Whining about Webster, more anecdotal BS

[Tim Lehrbach]

I am absolutely dumbfounded at the amount of people who think the string of luck to get Brandon, Lamarcus, and Greg makes the Paul passup a good decision.

I don't think anybody has said that.

If any of us were sent back to the 2005 NBA draft to take John Nash's place, we'd all pick Chris Paul without thinking twice, since presumably going back in time and taking the reins of the team would necessarily be taking history in a new direction. A better chance at Greg Oden is not worth passing up Paul, and nobody would say that it was a good decision to take Webster and Jack for that reason.

What we are saying is that, yes, we got freakin' lucky to end up with Oden, Aldridge, and Roy and since we're not sitting in the war room on draft day 2005 but instead are sitting here in 2008 with three budding superstars, we can say that we're O.K. with how things turned out. Would you have it any other way?

[Charcoal Filtered]

If any of us were sent back to the 2005 NBA draft to take John Nash's place, we'd all pick Chris Paul without thinking twice, since presumably going back in time and taking the reins of the team would necessarily be taking history in a new direction.

Wrong. Nash had the right idea. He just did not pick the right players.

It was not coincidence that he picked very young (Monia, Kryapa, Telfair, and Webster). Danny Ainge took the very same strategy. However, Bassy was not worth the gamble when Al Jefferson was still on the board. Same goes for Webster when Bynum was available. Point being, I still would have drafted young to keep from becoming mediocre and stuck in the middle of the draft.

[cucad8]

Nice extreme leap in logic there Surge.

[d-train]

Wrong. Nash had the right idea. He just did not pick the right players.

It was not coincidence that he picked very young (Monia, Kryapa, Telfair, and Webster). Danny Ainge took the very same strategy. However, Bassy was not worth the gamble when Al Jefferson was still on the board. Same goes for Webster when Bynum was available. Point being, I still would have drafted young to keep from becoming mediocre and stuck in the middle of the draft.

I have no idea why drafting young is a strategy to keep from becoming mediocre or why with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight Chris Paul wouldn't be the obvious selection with the 3rd pick in 2005. Are you saying Nash was right for taking Webster because he sucks and would assure Blazers would continue to be in the lottery? Blazers could be stuck in mediocrity right now if they didn

[Effigy]

If Nash had taken Chris Paul he might still be our GM right now. I'm happy with how things worked out.

[Effigy]

By the way, Bill Simmons even addressed what would have happened if Portland hadn't passed on Chris Paul earlier this month. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080310 Scroll down to #2a

These are the two hypothetical teams he comes up with us having, he assumes that in 2006 we win too many games to get Aldridge, but we get the 8 pick and take Rudy Gay:

Scenario A: Oden, Aldridge, Webster, Roy, Travis Outlaw, Jarrett Jack, Joel Przybilla, the rights to Rudy Fernandez.

Scenario B: Paul, Roy, Gay, Outlaw, Przybilla, Jack, Young, the rights to Rudy Fernandez.

He concludes that Scenario A is the better scenario and I have to agree with him.

[BlackMamba]

scenario b looks very flashy but scenario a looks more solid and complete.

[Klinky]

-= original quote snipped =-


I have no idea why drafting young is a strategy to keep from becoming mediocre or why with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight Chris Paul wouldn't be the obvious selection with the 3rd pick in 2005. Are you saying Nash was right for taking Webster because he sucks and would assure Blazers would continue to be in the lottery? Blazers could be stuck in mediocrity right now if they didn

[Klinky]

I don't think we'll ever know what would have happened had we taken Paul. Would we still have Z-Bo? Would we have gotten Roy, LMA? Would Nash still be GM?

Too many ??? to really say it was good or bad at this point in time. I am happy and don't have regrets about our situation. Especially with Oden on the horizon.

[Wizenheimer]

blazer fans probably shouldn't spend too much time revisiting past draft mistakes....it's painfull, especially if you go back to the 80's.

The 2005 draft is a bist painful in hindsight though. Drafting Paul would have certainly meant a different team today.

But portland could have made some choices that would have probably not made a big difference till this season. After all, they drafted a SF and essentially and undersized SG. In that light they could have Danny Granger and Monta Ellis instead of Webster and Jack. That wouldn't have changed wins/losses significantly till this season.

[d-train]

Webster was the right idea if it was going to take a few years to develop. Bassy would have been too. As said, he should have taken Jefferson and Bynum since they had much higher ceilings. Using hindsight, they are much better players.

Subtract Oden and add the player that we would have gotten last year to the scenario that Simmons projected. It is still a better team than if we would have drafted Paul.

Put aside 20/20 hindsight and specific player choices from the past. I disagree with the notion that mediocrity avoidance is a factor when choosing between draft prospects. Nobody wants to be mediocre but there is never a time when you can say lets pass on this 22 year old because he is the better player but will make us mediocre and take a 19-year-old player because he can't play right now but will help us in 5 years only never as much as the 22 year old would. Your argument is essentially I don't want a Jermaine O'Neal, Rasheed Wallace, or Kevin Garnett because those guys are very good but they are only good enough that without a lot of other help from other stars on their team, they would only barely win half their games and would be mediocre. That leaves you always waiting to win the lottery to get a Greg Oden, Lebron James, or Tim Duncan.

[mojomarc]

-= original quote snipped =-


Put aside 20/20 hindsight and specific player choices from the past. I disagree with the notion that mediocrity avoidance is a factor when choosing between draft prospects. Nobody wants to be mediocre but there is never a time when you can say lets pass on this 22 year old because he is the better player but will make us mediocre and take a 19-year-old player because he can't play right now but will help us in 5 years only never as much as the 22 year old would. Your argument is essentially I don't want a Jermaine O'Neal, Rasheed Wallace, or Kevin Garnett because those guys are very good but they are only good enough that without a lot of other help from other stars on their team, they would only barely win half their games and would be mediocre. That leaves you always waiting to win the lottery to get a Greg Oden, Lebron James, or Tim Duncan.

I think both you and Charcoal have confused me. I think Charcoal was saying that drafting on what you believe to be the best potential player, even if that player doesn't show his potential for a few years, is a better bet than taking a player that you know will be decent but has a relatively low ceiling. I think this we can mostly agree on. I think his argument, however, is that we took players based on what they could do a few years down the road but also had an eye on how fast they could develop and therefore passed up on Jefferson and Bynum, players that looked like they could have higher ceilings than Webster and Telfair. Am I getting this right, you guys? I think you agree with this, D. I'm not sure, but I think so. Help me out.

[Charcoal Filtered]

Mojo, I am not saying take the player that has the best ceiling. I am saying that even if that ceiling is alittle bit lower as is the chance of bust, Paul is better than Bynum and was a lower risk, I take Bynum over Paul because it keeps my team from chasing the 8 seed and in the low lottery. When the player develops, it has given you time to acquire other assets for a championship.

Boston used this strategy to perfection this year. They missed the lottery, then used the assets they accumulated in Jefferson, Green, and Telfair to net Garnett. If they would have won, Oden would have looked great next to Al and PP.

I would compare the strategy that you are championing to the one that the Wizards used the year that Arenas was a free agent. While Jamison and Arenas are good players, neither are superstars. They got another nice player in Caron Butler but are fighting for one of the bottom spots in a weak Eastern Conference. Superstars win championships with the exception of the Pistons a few years ago.

You are entitled to your opinion and doubt either of us has made the other change his view on this.

[TBpup]

My only regret is that in my pre-draft excitement I drank too much and never met up with TBPUP and the rest of the REALGM group. Hopefully the 2008 draft will be interesting and I can rectify that mistake.

Ebott...we'll look forward to you this year and hope it can compare with the lottery party and ensuing draft party from last year. That was once in a lifetime.

[ebott]

My only regret is that in my pre-draft excitement I drank too much and never met up with TBPUP and the rest of the REALGM group. Hopefully the 2008 draft will be interesting and I can rectify that mistake.

Ebott...we'll look forward to you this year and hope it can compare with the lottery party and ensuing draft party from last year. That was once in a lifetime.

It's gonna be Legen..

Wait for it...

[ebott]

...DARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!