from cash) effective way to keep refreshing talent. So, to me, missing on a draft pick (not getting any on-court value) is a pretty bad thing, even if you didn't waste money. Therefore, I'd rather gamble on whichever player I think is likely to provide the most on-court value for the team. If that's a European player, that's fine. If it's a college player who may not be properly appreciated (or may have dropped for injury concerns, even if his talent is good) so be it...even if it means potentially wasting some money. In some sense, that's a risk that's easy for me, a fan, to accept, since it's not my money. I'd like to believe that if I were a multi-billionaire owner, I'd feel the same way. Maybe not.
