You make a lot of sense. I like the kid who has never set foot on an NBA floor over a two time MVP or a walking tripple double and future HOFer.
Way to avoid the question. And the issue of age. And to spell "triple". (Presumably you mean Kidd when you say "walking triple double". Perhaps you mean "triple double with a walker". Hey, maybe Magic's ready to unretire again!)
Well.. if anything, this continuing argument between rookies and win later vs. veterans and try to win now has been entertaining. Seems like a very divided issue. No more rookies!
rookies are fine, but not at the expense of core guys in a WEAK draft. It would cost TOO much to get Rubio..I am all for adding a rookie every year with our pick or moving up a little bit, but the continuous flavor of the month gets old, who will it be next year? John Wall
I don't care if the draft is weak or strong... I consider Rubio to be the best PG prospect since Chris Paul, and one of the best since Magic Johnson. If you think Rubio is the "flavor of the month", then you haven't been paying attention to NBA prospects over the last three or four years. Rubio has been considered a can't-miss prospect along the lines of James and Oden. Which definitely does NOT guarantee anything, but is markedly different from some international prospects (like Tskitishvilli and even Darko). Ed O.
They didn't expect Chandler to need surgery on his ankle. Ignore that, and focus on the role player they brought in this season.
I don't consider Rubio even close to Paul or Magic. Those are very high expectations, Ed, even with the "prospect" caveat you were sure to include. Both consensus #1 players. Why is Rubio slipping to #5 if he is a once-in-a-generation talent? You said the Blazers should get him if they have any chance. Short of you being specific, I have to assume you feel Rubio is a franchise/title type player and a future MVP. I don't see it, and I don't see how anyone looking at what he's "accomplished" in Europe can feel that way.
His contract issues and his distain for the organizations who have displayed a lack of competition in the NBA. That's why, it's not hard to tell.
Ricky Rubio... CP3 and Magic-like? wow.. Those are quite lofty expectations. Basically Rubio could potentially be the MVP of the NBA?
We don't expect Aldridge to get hurt. Or Roy to miss the year with a knee injury. Shit happens, and I think it's stupid to give away future chances on the off chance that nothing bad will happen this year. Ed O.
No doubt. No doubt that they ARE high expectations, and no doubt that you aren't quite willing to agree with me on them. Haha. To be fair to me, I said once-in-a-generation European. I don't think that he's superior to Chris Paul, who's in his generation. As to why he's not #1: PGs rarely go number one. Ask Chris Paul (#4 overall in spite of a good track record and lots of expectations/hype). Further, Rubio has potential contract issues, he has options unlike those of most top prospects (in terms of simply never coming to the NBA) and the top couple of teams appear to be quite unappealing to him. I can definitely see him becoming that, yes. Next year, at age 18? Almost certainly not. Three or four years from now? If he's not an all-star I will be moderately surprised. He's a unique player in the history of basketball... he has been playing against grown men since before he turned 15, and he has never disappointed at any step of his career. I don't see how anyone can look at his career to date and NOT see how he might be a special, special player. Ed O.
I would rather have a current all-star now than a future all-star... because I'm looking at the net present value of players, discounting future production. The current team COULD win it all if a key piece is added and if nothing horrible happens. I just don't want to bank on that alone. I'd prefer to add the best possible piece(s) in terms of net present value, because I think that will give us the best return over time. Adding a future stud might not pay off in the next year or two, but adding a veteran might not pay off in the next year or two, either. There are no guarantees. And, to address the injury question in terms of wanting to win now: while the odds of a player getting hurt for a significant chunk of the season are low, they are MARKEDLY higher than that same player having a career-ending (or even career-impairing) injury. I'd just tend to rather not put all my eggs into the "win now" basket. Ed O.
The window for the Blazers is now open. That’s a fact. Even the owner knows it. Even if our core is not in their prime, the window is nevertheless open. That means that starting THIS year, as a GM and owner you need to put your best foot forward and go for it. Adding a vet like Kirk or Andre in no way mortgages our future. In fact, it would take less to get one of them than it would to get Rubio, who could end up being just another young hype machine like Telfair, and nothing more. He is hardly a can't-miss prospect, and comparing him to CP3 or Magic is lunacy. Let’s say we deal Travis/Blake for Kirk. Well that only leaves us with Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Joel, Rudy, Batum, Webster, Bayless, the best owner in the NBA, and KP… I gotta tell you, the future still looks pretty fucking bright… so we'd hardly be banking on that alone as you say. It seems to be a popular perception on here that we’re trying to make a dynasty and so therefore a measly 1 or 2 championships would be disappointing somehow… You’d think for a fan-base that has 1 championship in it’s history, that we of all people would realize just how hard it is to get ONE championship, let alone several. There’s always going to be other teams with a Lebron, or a Kobe, that stands in your way. To expect our team to be head and shoulders over everyone for the good part of a decade is incredibly delusional. We've a got a core that can contend for years to come, but we need toughness and we need experience in order to win now. I’m not saying let’s go all Trader-Bob and have double the salary of other teams, just to go for it. If we don’t win it all this year, you step back in the off season, evaluate, and go for it again next year. But for you dynasty dreamers, let’s take a look at past dynasties. The Celtics in 56-57 to 68-69. They kept a core group of guys, but the rest of their roster was constantly evolving. The only guy to win all 11 championships was Russell. Guys like Tom Heinsohn, Bob Cousy, & Frank Ramsey turned into John Havlicek, Bailey Howell, and Sam Jones. The Lakers won five times in the 80’s. Only Kareem, Magic, and Michael Cooper were there for #1 & #5. Their two leading scorers in 87-88 weren’t even around when it began. The Michael Jordan dynasty… By the time #4 was won, half-way through their dynasty, only Jordan and Pippen were still on the team. It’s great to have a full roster of guys I genuinely like, but only a handful of them will still be around in 6 years, win or lose. Hopefully our core guys, but beyond that is doubtful. That’s just the nature of the NBA. We have no idea what we’ll be faced with in two years, so it’s absolutely dumb to say When A) We can win now, given our core and tradable assets B) We wouldn’t have to trade away our core to win now C) Once our guys reach ‘their prime’, we have no idea how our team, other teams, the league, or even the economy will look. We have no idea who we could draft, trade for, or sign in two years, let alone 4. We have no idea about injuries, coaching changes, or even GM changes. There is never going to be some mythical perfect time to go for it, so you go for it every year your window is open and you don’t look back. What you DO NOT DO, is trade your assets (that could be used to win now) for some scrawny, unproven PG who wouldn't even be able to help for another few years. Nothing's guaranteed, that's why if you have the chance to win now, you better try.
I think a lot of this is a moot point. IMO, the article hinted that we are going for both Kirk Hinrich and Ricky Rubio.
I disagree. Even assuming our window is "open" (and I don't really think that it is, personally... everything would have to go right for us to overtake more experienced teams in the next year), I'd rather have a longer window than a short one. Adding younger top-tier prospects lengthens the window, while moving young players for experienced one shortens it. I'd rather have a window with Roy and Aldridge and Oden as the core three or four years from now, when they will all be more mature physically and (presumably) significantly better players than a window that ends three or four years from now. If we can acquire a top-tier prospect AND a veteran? That's great. If we have no chance at a top-tier prospect? Then adding a veteran now has no opportunity cost. I am taking the position that if we have the chance to get Rubio, even if it "sets us back" a year or two, I think it's worth it for the long-term strength of the franchise, and we would not be wasting a "prime year" of Roy because he is still so young. Ed O.
Then why the hell is he not going #1 and teams drooling at the thought of getting him? Why is no one making a strong push to obtain him? Best PG prospect since Paul? Blasphemy, he wasn't even the best pg prospect in the last year. Rose's value as a prospect was much higher than Rubio's.
Last time I checked, Chris Paul and Deron Williams went third and fourth, respectively. Not even Chris Paul went #1, so basing Rubio's potential on where mock drafts have him slated is a mistake.
