Las Vegas Summer League Notes

Post #1 » by **Smitty731** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:04 pm

As some of you may know, I was at Las Vegas Summer League this week and had a chance to talk to a lot of people. Unlike Orlando, where you could get a lot of time to chat, Vegas is a little more controlled. I was still able to get a few things from each team. If you want to read the notes, you can find them here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1465870

Enjoy!

Fitz303 · Post #2 » by **Fitz303** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:06 pm

Smitty731 wrote:As some of you may know, I was at Las Vegas Summer League this week and had a chance to talk to a lot of people. Unlike Orlando, where you could get a lot of time to chat, Vegas is a little more controlled. I was still able to get a few things from each team. If you want to read the notes, you can find them here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1465870

Enjoy!

Great write up. Thanks! I had a feeling that they regretted letting Frazier go. I wish they said SOMETHING about Harkless. This is getting ridiculous

Butter · Post #3 » by **Butter** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:08 pm

I like the sound of this:

They think they'll win the division - "OKC is worse. We were pretty close already and we got better. We'll be there in the end."

Shem · Post #4 » by **Shem** » Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:30 am

Portland

1. Yes they paid a lot for Evan Turner but - "He gives us everything we didn't have. We really needed a secondary ball handler and playmaker. He's going to be worth it."

2. On getting Shabazz Napier - "We probably should have just kept (Tim) Frazier last year. He was a good one. But Bazz should be good for us. But he's a 3rd guy. He just needs to not f*ck up when he does play." and "You do guys favors sometimes. The Magic will pay us back someday."

3. They think they'll win the division - "OKC is worse. We were pretty close already and we got better. We'll be there in the end."

Village Idiot · Post #5 » by **Village Idiot** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:13 am

Shem wrote:
Portland

1. Yes they paid a lot for Evan Turner but - "He gives us everything we didn't have. We really needed a secondary ball handler and playmaker. He's going to be worth it."

I thought CJ was the secondary ball handler and playmaker :crazy:

Tertiary seems like a better term. Having three ball handlers on the court at the same time is a very valuable and unusual lineup. To a certain degree it also makes CJ a bit more trade able.

Wizenheimer · Post #6 » by **Wizenheimer** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:42 pm

Village Idiot wrote:
Shem wrote:
Portland

1. Yes they paid a lot for Evan Turner but - "He gives us everything we didn't have. We really needed a secondary ball handler and playmaker. He's going to be worth it."
I thought CJ was the secondary ball handler and playmaker Tertiary seems like a better term. Having three ball handlers on the court at the same time is a very valuable and unusual lineup.

a couple of things about that:

one is that the chatter about CJ being another PG didn't really match the reality. He's very clever with his dribble and has the ball-handling ability of a PG, but hasn't really shown the vision of a PG. His dribbling is good but his passing is average, at best

the other thing is that whenever Lillard or CJ rest, the Blazers really only had one other ball-handler/play-maker to rely on. Yeah, Plumlee did a decent job at play-making last season, but he averaged less then 3 assists a game and had a 1.46 assist/turnover ratio. Nice numbers for a low-minute C but pretty unimpressive numbers for a play-maker. It's also easy to argue that having a C who is no threat to score be the secondary play-maker is an awkward situation

Turner does, on paper, give the Blazers something they lacked last season. Per36, he averaged 5.7 assists to CJ's 4.4. And he only averaged 0.2 more turnovers/36. His 2.12 assist/turnover ratio is much more in line with what you want from a secondary play-maker then CJ's 1.74 ratio. So is his much lower usage rate

the possible problem I see (besides the fact that Turner is fairly inefficient on offense), is that earmarking Turner as the starting SF will make it a lot more difficult to keep two play-makers on the floor. If CJ goes to the bench about half-way thru the 1st/3rd quarters, Blazers need to keep Lillard and Turner in the game. But at the start of the next quarters, do both Lillard and Turner sit? To keep two of Dame-CJ-Turner on the floor at all times would require some real yoyo substitution patterns...

in other words, it would make a lot more sense if Turner was the 3rd guard rather then the starting SF. And that's especially true when factoring in that Turner's much better defense and size is complementary to Dame/CJ. But the Blazers can't pay Crabbe 19-20 million a year to not be the 3rd guard, which tends to add more weight to the notion that matching Crabbe's offer sheet was a bad idea. It becomes an even worse idea if this means that next season, Harkless is either quite low on the rotation or with another team

To a certain degree it also makes CJ a bit more trade able.

does anybody really think that Olshey would look to trade CJ?