All Things Knick Pick

[PCmor7]

BTW, this pick comes at a great value slot in this draft. Between about 14-26, there's not a lot of difference in prospect level, IMO.

 

[CJ_is_Gone]

If the Blazers keep the pick, I expect them to use it on a big. I wasn't high on Lively at first, but looking at our roster I think he'd make a lot of sense and with a good development staff I think he could in 3-4 years become a steal at this point of the draft. I also think he is so good at the one thing he does now that he offers limited plug-and-play ability.

He also grew up not far from me, so it'd be cool to see him end up a Blazer.

Knowing we have Schmitz, though, I'm keeping my eye on Nnaji. I think he's one of the big sleepers here but he's got a lot of upside. His feet and switchability remind me of Bam's. The thing he had over Bam, though, is a 7-7 wingspan.

One other slightly-related note: Nnaji gets good marks from scouts for his quickness and athleticism, but Badji, I think, actually is an even better athlete and taller.

One other completely-unrelated note: For that second-round pick, if it's not used in a trade, I think there's a high chance it gets used on someone that can be stashed overseas for a couple of years. However, if that doesn't happen, the player I keep floating back to that would make sense for the Blazers roster-wise and I think would be a Schmitz-type pick is Emoni Bates.

Portland is starting their GLeague team...
This is a perfect location for the second round pick.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

1a/1b with Jackson:

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Portland is starting their GLeague team...
This is a perfect location for the second round pick.

Also with the new CBA cap exception Blazers can sign 2nd round picks for a longer deal and set them up to be a restricted free agent. Previously teams had to use the MLE to do that. Thus there's a big increase in value of 2nd round picks, so that is one great element of the GPII trade.

 

[42N8Bounce]

1a/1b with Jackson:

I like Sensabaugh. I think he's undervalued right now on a lot of boards.
- He's only 19.6 y/o
- Shoots 40.5% from 3
- Can create off the dribble shooting 52.3% from 2
- He was #6 in points-per-minute, leading all freshman
- 5.4 rpg (7.9 per36)
- He had a 26.4 PER his freshman year (#36 in NCAA)

I'd be surprised if he was still on the board at #23.

 

[TBpup]

I like Sensabaugh. I think he's undervalued right now on a lot of boards.
- He's only 19.6 y/o
- Shoots 40.5% from 3
- Can create off the dribble shooting 52.3% from 2
- He was #6 in points-per-minute, leading all freshman
- 5.4 rpg (7.9 per36)
- He had a 26.4 PER his freshman year (#36 in NCAA)

I'd be surprised if he was still on the board at #23.

A bit of an undersized '2' with 3/4 tendencies. He didn't measure at the combine. Anyone know his wingspan?

 

[1 Eye Jack]

What about a smaller trade with Spurs 23rd pick, Little and Keon for Zach Collins? Might need to do more to get him but he’d be a nice young vet to add to our roster. Doubt Spurs would do it my hope is they would value the 23rd pick they always seem to find a nugget at end of draft.

 

[PCmor7]

What about a smaller trade with Spurs 23rd pick, Little and Keon for Zach Collins? Might need to do more to get him but he’d be a nice young vet to add to our roster. Doubt Spurs would do it my hope is they would value the 23rd pick they always seem to find a nugget at end of draft.

Sure. We gave up too much to get him the first time. Why not give up too much to get him again?

 

[1 Eye Jack]

Sure. We gave up too much to get him the first time. Why not give up too much to get him again?

to each his own. I really thought he looked good last year for Spurs. Good defender, rebounder, blocks shots and his offense isn’t bad. He can also play center or PF.

 

[theprunetang]

Sure. We gave up too much to get him the first time. Why not give up too much to get him again?

Imagine him getting injured within 2 months of trading for him again. That's what I imagine.

 

[PCmor7]

to each his own. I really thought he looked good last year for Spurs. Good defender, rebounder, blocks shots and his offense isn’t bad. He can also play center or PF.

That's kind of a very glowing analysis of what he does with no acknowledgement of any of the issues with his game, isn't it?

That's my point, really. The Blazers gave up two 1Rs for him already and he busted. Now, you're willing to trade THREE more 1Rs for a player with an injury history who was OK last year playing a lot for a team that was trying to lose. That might be "to each his own," but throwing away assets on damaged goods in a desperate hope they might be slightly above average isn't a good way to construct a roster.

 

[PCmor7]

Imagine him getting injured within 2 months of trading for him again. That's what I imagine.

If the Blazers sunk five first-round draft picks into Zach Collins the franchise should be contracted from the NBA.

 

[theprunetang]

If the Blazers sunk five first-round draft picks into Zach Collins the franchise should be contracted from the NBA.

At least we wouldn't need to create a G Leauge team. Just become it. Save money.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

That's kind of a very glowing analysis of what he does with no acknowledgement of any of the issues with his game, isn't it?

That's my point, really. The Blazers gave up two 1Rs for him already and he busted. Now, you're willing to trade THREE more 1Rs for a player with an injury history who was OK last year playing a lot for a team that was trying to lose. That might be "to each his own," but throwing away assets on damaged goods in a desperate hope they might be slightly above average isn't a good way to construct a roster.

hit a nerve sheesh! Is he an upgrade over little and Keon yes, I guess the downside as player has been his injuries he seems to be turning the corner on that. Could the 23rd pick be better maybe but not likely.

if we can upgrade a position of need with very little cost then yes I think it would be a smart trade. I could give a shit what happened in the past with trades for him.

 

[PCmor7]

hit a nerve sheesh! Is he an upgrade over little and Keon yes, I guess the downside as player has been his injuries he seems to be turning the corner on that. Could the 23rd pick be better maybe but not likely.

if we can upgrade a position of need with very little cost then yes I think it would be a smart trade. I could give a shit what happened in the past with trades for him.

I don't know if I'd call that hitting a nerve. It just seems like you've got blinders on about the guy.

First, you want to give up far too much for an average big. He and Nas are almost equals, statistically.

Second, he's an average big that failed in Portland once.

Third, it's getting way ahead of yourself to say he's turning the corner on the injury thing. He literally got through one season when he averaged 23 minutes per game.

Fourth, I don't know what rationale basis you can make that "Could the 23rd pick be better but not likely." You don't know who'll be there at that pick AND you have to assume that Collins will repeat a career year AND stay healthy. There's no basis to assume any of that.

Basically, he stayed reasonably healthy so it seems you've set a pretty low bar about what you consider a worthwhile addition.

What you miss is Zach Collins is just a guy, and a risky guy. Good teams don't trade assets for JAGs. They sign them for minimal deals. The Blazers got Drew Eubanks for nothing and he has 4 more win shares in 3 more games.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

I asked what people thought of the trade you don’t like it fair enough. Honestly I would prefer to trade the pick to Bulls and free up our future picks. Do I like Zach I don’t care one way or another I thought he might be a nice addition and in my opinion it’s wouldn’t be giving up much to get him that’s just my opinion.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

When you bet you do not take into account losing 5 dollars on the last bet. If you are taking a risk you simply take that risk on the current bet.
Thinking about what you lost 5 years ago would leave you never taking another risk.
Simply put. Each deal needs to stand on it's own merit.

 

[PCmor7]

When you bet you do not take into account losing 5 dollars on the last bet. If you are taking a risk you simply take that risk on the current bet.
Thinking about what you lost 5 years ago would leave you never taking another risk.
Simply put. Each deal needs to stand on it's own merit.

Unless it's a sucker bet.

It's one thing to take gambles. That's playing the lottery. Then there's studying trends and facts and taking the gamble. That's playing the stock market.

It's another thing to take that same money every week and betting the Statue of Liberty is going to get up and walk today. That's moving decent assets for an at-best average player with an injury history whose equal could be signed at the vet minimum.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Unless it's a sucker bet.

If you are taking a risk you simply take that risk on the current bet.

It's pretty simple. If it's a sucker bet you have to be able to see that.
Each gamble is weighed on it's own merit. It's that simple.

Right now a players worth/value is determined by what he is producing. Not what he produced 5 years ago. This happens all the time in reverse as well. Take all the players that are reduced to vets minimum contracts for example.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

What about a smaller trade with Spurs 23rd pick, Little and Keon for Zach Collins? Might need to do more to get him but he’d be a nice young vet to add to our roster. Doubt Spurs would do it my hope is they would value the 23rd pick they always seem to find a nugget at end of draft.

Giving up a third first round pick for Collins, LMAO.

 

[PCmor7]

It's pretty simple. If it's a sucker bet you have to be able to see that.
Each gamble is weighed on it's own merit. It's that simple.

Right now a players worth/value is determined by what he is producing. Not what he produced 5 years ago. This happens all the time in reverse as well. Take all the players that are reduced to vets minimum contracts for example.

I don't think that's entirely true, though. There is a matter of sample size to be considered. There's also a matter of commensurate availability to consider.

In Zach Collins' particular case, he had an outlier season in terms of both production and health. At that, his play wasn't that eye-opening. I'll go so far as to say that if he wasn't a former Blazer and hadn't played at Gonzaga, we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all because every year there are plenty of similar players available at any point in the season that can be signed off the street or out of the G-League without having to trade one first-round pick for them, let alone three.

Further, re:sample size ... are we basing the sudden belief that Collins has turned a corner on his play in the last month? The last two months? When the Spurs were playing meaningless games against other teams' reserves? What constitutes the time frame over which we're evaluating what a player is producing?

Finally, the reason it happens in reverse is because being a good basketball player is the exception, not the norm. Players get reduced all the time because they decline, the league gets a scouting report on them, teams figure them out, first rounders become role players, etc. The percentage of players that steadily improve 5-10 years into their NBA career is significantly smaller than the percentage that declines after Year 4.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

I don't think that's entirely true, though. There is a matter of sample size to be considered. There's also a matter of commensurate availability to consider.

In Zach Collins' particular case, he had an outlier season in terms of both production and health. At that, his play wasn't that eye-opening. I'll go so far as to say that if he wasn't a former Blazer and hadn't played at Gonzaga, we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all because every year there are plenty of similar players available at any point in the season that can be signed off the street or out of the G-League without having to trade one first-round pick for them, let alone three.

Further, re:sample size ... are we basing the sudden belief that Collins has turned a corner on his play in the last month? The last two months? When the Spurs were playing meaningless games against other teams' reserves? What constitutes the time frame over which we're evaluating what a player is producing?

Finally, the reason it happens in reverse is because being a good basketball player is the exception, not the norm. Players get reduced all the time because they decline, the league gets a scouting report on them, teams figure them out, first rounders become role players, etc. The percentage of players that steadily improve 5-10 years into their NBA career is significantly smaller than the percentage that declines after Year 4.

I think you’re making an emotional decision. Look past the fact that he use to be a Blazer and the draft pick. He’s a starting caliber 6’11” big who shoots the ball well from 3 (over 37%), plays good defense/really good help defender, decent rebounder, passes the ball good for a big and still young. Biggest knock on him can he stay healthy, talent was always there.

Ok now write me a book telling me how superior your opinion is to mine, lol.

 

[TBpup]

If they make the pick and don't trade it away, James Nnaji has been climbing quite a bit but still should be available there. Duren-esque with good feet, tremendous length, and ferocity at the rim.

 

[PCmor7]

I think you’re making an emotional decision. Look past the fact that he use to be a Blazer and the draft pick. He’s a starting caliber 6’11” big who shoots the ball well from 3 (over 37%), plays good defense/really good help defender, decent rebounder, passes the ball good for a big and still young. Biggest knock on him can he stay healthy, talent was always there.

Ok now write me a book telling me how superior your opinion is to mine, lol.

I don't have to write a book about that. You're the one that just made a post about me making an emotional decision when I've actually included facts, stats and reasoning that you've countered with "I think it'd be a good move" and then finished it with "lol."

You have to see that it's silly to pay for something you can get for free, right? You can get the exact same contribution as you'd get from Zach Collins from a number of players. You're even getting MORE of a contribution from a player currently on your roster playing the same position as Zach Collins than you would likely get from Zach Collins. With those facts in mind, explain the logic in sending out a third first-round draft pick to reacquire Zach Collins along with two younger former first-round picks.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

I don't have to write a book about that. You're the one that just made a post about me making an emotional decision when I've actually included facts, stats and reasoning that you've countered with "I think it'd be a good move" and then finished it with "lol."

You have to see that it's silly to pay for something you can get for free, right? You can get the exact same contribution as you'd get from Zach Collins from a number of players. You're even getting MORE of a contribution from a player currently on your roster playing the same position as Zach Collins than you would likely get from Zach Collins. With those facts in mind, explain the logic in sending out a third first-round draft pick to reacquire Zach Collins along with two younger former first-round picks.

why do you keep going back to first round picks all that matters is does it make sense. The team you are trading with doesn’t care that Little and Keon where 1st round picks all that matters is the value of the players and draft pick you are trading worth the package you are trading for. I don’t think you’ll find lots of players with his skill set at 23rd pick (already proven NBA ability and still has upside). Giving up Little and Keon is salary matching to make trade work. Neither is huge asset for us, although I do like Little.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

I'll go so far as to say that if he wasn't a former Blazer and hadn't played at Gonzaga, we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all because every year there are plenty of similar players available at any point in the season that can be signed off the street or out of the G-League without having to trade one first-round pick for them, let alone three.

Great point! I totally agree.

Edit- There would not be three picks involved either.

 

[PCmor7]

why do you keep going back to first round picks all that matters is does it make sense.

Because a big part of the reason it doesn't make sense is the compensation.

The team you are trading with doesn’t care that Little and Keon where 1st round picks all that matters is the value of the players and draft pick you are trading worth the package you are trading for.

See above. And it should matter to us because they are assets because 1) they're assets we can use to address another need -- maybe getting a backup big better than Zach Collins, for instance -- if we aren't giving them away for a player whose equal can be had without surrendering compensation and 2) it's to show they have at least similar value by themselves to Zach Collins.

I don’t think you’ll find lots of players with his skill set at 23rd pick (already proven NBA ability and still has upside). Giving up Little and Keon is salary matching to make trade work. Neither is huge asset for us, although I do like Little.

This is the biggest reason I think you're the one coming at this emotionally. First, you don't need to add anything to make the trade work; according to the trade machine, Collins and Little can be traded straight up. Second, Collins doesn't have a skillset at this point. He's been hurt more than he's played. You can't make any kind of realistic assessment of what he does for the Blazers. His best year he averaged 11.6 points 6.4 rebounds in games that didn't matter. Third, you don't know who the Blazers could pick 23 or trade for using 23. You're saying you don't think you'll find something at 23, but aside from having already played in the NBA, that's just an opinion and demonstrably untrue. Every year, players drafted 23 and lower make the NBA and any that do have a reasonable chance of accomplishing more than Zach Collins has.

 

[PCmor7]

Great point! I totally agree.

Edit- There would not be three picks involved either.

By saying three first rounders, I'm speaking in actual compensation. We used two first rounders to trade up for Collins the first time, now 1-Eye is advocating spending another and trading two more-recent first-rounders to reacquire him. That's where I get the three. It's more a realistic assessment but not exact on the detail.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Darkhorse — I’m pissing everyone off and taking Zach Edy here if Jackson/Sensabaugh aren’t there.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Darkhorse — I’m pissing everyone off and taking Zach Edy here if Jackson/Sensabaugh aren’t there.

at 43?