Blazers Looking for Improvements, Won't be from Overseas

[Ed O]

Every GM makes bad picks. I'm glad KP was apart of this franchise...lets move on.

KP is not apart from this franchise.

Better than a part of this franchise?

TBD.

Ed O.

 

[STOMP]

No, that's a dumb strategy, for this reason: a low first rounder is very likely to be a big waste of money. A large proportion of them never pan out (go back and look!), and they get three years of guaranteed money. If you pick an American kid, you're stuck with him (unless you've got the nads to do what Jerry Krause did with Travis Knight and just let him walk for nothing). If you pick someone in Europe then it's win/win: if he turns out to be good, you bring him over when he's good, and you get the value of a higher draft pick for a low one, without having to pay to develop him. If he turns out bad, then it costs you no money.

The second round, on the other hand, is the place to go for the good four-year college player who's short for his position or who might be a good role player. Then you can get him in camp and decide if he's good, and YOU set the terms of his contract.

agreed. This is why I've been advocating Portland drafting a foreigner in this upcoming draft. Not only are they picking pretty late, but the draft is thought to be especially weak sauce. Then again, maybe they'd want another smallish contract on board to help flexibility in trades? For reference, Elliott Williams was drafted #22 last year and is due about 10M over 5 years.

STOMP

 

[Rastapopoulos]

We should have just traded out of the first round and taken him at 31. Also, if Claver stays in Europe for another year or two and shows promise, he'll likely get offers from European teams that will far exceed what he would get under the NBA rookie salary scale. If he was a 2nd round pick, we'd be able to bid against the European teams for his services without the limit of the rookie salary scale. So, drafting him in the 1st round actually reduces the chances he'll play for the Blazers down the road.

There is some sense in what you say, but here's what can be said in response:
1. Good Euro players have come over nonetheless. Navarro came over, Spanoulis came over, Rudy came over. All of them were total rockstars in Europe, but they wanted to try out the NBA. Now Rubio is coming over.
2. We don't know what the new CBA will say.
3. The economy is tanking in Europe much worse than it is here. Two of the countries most affected? Spain and Greece, the only countries whose salaries can even come close to rivaling the NBA minimum (for a small fraction of players).
4. Childress came back, you notice.
5. You're assuming Claver would have been available at 31. You have no way of knowing that, and in fact, it seems unlikely, given the number of teams who practice the Eurostash method with low first-rounders (the red-headed stepchild of draft picks).

 

[Minstrel]

The vast majority of college players taken at the end of the first round tend to suck in the NBA. The same is true of international prospects. That's simply the nature of the end of the first round: most players taken there are not likely to be successful in the NBA. So your best chance to actually mine a good NBA player at that point is not to limit your pool by things like need or nationality. You take the guy who you evaluate to have the best talent, whether he's a US collegian, a player from another country or a big man when you have five All-Star centers.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Minstrel:

I think it's a little more complicated than that. College players are (a) so much better scouted and (b) age limited. It's still possible to draft teenagers from overseas (if they declare). If a player falls to the bottom of the first it's either because every other GM has decided he's not worth it or because they're not prepared to take the risk on a youngster that won't pan out. But taking a foreign youngster isn't a risk, because you keep him over there and don't have to spend money on him.

BNM keeps going on and ON about Milsap because he's one of the TINY fraction of second-rounders who turned out to be slightly more than a role player (now that Arenas and Michael Redd aren't looking like such shining examples any more) but the numbers of players just like Milsap who were Mil-crap are legion. It's almost certainly the same % for foreigners taken low (Ginobilis and Marc Gasols are rare) but they don't cost anything until you want them.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel:

I think it's a little more complicated than that. College players are (a) so much better scouted and (b) age limited. It's still possible to draft teenagers from overseas (if they declare). If a player falls to the bottom of the first it's either because every other GM has decided he's not worth it or because they're not prepared to take the risk on a youngster that won't pan out. But taking a foreign youngster isn't a risk, because you keep him over there and don't have to spend money on him.

If cost is a consideration, I agree. "Euro stashing" is a better gamble. Perhaps having had Paul Allen as the owner of my favourite team has inured me to cost considerations, but I tend to think in terms of opportunity cost, not cash cost. The risk of taking a teenager (European or not) who busts is a wasted draft pick. I'd like to maximize draft picks as a cap (distinct from cash) effective way to keep refreshing talent. So, to me, missing on a draft pick (not getting any on-court value) is a pretty bad thing, even if you didn't waste money.

Therefore, I'd rather gamble on whichever player I think is likely to provide the most on-court value for the team. If that's a European player, that's fine. If it's a college player who may not be properly appreciated (or may have dropped for injury concerns, even if his talent is good) so be it...even if it means potentially wasting some money.

In some sense, that's a risk that's easy for me, a fan, to accept, since it's not my money. I'd like to believe that if I were a multi-billionaire owner, I'd feel the same way. Maybe not.