@ #21: high ceiling or high floor?

[PtldPlatypus]

I'm just curious what kind of drafter you guys are. With a late first round pick (like we have), would you prefer to take:

1. A player who projects out as "safe" but not stellar, or;
2. A player who could be nothing, but has the potential to be an all-star talent

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I think there's a third option: Nikola Mirotic. He's already playing big minutes for one of the top three teams in the second best league in the world. I'd say that's a high floor. He's also very young and has yet to fill out. I'd say that was a decently-high ceiling. Why's he available? Because he won't be coming over for at least 2 or 3 years.

To address your question: what does "safe" mean? If it means a backup who can hold a lead, then I guess that option. I'd rather a Jarrett Jack than a Jerryd Bayless.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Serious question

Can the Blazers afford to take another Euro project?

Koponen, Freeland, Claver are all 1st rounders who have never seen NBA playing time. All 3 of those picks could have been used to select guys that could be used in trades right now to get an established player. Even if they struggled in Portland

 

[illmatic99]

In a draft with normal talent, I'd pick floor. But this year, the both the floors and ceilings of these players are pretty low. I pick ceiling.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I'd be happy if we could find a guy like Dante Cunningham; a guy who can bang a little but also hit an open shot, I guess that's the floor. Shows how weak this draft is because a guy we got once in the 2nd round is probably not available at #21.

 

[Nikolokolus]

In a piss poor draft like this they'll be lucky to get a serviceable rotation player at 21, so I'd vote for "floor" in this instance.

 

[BrianFromWA]

where we're at, we need floor. We need good, servicable bodies to fill roles. In the 2009 and (lesser) 2010 drafts, we could afford to swing for the fences. Now that we've struck out a bunch, we need to string together a couple of line-drive singles.

 

[Ed O]

Ceiling. No question.

We need top-tier talent to take a step up. We don't need role players. Role players can be had as free agents or through trade (see: Wes Matthews).

We don't need another Jeff Pendergraph or a Dante Cunningham. We need someone who can potentially make an impact in a year or two.

Ed O.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Ceiling. No question.

We need top-tier talent to take a step up. We don't need role players. Role players can be had as free agents or through trade (see: Wes Matthews).

We don't need another Jeff Pendergraph or a Dante Cunningham. We need someone who can potentially make an impact in a year or two.

Ed O.

In a normal draft I'd agree, but in a draft with 50 second rounders?

 

[Mediocre Man]

I think in general, teams should always shoot for the star in the draft, and fill need through FA and trades. It can certainly be a recipe for failure, but it is about the only way to build a contender.

 

[Ed O]

In a normal draft I'd agree, but in a draft with 50 second rounders?

Why would we want a mediocre second rounder? That would leave us with an end-of-the-bench/cuttable guy as our first round pick.

I'd prefer to have a guy that will probably be cuttable but MIGHT be something a lot more.

If it were a deeper draft, I'd be much happier with a "high floor" guy, since the floor would be relatively higher. Now? The high floor seems like it's going to be lower than most years' high floors.

If that makes sense

Ed O.

 

[Blaze01]

at #21? In this draft?

High ceiling all the way....

 

[Minstrel]

I always skew toward "high ceiling." You need stars to win titles, so it's better to gamble and go after stars, even if the failed attempts result in total wash-outs. Drafting for "safety" generally means accumulating players who survive in the NBA for a few years but don't achieve much in the NBA.

As an example, I'd much rather the Blazers had selected Blair instead of Cunningham or Pendergraph. Worst case with Blair, his knee explodes and he's worthless...or, just one step down from a healthy Cunningham/Pendergraph. Best case, he's a high-level complementary player...which would be outstanding for a second-round pick.

 

[BrianFromWA]

if we would've taken Blair, we'd be in position to go for high upside. Since we got one guy that completely sucked and then got hurt, and then traded a halfway-decent one for an All-Star (no shame there) it's time to restock with floor guys, b/c you need role players.

Who was the last good role player we got in FA? Ime? Juwan?

 

[Ed O]

if we would've taken Blair, we'd be in position to go for high upside. Since we got one guy that completely sucked and then got hurt, and then traded a halfway-decent one for an All-Star (no shame there) it's time to restock with floor guys, b/c you need role players.

You can get role players pretty easily, IMO. It's the stars that are tougher.

Who was the last good role player we got in FA? Ime? Juwan?

Wes Matthews. Andre Miller.

Ed O.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Those weren't role players, and you know it. One was a more-than-MLE, and one was a max-MLE. Both are starters on this team.

I'm talking about stocking Man #6-10, and we haven't had any luck with that.

 

[B-Roy]

Those weren't role players, and you know it. One was a more-than-MLE, and one was a max-MLE. Both are starters on this team.

I'm talking about stocking Man #6-10, and we haven't had any luck with that.

I think Matthews was brought in to be a role player.

 

[Ed O]

Those weren't role players, and you know it. One was a more-than-MLE, and one was a max-MLE. Both are starters on this team.

I don't follow.

First of all, neither was over the MLE, and Miller was not a max MLE.

I'm talking about stocking Man #6-10, and we haven't had any luck with that.

Secondly, Matthews was (and perhaps may remain) a bench player for the Blazers. That puts him between 6-10.

Thirdly, why would we try to get a lesser player as a free agent if we can add a player like those two? Good players can be role players too.

Fourthly, that was just the last two summers. If you look farther back, guys like Joel Przbilla and Steve Blake (twice) and Juan Dixon were free agent acquisitions. I'm sure there are more I'm not thinking of.

It is, under the current CBA at least, pretty easy to get rotation players if you are willing to sign the check. And the Blazers have been willing to do it.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

I'm talking about stocking Man #6-10, and we haven't had any luck with that.

Matthews was absolutely expected to be a #6 type of player. He's become a starter due to Roy's total physical destruction.

But I don't think you aim to "stocK" reserves. You try to get the best players you can in the draft and free agency...and the worst of the players you acquire populate the bench. Getting Camby wasn't meant as a "stock the bench" move, but if Oden returns, he'll make a good bench player. Batum was expected to be a starter, but with the acquisition of Wallace, he's become a good reserve player. That's the right way to let the bench fill up, IMO. Not trying to draft bench players.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't follow.

First of all, neither was over the MLE, and Miller was not a max MLE.

First, Miller was over the MLE, and Matthews was a full MLE that was front-loaded with the signing bonus (toxic).

Secondly, Matthews was (and perhaps may remain) a bench player for the Blazers. That puts him between 6-10.

Secondly, if you think that Matthews was brought in to be a "solid 6-10 role player" and not "starter when Roy's wheels fall off", we're just going to have to disagree.

Thirdly, why would we try to get a lesser player as a free agent if we can add a player like those two? Good players can be role players too.

I'm not saying don't go after free agents. I'm saying that POR gets the grand total of the MLE+BAE(every other year) to spend every year on fixing the rotation of 6-10. The vet min is available for 11-15 guys (what Juwan Howard was supposed to be). I'm just saying that you might get one impact player for a full MLE, or you might not. You might get a couple of 8-11 guys if you split the MLE. But you're not generally getting a vital piece via MLE Free Agency.

Fourthly, that was just the last two summers. If you look farther back, guys like Joel Przbilla and Steve Blake (twice) and Juan Dixon were free agent acquisitions. I'm sure there are more I'm not thinking of.

Juan Dixon is an example of that 8-11 guy that you can get via the splitting the MLE, and so was Blake.

It is, under the current CBA at least, pretty easy to get rotation players if you are willing to sign the check. And the Blazers have been willing to do it.

And your examples have been Joel when washed-up (when he was healthy he was higher than MLE) Juan Dixon, Steve Blake, (I'll add Fred Jones and Ime Udoka), Travis Outlaw, Martell Webster, and I'm sure I'm missing someone. Blake is the only rotation player still in the league on a "better than horrible" team. Portland can only sign the same amount as every other team in the league, which means they're at a horrible disadvantage (Wes excluded). Did Hedo accept our check? Lee? Millsap? Juwan last year?

Bottom Line: If you have success in the draft, it allows you to keep taking risks. If you don't have success for a couple drafts in a row, you need "floor" players. POR needs to use the draft, b/c they're at a disadvantage in FA, and can only offer the same $ as everyone else.

 

[Ed O]

First, Miller was over the MLE, and Matthews was a full MLE that was front-loaded with the signing bonus (toxic).

Miller went for less than a full MLE contract, though I can see how we might define the same contract.

Secondly, if you think that Matthews was brought in to be a "solid 6-10 role player" and not "starter when Roy's wheels fall off", we're just going to have to disagree.

OK. I don't know that it really matters, though.

I'm not saying don't go after free agents. I'm saying that POR gets the grand total of the MLE+BAE(every other year) to spend every year on fixing the rotation of 6-10. The vet min is available for 11-15 guys (what Juwan Howard was supposed to be). I'm just saying that you might get one impact player for a full MLE, or you might not. You might get a couple of 8-11 guys if you split the MLE. But you're not generally getting a vital piece via MLE Free Agency.

I don't think that we need to add more than one a year through free agency. We have decent depth now, in spite of a remarkable string of injuries and in SPITE of pissing away several years of first round picks.

Juan Dixon is an example of that 8-11 guy that you can get via the splitting the MLE, and so was Blake.

Yep.

And your examples have been Joel when washed-up (when he was healthy he was higher than MLE) Juan Dixon, Steve Blake, (I'll add Fred Jones and Ime Udoka), Travis Outlaw, Martell Webster, and I'm sure I'm missing someone. Blake is the only rotation player still in the league on a "better than horrible" team. Portland can only sign the same amount as every other team in the league, which means they're at a horrible disadvantage (Wes excluded). Did Hedo accept our check? Lee? Millsap? Juwan last year?

I don't know why we would have wanted Howard back, personally. He was terrible. Lee and Millsap were never guys we counted on adding, and Hedo's last-minute change of heart was clearly a blessing (and I thought so at the time).

The failure to sign those guys didn't stop us from adding Mattews and Miller and all the other rotation players that we have added, though.

Bottom Line: If you have success in the draft, it allows you to keep taking risks. If you don't have success for a couple drafts in a row, you need "floor" players. POR needs to use the draft, b/c they're at a disadvantage in FA, and can only offer the same $ as everyone else.

Going for high ceiling players doesn't mean not having success in the draft.

Ed O.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Normally, I would say "ceiling"......but this draft is so weak, I just don't see any serious high risk/high reward types being available in the 20s. I would rather see the team draft the next Jerome Kersey than just waste the pick.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Normally, I would say "ceiling"......but this draft is so weak, I just don't see any serious high risk/high reward types being available in the 20s. I would rather see the team draft the next Jerome Kersey than just waste the pick.

I suppose I was trying to say this in my post above.

There don't appear to be a ton of boom-bust type guys in this draft, so in lieu of taking high risk, probably low reward guys who might have a marginally higher ceiling, I'd prefer they get at least somebody who they are pretty sure can come in and contribute right away ... think of it as the difference between taking one of these Euros with a low motor "but tons of potential" vs. a guy like Faried that doesn't appear to have much more than role-player potential, but you're pretty sure he'll be able to crash the boards and hustle for loose balls and I'm going to lean toward the latter guy.