At doing what we need them to do - which is play hard defense and rebound? Sure. Frye was allergic to rebounding and defense. Ike was allergic to defense. The fact that they were stars in the Pac-10 means nothing. The Stache was a star in the Pac-10. Sarunas Jasikevicious was a mega-star in Europe with multiple Euro-league championships and MVP awards and he was not worth much in the NBA because he was not good enough to be a mega-offensive star in the NBA (like Frye/Ike) and he was allergic to defense (like these guys, playing a backup role and needing to play defense). (Surprise - this is exactly what happened to the Stache as well - not good enough offensively to make a difference in the next level - but no athletic ability/toughness/interest in defense to find another role). Like Landry and Hayes (who went un-drafted, did not even make it in the 2nd round) who thrive in this role in the NBA? They were not stars - but they are hard-nose, tough guys that are not afraid to fight for rebounds and play defense. Every once in a while you have a Bunny that goes mental and start biting - but if you are looking for someone to bite - it might be better to start with a Buldog, even if the bunny was voted "most likely to succeed" in his high-school... What you agree and expect is very nice - but not relevant to the situation. What we have here is a case of the organization telling us they wanted to get tougher, knowing that a backup PF is an issue and deciding that Frye and Ike were not the answer (as anyone that actually paid attention noticed). The worst that could happen is that these guys are just as bad as Frye and Ike - but we have a bunch of pretty decent basketball minds managing the team that think they are worth a try - at a much lower cost than these converted bunnies were. Sounds like a nice option to me.
Sigh. With that logic, who are we to say Martell Webster over Chris Paul and Deron Williams wasn't right. Hey, Nash knows more than you and he evaluated every possible scenario. Obviously, we made the right decision. Look, I hope I'm wrong. I hope Claver comes in and kicks ass, Pendergraph is the bees knees, and the others come in and dominate. No one else believes that, and I'm going to have to see it before I believe it. Part of the problem is that we may never know. It is very possible that Claver and Cunningham never gets a shot at PT. OTOH, suppose I'm right, KP messed up. No big deal, really. Everyone messes up. What's frustrating me is that people want to pretend he didn't, and are being illogical and often self-righteous in their defense of him.
Sorry. He was a college star somewhere else. Who cares. The idea is clear however. Just because someone was a star at a lower level playing a different role - does not mean that he will make it playing a reduced role that requires different skills at the next level. The analysis and interpretation are just wrong.
Well you answered the 1st part, it was Nash not KP that picked Martell so why mock me and act like I'm an idiot. We were talking about KP. So on one hand people are being illogical and self righteous in defending him, but what about the other extreme. Aren't some people already assuming he f*cked everything. How can we possibly know is all I'm trying to convey. And if KP messes up, which he will on some draft picks, it happens. But at least it is not on guys that are crucial to our franchise. He nailed the important picks and orchestrated some pretty clever trades to make it happen. These are role players anyways and possibly could be a part of a trade this summer. And for the record, I'm not sippinng the KP Kool Aid. I will criticize him if things don't pan out but why get up in arms over players drafted that no one has seen play is my point.
Still dont understand why soo many people feels Sergio is "garbage". I think he is a very talented, young PG and was always very high on him. Unfortunatly he just didnt fit Nates system and therefor never got to realize his potential. On the right team, he is gonna florish. Anyway, I give this draft a C+ on the surface, based solely on the picks we got. I was a HUGE Blair fan and couldnt believe we passed on him 3x!!!! But I like Pendergraph a lot and think we may see some good things from him.....may even turn into a stud backup someday. But, I would be shocked if the real action doesnt take place in FA soon. By the way, when does FA start? When can we start expecting some moves?
You can talk to them starting July 1, and sign them on the 8th I think - but do not quote me on that 2nd part.
Not every star makes it in the NBA, but stars are MUCH more likely to succeed in the L than mediocre college players. There's some math involved there, if you need proof. I don't think it's a matter of fear. It's a matter of capabilities. Pendergraph and Cunningham were not that good even in college. I don't think they will make a difference in the NBA. There's no WAY that it's the "worst that could happen". The worst that could happen is that both Pendergraph and Cunningham aren't nearly as good as Frye. As bad as Frye was last year, he still had moments of productivity. Until I see it work, I don't think that using a pair of high second rounders on middle-of-the-road college players trying to find another hardworking overachiever as a backup power forward is a good strategy. I hope I'm wrong, but at least for the purposes of this thread I have been asked to grade the draft, so what I agree and expect IS relevant to this situation. Ed O.
And we would have even more money for free agency if we would have traded out of the 1st round instead of using the pick on a guy who may never play for us - he still counts against our available cap space during the off season. We already hold the rights to a guy who is bigger and put up much better numbers in the same leagues as Claver. And we're getting ready to renounce his rights to free up a little more cap space. Freeland is less than a year and a half older than Claver. He put up much better numbers than Claver, against the same competition this year. Freeland's numbers were better last year than Clavers were this year (so better production at a comparable age). And, as a 30th pick, Freeland's cap hold is smaller than Claver's as a 22nd pick. Freeland was basically a young guy with potential who panned out - and as a result will never play for the Blazers. Which makes him a wasted pick. What's to prevent the exact same thing from happening with Claver? If he doesn't pan out, he was a wasted pick. If he lives up to his potential, he'll get a lot more money to continue playing in Europe and will likely never play for the Blazers - which again makes him a wasted pick. Yep, I do. Three years ago we passed on Paul Millsap as 30, 31 and 45 - and have lived to regret it. Prior to the 2006 draft, I wanted the Blazers to take Millsap at 30 or 31 (and can provide links to prove it). Passing on him was a huge mistake. This year, I wanted the Blazers to take Blair. I would have been happy taking him at 22, but passing on him at 31 and 33 was a huge mistake. It will come back to haunt us, just like passing on Millsap and letting him fall into the lap of a Western Conference rival was a huge mistake three years ago. I think Pritchard has done a great job over all, but he is far from perfect. He has made mistakes in the past, and I think he failed to learn from them and repeated two of them yesterday. Time will tell, but I doubt Viktor Claver will ever play a regular season game for us. And, I'm absolutely 100% confident that DeJuan Blair will be much more productive, contribute more, and have a greater impact this coming season than Perdergraph and Cunningham combined - and it's not like he's going to some crap team where he will put up big numbers in a losing cause. He's going to a Western Conference power where he will be a back-up power forward - the same role he would have played in Portland. BNM
Again - you are ignoring role. Being a movie star does not make one automatically a racing driver (even if Paul Newman was). These guys were stars in the Pac-10 based on their offensive production - which is not the role we need from our backup PF. We need tough defense and rebounding in this position. These guys were not tough defenders in the Pac-10 and only one of them was a good rebounder. Frye offered us production as a jump shooter - which quite frankly - we will likely get from other members of the team - be it Rudy, Webster upon his return or elsewhere - but they did not provide good rebounding and defense production. Frye's defensive win-score this year was 0.8 in 750 minutes. For a reference - Sergio, who is a horrible defender gave us 1.1. On the other hand, Chuck Hayes, who was never a star and went un-drafted - in 850 minutes gave Houston 1.7. Frye's rebounding rate was 11.6%, Hayes gave the Rockets 17%, Landry who is much smaller pulled down 13.6% of the rebounds. These guys did not give us the production we needed at the position - and their salary was much higher than what we will pay these new guys. There is no way we do not at the least break even - if you actually consider the fact that the extra cap space might allow us to get someone like Brandon Bass who was not a great catch as far as defense and rebounding - but is head and shoulders better offensively...
Agreed. Pendergraph and Cunningham were both 4-year players who were mediocre as college seniors. Frankly, if you can't dominate by your 4th year in college (with all the good players leaving after one or two years), I see little hope that you will amount to much at the next level. Brandon Roy was a 4-year college player, but as a senior he was 1st team all-american and Pac-10 player of the year. He was a dominant player as a college senior. As a senior, Cunningham couldn't even make 1st team all conference in the Big East (that honor went to sophomore DeJuan Blair - who was also conference co-player of the year) and the only reason Pendergraph made 1st team all Pac-10 was they changed from 5 players on each 1st, 2nd and 3rd team to 10 players on the 1st team and 5 on the 2nd for the 2008-09 season. Under the old system, he would have been 2nd team all Pac-10. BNM
And you're ignoring that hardnosed rebounders and defenders are a dime a dozen in college. For every Landry and Chuck Smith there are tons of guys who aren't big or athletic or good enough to fill that same role in the NBA. Not because they aren't tenacious or motivated enough... just that they're not good enough. I would rather have a player that is capable at BOTH ends of the floor, rather than one (or two, as we drafted yesterday) who are going to be incapable of helping offensively. I would rather have one player with an exceptional skill (rebounding, for example, or shooting) than a player who just works hard. I would rather have a young player overseas who might develop into something important down the road than a guy who will almost certainly never be a starting level NBA player. I also am not excited about relying on a rookie or two to man the backup power forward spot on a team that is claiming the window for winning a championship is currently open. Ed O.
See - but here is where your argument fails - you argue that statistics show that stars at lower levels are more likely to succeed in the next level - and this is correct when you predict the future. It is absolutely means nothing when you actually look at the past and at individual players. We already know, for sure, that Frye and Ike failed as NBA players on the Blazers at the position we needed them. The worst that could happen is that the Graph and Dante fail as well - but at a cheaper price. So - in the worst case scenario - we replaced a couple of garbage guys for another couple of garbage guys that cost less and gave us more cap flexibility right before the time we needed to use that cap. Brilliant! And you might get that through the extra money made available for the cap. Oh please, if no changes are made - these guys are going to be the 3rd backup PFs on the team - just like Frye/Ike were last year (behind LMA/Outlaw). They mean very little change if no changes are made - but - the extra money gives us the option of upgrading either this position (or others that are more important, like perimeter defense). It is really not that complicated. It all comes down to your assessment of these guy's success potential vs. the team's assessment. Given that they have done very well so far in their draft picks and given that they had more information than you had - I personally am not that upset. You obviously have the right to continue being upset - and maybe you will be proven right. Who knows.
BRAVO! This should be required reading for anybody who wants to try and defend the Claver pick. The only point you missed, is that Freeland is healthier than Claver.
was Freeland coming back from ACL surgery? I'm pretty sure that the thinking is that he wasn't up to snuff last year. STOMP
No, he wasn't. I'm not sure I get your point. Weren't Claver's ACB stats from BEFORE his knee injury? From DraftExpress: "Claver was the definition of an opportunist before losing the vast majority of his season to a knee injury." Freeland is less than a year and a half older than Claver, taller, and much more productive playing against the same competition. He's cheaper, fills a need and isn't damaged goods - and we're going to renounce him to free up a cap hold that is smaller than Claver's. BNM
