Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Sizing up the Blazers
ON THE NBA • Roster spots, roles need to be sorted out as team gets younger
BY KERRY EGGERS
The Portland Tribune, Jul 3, 2007

JIM CLARK / PORTLAND TRIBUNE

• Did Portland really get numerous offers for Zach Randolph?

Sort of. It wasn’t easy getting rid of Randolph, at least because General Manager Kevin Pritchard wanted to get something of value in return.


Pritchard had conversations about Randolph with representatives of seven or eight clubs and got offers from several — but he felt only one gave the Blazers close to Randolph’s value.

The Blazers had had enough of Randolph’s off-court issues and didn’t want his considerable presence around the flock of young players who are now the club’s nucleus. Additionally, coach Nate McMillan wanted to open up plenty of playing time for No. 1 draft choice Greg Oden and second-year pro LaMarcus Aldridge, who will transition from a center/power forward to almost strictly a 4.

“Now we have a core of young guys in the middle (Oden, Aldridge and Channing Frye) who can develop together,” McMillan says. “There won’t be anyone in front of them slowing their process down.”

A key to New York’s offer for Randolph was a $3 million trade exception that allowed the Blazers to acquire small forward James Jones from Phoenix — a move that can’t be made official until next week. Jones, 26, makes $2.9 million next season and can then opt out of a contract that calls for him to make $3.15 million in 2008-09, the final year of his deal.

The 6-8, 225-pound Jones is a four-year veteran who averaged 6.4 points and 2.3 rebounds in 18.1 minutes through the regular season, shooting .368 from the field but .378 from 3-point range and .877 from the line. Jones started six of Phoenix’s 11 playoff games, averaging 5.0 points and shooting .528 from the field in 15.5 minutes per game.

The Suns, with Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Kurt Thomas and Boris Diaw on their front line, obviously considered Jones expendable. Blazer brass likes Jones’ athleticism and long-range shooting and believes he can contend for the starting spot next season.

• What are the odds of a buyout of Steve Francis’ contract?

Very high. The veteran guard, 30, has two years left on his deal at $16.44 million next season and $17.18 million in 2008-09. Blazer execs won’t know for a while, but it is believed Francis would accept something less than that — $25 million, perhaps? — to be out of the deal and become a free agent.

Good thing Paul Allen isn’t a bread-liner.

• What does Isiah Thomas think about taking on a player with the baggage of Randolph? Evidently, the Knicks’ president is very comfortable with it.

“We did our homework and stayed on top of it and did our background search and everything else, as we do with all the players we’re going after,” Thomas tells the New York media. “Everything we heard and saw made him one of the guys we wanted to pursue.”

Thomas says he told New York owner James Dolan that “we really needed to get (Randolph) out of Portland, because he seems to run into a lot of problems in Portland. We need to get him to New York because he’d be in a safer place.”

Uh-huh. Clearly the temptations in Portland are greater than they will be for Randolph in the Big Apple.

More Thomas: “He’ll definitely be under the microscope. We all are here. That’s just New York. But I don’t think the issues he’s run into in Portland … we’ll try to avoid those issues here.”

They got offers from 7-8 clubs and none were of fair value according to Pritchard compared to what we offered? It was difficult to get rid of him according to Pritchard. Holy Crap I'm right Zach's value=non existent and he did nothing here to increase it, which means........ YOU EPIC FAIL!!!!!!


Not to mention I could pull up the quote from I SAY UGH this past season when it was rumored he and/or Curry could go to the Heat for J-Will and Ricky Davis and he said "He won't give them away", which once again translates to LOW NON EXISTENT VALUE.

Keep thinking he has it though.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-10-2008 12:28 AM]

You know you just proved my point right.

Pritchard, wanted value in return. He was not looking to package picks and players in order to unload Randolph even with Randolphs baggage.

They stated only one team came *close* to Randolphs value which means they felt Randolph had even more value then what the Knicks offerd.

7-8 teams showing intrest is a FAR FAR FAR cry from no team wanting to touch Randolph as you stated.

Also what was the value that the 6-7 other teams were offering that wasn't good enough? It doesn't say. Do you think one of them was on the level of Randolph for Reggie Evens? If Francis & Frye was *close* to his value then I doubt a Reggie Evens deal was appealing to them.

Yes because you clearly don't understand the NBA cap. Although they felt his value was higher it didn't get met which means they gave him away as I stated many moons ago. If Philly could fill the trade to match the dollars and send Portland a pick sure it would have been done IMO. They were looking for Future Cap space, young prospect(Jones), and TE. Oh and did you know since Philly is under the cap and salaries don't have to match we'd pick up a hefty TE in the process if we did the trade? So let's review it again...

Zach and 6(New York receives $10mil TE(which is like immediate cap space, we could sign a FA this summer(Monta Ellis) if we wanted with the $10mil.. expiring a yr from trade), 16 pick, $10mil in cap space

4

Reggie and 16(Philly receives cancer, albatross contract, chemistry killer and BPA at 6)

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-10-2008 12:56 AM]

Your trying to argue that no team was willing to give Randolph full value, But I am not argueing that. The arguement by me was allways if Portland had to give up assets in order to unload Randolph the way that we are supposedly being asked to.

Also that guys like Randolph even if they have baggage still hold more value than a team having to unload assets in order to trade him because he produces at a high level. Lafrentz & Dampier were & are guys that teams had to & would have to unload an asset in order to trade them. Randolph because he is still productive for a Reggie Evens straight up in a finacial move is a fair deal only because Randolph has baggage if Randoloph didn't have baggage then this wouldn't even be a discussion.

If Randolph had no baggage his value would be an expiring contract and a lottery pick or quality prospect.

Randolph young & highly productive with baggage is between a shorter contract & prospect or just a shorter contract in a financial move.

Randolph washed up and unproductive with a big contract would require us trading the #6 pick &/or other assets in order to move him.

Its that simple.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by joec32033:

And moving Zach right now while paying a premium(the #6) when we can move him next year, even if we do better by attaching say the 13 or 14 pick(or no pick at all because he will have a year less on his contract) while still gaining the same cap flexibility in the same time frame is the more prudent move how?

joe, how do u know we'll be able to move Zach next year for a shorter term contract? what teams will be able to absorb his contract in this manner & not throw an equally bad contract back our way? i don't see many options out there, seems very optimistic for anyone to assume another trade like this will come our way in a year's time... more than likely if u ask me he'll be on our books until his contract expires or at the trade deadline the year of, at which time we'll have already missed out on the big shopping spree that's about to kick off in 2 years.

Bro, for all the talk about how Zach is untradeable, we have 3 teams (that we know of) that were interested in him in the past year. One time he was as good as gone before Isiah blew it up(Denver), another time he was gone the for some reason the owner got moralistic about having good guys on the roster(Bucks), and now we have a team that may actually want him because their coach is his ex-coach(Phi).

Is there a chance he is untradeable next year, sure. He could also obliterate his Achilles and be done. I am also NOT against trading him this year just not this year if this is the type of deal you're looking at. We do have the luxury of time.

Posted by fishmike:

let him play. He is capable of good things. Let Mike D coach him, thats what he's there for. Sheed won a title w/ Det, Sprewell became a Knick favorite, Iverson won an MVP played in the finals, Ricky Davis.. well, he's still Ricky Davis.

I am not looking to build around Zach, but I would rather take a look at him in a normal environment then panic and overpay to have him off the team

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Houston never got worse sorry no matter how you slice it and Memphis never improved at all even when Gasol and Gay were playing along with their other lottery talent.

Gay was a ROOKIE!! They only played together 2 years and played under 2 different coaches!! The 2nd year he blossomed into a 20 point scorer!!

As fas as what Boston had in the fold well we don't have too much time to build assets to go after Lebron to get under the cap and have a chance to acquire a player such as him or other premium talent but it's worth a shot. Heck if we fail we'll just be in the lottery come 2011 we ain't going anywhere anyway even with pick 6 in the fold.

I agree it would be nice to get LeBron and it would be awesome to get him but building the team around that scenario is just plain crazy. Build around what you can control with the flexibility to do whatever you can when you need to. LeBron isn't coming to a team that has no players on it. If nothing else the draft is a great place to get talented players on the cheap. Look at the money these rookies make in their first 4 years. It's relative pennies. The best way to be salary flexible is to use the draft and draft well to get some cheap talent. I mean damn Chris Paul makes less than Jamal Crawford until 2010.

I don't give a F what Gay blossomed into show me how Houston suffered? Houston switched up coaches and got better while enduring a major injury to a Franchise player.

Why is DW talking about having cap flexibility to go after a FA such as Lebron? Why did D'Antoni say he could invision Lebron playing the 4 in his system if it's such a pipe dream? Look I agree it's going to be very difficult to land Lebron but unless we unload salary and generally unloading bad contracts comes with a price, we'll have zero shot at Lebron or any other premium talent for the matter.

You just need a solid plan.




[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-09-2008 12:10 PM]

You can't tell me Houston doesn't wish it could go back and redo that trade. But that is neither here nor there. We can agree to disagree on that.

Regarding having a solid plan, I agree with that. But I don't think a "solid" plan is focusing on a guy that is not currently on your team 2 years down the road.

I personally don't think the plan is LeBron or bust. I think Walsh is way to smart for that.
Imo, the plan is to put a solid team together with the cap flexibility to either sign LeBron outright or try to make a Garnett-like trade/sign-and-trade to obtain him. I really believe this is a much more prudent, efficient, and just plain better plan.

I said several times myself it isn't Lebron or bust it's a shot at Lebron or other premium talent or flexibility to move forward from that point.

And moving Zach right now while paying a premium(the #6) when we can move him next year, even if we do better by attaching say the 13 or 14 pick(or no pick at all because he will have a year less on his contract) while still gaining the same cap flexibility in the same time frame is the more prudent move how?

TB still waiting for your reply on this question.

Not until you or Briggs can accurately prove to me there's great separation in talent from pick 6 to 16.


Naw forget it both of you are cowards so I'll man up and answer your question.

Because we know what pick we have now, we know what pick we can potentially get or want or can gauge who'll be available in this draft. Next yr we have no idea if Zach gets hurt, what our draft position will be, nor how deep the draft will be. Who says Zach is the only player we're trying to trade. IMO it shouldn't stop at Zach we keep it moving once we purge him.

Exactly how would you like us to prove that. The explanation is in the picks themselves, one is in the lottery, one isn't. One is 6 the other is 16. Either way I'll try my best:

From Jordan to Lebron: A 20 Year NBA Draft Analysis
By Ryan Reed
6/22/06

As the 2006 NBA Draft approaches, teams are busy finishing off the final evaluations and deciding which direction they are going to go on June 28th. The NBA draft lottery gives hope to those teams lucky enough to find themselves out of the playoffs. Expectations mount for teams with high draft picks. The question a person should ask, though, is this: Will the results match expectations?

To answer this question, I have analyzed each of the top fourteen picks from 1984 – 2003 (Jordan’s draft to Lebron’s). The results were very educational and a bit surprising. (Lebron still has to prove himself before being placed at the top of the list, but could be on his way)

Superstars and Busts

There is statistically a much greater chance that your team is going to draft a player who contributes nothing to the overall success of your franchise than there is a chance of drafting the next superstar. According to my rankings, which carry a bit of subjectivity, there have been 21 superstars drafted in the top 14 picks from 1984 – 2003 and 75 busts. That’s not great news for those lottery bound fans.
Superstars
21

7.5%
All-Stars
61

21.8%
Solid Starters
123

43.9%
Busts
75

26.8%

As the numbers show, the most likely outcome of a lottery selection is that a team will get a solid starter (43.9%) or a all star level (21.8%) player. The extremes, superstars and busts, occur only roughly a third (34.2%) of the time, while the average starter to all star level player is selected the other two thirds (65.7%) of the time.

Top Five Selections

Fans of a team with a top 5 selection have much more reason to be optimistic than those who fall in the 6 – 14 range.

Of the 21 superstars who have been selected in this 20 year range, 15 of them have been selected in the first 5 picks of the draft (71%). Conversely, the top 5 picks in the draft have yielded only 17 busts. Out of 100 total (top 5) picks made in the 20 years analyzed, that is a pretty good rate of return for those teams landing in the top 5.

Of the 16 superstars selected in the top 5, almost half (7/15) of them have been selected first overall. Now, this should be good news for Raptors fans this year, but it isn’t. Those 7 superstars were all viewed as can’t miss prospects. This year's draft lacks a can't miss type talent, and very few number 1 picks have “surprised” their GM’s and fans by morphing into superstars.

(The rankings compiled are purely subjective.) (some players on the bubble for star/superstar included: Reggie Miller, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, (in), Elton Brand, Chris Webber, Yao Ming, Alonzo Mourning, Grant Hill, Carmelo Anthony, Rasheed Wallace, Dikembe Mutombo, Ray Allen, Chris Mullin, Shawn Marion and Paul Pierce)

What’s Up with the Sixth Pick?

Minnesota fans, you will not be happy with the next piece of data we are going to look at. While the top 5 picks produce a pretty good return on your investment, the 6th pick easily has the worst history of any pick in the lottery. Considering its relatively high placement in the draft, the 6th pick has completely underperformed! Comparing it to the fifth pick, one can quickly see that the drop off is significant.


The fifth overall selection has its fair share of busts, but the sixth pick has not yielded one upper echelon player. While you could debate the top end of the rankings, it is clear that a person would be choosing between average NBA starters. Normally, 2nd place is the first loser, but in the case of the NBA draft, 6th place is the first loser.

Later Lottery Selections

While there was some significant data to look at near the top of the draft, the later picks yielded some relatively normal results. From Picks 9 – 14, well no superstars have ever been selected from picks 6 – 8 (Chris Mullin just missed the cut), selections 9 -14 produced the final 7 superstars, with names like Kobe Bryant(13), Paul Pierce(10), and Karl Malone(13) highlighting that group. On the flip side, the later picks have led to a lot of letdown. 55 selections have been either bench guys or busts. A team selecting 9 -14 in a draft would be glad to get a solid starter, but shouldn’t expect to land the next Michael Jordan! (The fourteenth pick was not a lottery selection for any of these years as it only became a lottery pick when the Charlotte Bobcats entered the league, but since it is now, I included the 14th pick.)

What does it all mean?

There are so many ways a person could go with this draft analysis, but the initial objective was to reset fans expectations for their lottery pick. The points that should jump out are this:

Top 5 picks should be coveted. The results are significant that the top 5 picks in the draft produce starters or better 80% of the time.

Overwhelmingly, the most likely type of player a team is going to end up with from the lottery is a solid starter (44%). The next most likely is a bench player (25%).

Fans expecting a superstar should ice their expectations, especially if your pick is out of the top 5. Of the 180 picks from 6 – 14, only 7 turned into superstars (4%).

On the other side, 77 players selected from 6 – 14 turned into bench players or busts (43%).
The 6th pick overall has had the least productivity, while the 9th pick has yielded consistently strong results.

This analysis should not dampen the excitement around the pick, but hopefully it sets our expectations at a realistic level. Optimism should reign supreme on June 28th, but hopefully it is followed by a shot of realism!Article w/ Charts

Basically, after all the analysis this guy has done we can expect a solid starter, going lower actually lowers not only our expectation of the player we get but also increases the chance of a bust.

Here's an even better article, lots of pretty charts to hold your attention.
82games

Short story:
Salary vs production:
Median players at 6 are Mel Turpin and Trent Tucker. At 16, average players are Jiri Welsch, Tony Delk.

Based on 4 year PER minutes: Average players:
6-Joe Kleine, Felton Spencer
16-Joe Sundvold, Bill Wennington

Based on both articles, Picks 6-9 end up being sort of disappointing, but you get contributers. At pick 16 you're getting lucky to get a role player. After the top 5, statistically, the best picks are 10-13.


And you can shove that coward **** up your ass. If you want to have a conversation I am all for it, but you're elitist, because-I-said-so attitude is getting stale and annoying. So far the best reason I can see that you have come up with in this argument to prove your point is basically you don't want to believe the evidence provided to you. Get off your soap box and realize because you don't want to believe something doesn't mean that makes it a non-reality.



[Edited by - joec32033 on 10 June 2008 08:12]

Thanks after several request you provided a good synopsis but all it revealed was the obvious showing the percentages generally favor having a higher pick. You didn't prove pick number 6 in this yr's draft has a clear advantage over player 16. You have to take into consideration some drafts will be extremely weak and some won't. Here we have a deeper draft this yr according to most analyst and GM's, we have quotes from several sources claiming more than a serviceable player will be available later in the draft and more than 1, we have GM's who are getting calls from other GM's to move down in the draft. We have plenty of prospects not willing to work out for some of the Top picks in the draft which could lead to players slipping even more.

I was asking you to show me the separation in players from this yr's draft, not providing status quo odds which are already understood by the masses. What makes Bayless a better prospect than CDR? What makes Randolph a better prospect than Javale Mcgee or Deandre Jordan?

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Sizing up the Blazers
ON THE NBA • Roster spots, roles need to be sorted out as team gets younger
BY KERRY EGGERS
The Portland Tribune, Jul 3, 2007

JIM CLARK / PORTLAND TRIBUNE

• Did Portland really get numerous offers for Zach Randolph?

Sort of. It wasn’t easy getting rid of Randolph, at least because General Manager Kevin Pritchard wanted to get something of value in return.


Pritchard had conversations about Randolph with representatives of seven or eight clubs and got offers from several — but he felt only one gave the Blazers close to Randolph’s value.

The Blazers had had enough of Randolph’s off-court issues and didn’t want his considerable presence around the flock of young players who are now the club’s nucleus. Additionally, coach Nate McMillan wanted to open up plenty of playing time for No. 1 draft choice Greg Oden and second-year pro LaMarcus Aldridge, who will transition from a center/power forward to almost strictly a 4.

“Now we have a core of young guys in the middle (Oden, Aldridge and Channing Frye) who can develop together,” McMillan says. “There won’t be anyone in front of them slowing their process down.”

A key to New York’s offer for Randolph was a $3 million trade exception that allowed the Blazers to acquire small forward James Jones from Phoenix — a move that can’t be made official until next week. Jones, 26, makes $2.9 million next season and can then opt out of a contract that calls for him to make $3.15 million in 2008-09, the final year of his deal.

The 6-8, 225-pound Jones is a four-year veteran who averaged 6.4 points and 2.3 rebounds in 18.1 minutes through the regular season, shooting .368 from the field but .378 from 3-point range and .877 from the line. Jones started six of Phoenix’s 11 playoff games, averaging 5.0 points and shooting .528 from the field in 15.5 minutes per game.

The Suns, with Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Kurt Thomas and Boris Diaw on their front line, obviously considered Jones expendable. Blazer brass likes Jones’ athleticism and long-range shooting and believes he can contend for the starting spot next season.

• What are the odds of a buyout of Steve Francis’ contract?

Very high. The veteran guard, 30, has two years left on his deal at $16.44 million next season and $17.18 million in 2008-09. Blazer execs won’t know for a while, but it is believed Francis would accept something less than that — $25 million, perhaps? — to be out of the deal and become a free agent.

Good thing Paul Allen isn’t a bread-liner.

• What does Isiah Thomas think about taking on a player with the baggage of Randolph? Evidently, the Knicks’ president is very comfortable with it.

“We did our homework and stayed on top of it and did our background search and everything else, as we do with all the players we’re going after,” Thomas tells the New York media. “Everything we heard and saw made him one of the guys we wanted to pursue.”

Thomas says he told New York owner James Dolan that “we really needed to get (Randolph) out of Portland, because he seems to run into a lot of problems in Portland. We need to get him to New York because he’d be in a safer place.”

Uh-huh. Clearly the temptations in Portland are greater than they will be for Randolph in the Big Apple.

More Thomas: “He’ll definitely be under the microscope. We all are here. That’s just New York. But I don’t think the issues he’s run into in Portland … we’ll try to avoid those issues here.”

They got offers from 7-8 clubs and none were of fair value according to Pritchard compared to what we offered? It was difficult to get rid of him according to Pritchard. Holy Crap I'm right Zach's value=non existent and he did nothing here to increase it, which means........ YOU EPIC FAIL!!!!!!


Not to mention I could pull up the quote from I SAY UGH this past season when it was rumored he and/or Curry could go to the Heat for J-Will and Ricky Davis and he said "He won't give them away", which once again translates to LOW NON EXISTENT VALUE.

Keep thinking he has it though.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-10-2008 12:28 AM]

You know you just proved my point right.

Pritchard, wanted value in return. He was not looking to package picks and players in order to unload Randolph even with Randolphs baggage.

They stated only one team came *close* to Randolphs value which means they felt Randolph had even more value then what the Knicks offerd.

7-8 teams showing intrest is a FAR FAR FAR cry from no team wanting to touch Randolph as you stated.

Also what was the value that the 6-7 other teams were offering that wasn't good enough? It doesn't say. Do you think one of them was on the level of Randolph for Reggie Evens? If Francis & Frye was *close* to his value then I doubt a Reggie Evens deal was appealing to them.

Yes because you clearly don't understand the NBA cap. Although they felt his value was higher it didn't get met which means they gave him away as I stated many moons ago. If Philly could fill the trade to match the dollars and send Portland a pick sure it would have been done IMO. They were looking for Future Cap space, young prospect(Jones), and TE. Oh and did you know since Philly is under the cap and salaries don't have to match we'd pick up a hefty TE in the process if we did the trade? So let's review it again...

Zach and 6(New York receives $10mil TE(which is like immediate cap space, we could sign a FA this summer(Monta Ellis) if we wanted with the $10mil.. expiring a yr from trade), 16 pick, $10mil in cap space

4

Reggie and 16(Philly receives cancer, albatross contract, chemistry killer and BPA at 6)

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-10-2008 12:56 AM]

Your trying to argue that no team was willing to give Randolph full value, But I am not argueing that. The arguement by me was allways if Portland had to give up assets in order to unload Randolph the way that we are supposedly being asked to.

Also that guys like Randolph even if they have baggage still hold more value than a team having to unload assets in order to trade him because he produces at a high level. Lafrentz & Dampier were & are guys that teams had to & would have to unload an asset in order to trade them. Randolph because he is still productive for a Reggie Evens straight up in a finacial move is a fair deal only because Randolph has baggage if Randoloph didn't have baggage then this wouldn't even be a discussion.

If Randolph had no baggage his value would be an expiring contract and a lottery pick or quality prospect.

Randolph young & highly productive with baggage is between a shorter contract & prospect or just a shorter contract in a financial move.

Randolph washed up and unproductive with a big contract would require us trading the #6 pick &/or other assets in order to move him.

Its that simple.

I guess what you don't understand is if his value was low at the time the Blazers traded him and obviously got worse here it means whoever takes him will more than likely ask for more compensation or offer less in return if that is possible.

You're establishing what you think the parameters are for Zach's value when we already have at least one confirmed account of his value dropping from the Bucks rebuttal.

Feel free to think it but the odds say you're wrong.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Very interesting to note that if D.J. Augustin is a reach at 6 and most here want Westbrook at 6 if he's there and the usual suspects are gone but his avg Mock projection is 12 then what does that tell you how skewed the judgement of talent is in this draft when Augustin almost on every mock is projected ahead of him?