Blazers Looking for Improvements, Won't be from Overseas

[Blazer Freak]

Yes, it’s true the Blazers hold the rights to a trio of international prospects that could help alleviate their biggest offseason needs. But, for a variety of reasons, it’s unlikely any of the players — Spanish forward Victor Claver, British big man Joel Freeland or Finnish point guard Petteri Koponen — will provide help to the franchise anytime soon.

“I think Victor is an NBA player right now. But he wants to stay over for another year and play with Valencia. His team was in the EuroLeague this year, it was a good season for him and he wanted to stick around for one year. But Victor is ready to come over and play in our league right now.”

Freeland, a 6-foot-11, 225-pound bruiser who Buchanan calls “one of the top three or four post players in Europe,” would fill an immediate need for the Blazers and they would be open to bringing him to the NBA. But his contract is a problem. He just completed the second of a three-year deal with Unicaja Malaga of the ACB League.

"If his contract situation was ideal for us and for him, we would bring him over right now,” Buchanan said. “We feel like he could come in an be a serviceable backup post player. Joel is never going to be anything more than that kind of backup role player, but he’s ready to do that.”

http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2011/06/as_trail_blazers_work_on_impro.html

Looks like Freeland and Claver will be coming over next season, with Petteri being the furthest away.

It is good to hear that we actually have a specific timeline to bring these guys over, and I really like how Buchanan is actually open (unlike Cho) about talking these guys and their future roles.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Waste of draft picks.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Waste of draft picks.

Especially when you consider we passed on Millsap to take Freeland and Blair to take Claver. Both of those guys have already proven to be solid NBA back-up (or potential starting) power forwards. We could have had six "serviceable" seasons of Millsap before we even (maybe) see Freeland in a Blazers uniform and see if he can (maybe) be a "serviceable" back-up big man at the NBA level.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Freeland, a 6-foot-11, 225-pound bruiser who Buchanan calls “one of the top three or four post players in Europe,”

Buchanan said. “We feel like he could come in an be a serviceable backup post player. Joel is never going to be anything more than that kind of backup role player, but he’s ready to do that.”

Those two statements seem inconsistent to me. Or, is one of the top three or four post players in all of Europe really destined for a career as nothing more than a serviceable back-up post player in the NBA? Shit, if that's true, I wouldn't be in any hurry to come over either if I was Freeland. He makes millions of euros to play a much shorter schedule and is considered one of the top big men in all of Europe and he's supposed to give that up for a chance to make less money to be a backup role player?

BNM

 

[oldmangrouch]

OK, I'll admit it - I was wrong.

I objected to firing KP...but with another year to evaluate his "brilliant" drafts, I am convinced he needed to go. Outside of that one glorious year, his only decent pick has been Batum.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It's only a guess, but if Batum is on the trading block, Claver might make a goo backup SF. And Freeland might make a decent backup PF. It's worth a shot to see how they play. Love to them at summer league.

 

[Boob-No-More]

OK, I'll admit it - I was wrong.

I objected to firing KP...but with another year to evaluate his "brilliant" drafts, I am convinced he needed to go. Outside of that one glorious year, his only decent pick has been Batum.

I ALMOST agree with you, but this whole fascination with drafting international players and hoping they might someday become valuable assets was not exclusive to Pritchard. It started with Whitsitt (or even before, if you count Sabas and Drazen - who were both drafted by the Blazers in 1986), extended through the Nash/Patterson era and was taken to the extreme by Pritchard. Whittsit took Federico Kammerichs and Nedzad Sinanovic with second round picks in his last two drafts, and Nash spent two first round picks on Viktor Khryapa and Sergei Monia and a second round pick on Ha Seung-Jin in his first draft. At least those three saw time on the floor in Blazers uniforms (back when we were the worst team in the league). So, someone at the top has been encouraging the Blazers GMs to take chances on international players for a very long time. I would suspect that someone would be Paul Allen since he's been the one constant through the Whitsitt, Nash/Patterson and Pritchard regimes.

So, as Rudy and Nic enter the final year of their rookie contracts, out of all the international players the Blazers have drafted, who was the last one to make an NBA roster past their initial rookie contract? Was it really Arvydas Saboniis drafted 25 years ago in 1986? Have the Blazers REALLY wiffed that badly on international prospects over the last 25 years? It sure looks that way. Yet. they keep passing on guys like Paul Millsap, Dejuan Blair, Delonte West, Tony Allen, Kevin Martin, Chris Duhon, Trevor Ariza, etc. that had successful college careers to take a chance on some international player who has proven less and will likely never even wear a Blazers uniform.

At one time, the "euro stash" made sense, especially if you already had a very deep roster with no immediate holes that could be filled where you were drafting, but those days were over at least five years ago. Due to escalating salaries in Europe, combined with the weak dollar and declining NBA salaries, it hasn't made any sense in years to waste draft picks on players that will likely never play for your team. Either they will never develop into NBA caliber players, or if they do develop to the point where they could actually play at the NBA level, they will make more money playing a much shorter schedule in Europe. Either way it's a wasted draft pick. You either wasted it on a crappy player, or a decent player who will never play for you.

So, out of the three international players that finished the season with Portland, how many will remain in the NBA past their rookie contracts (or 4 seasons in the case of 2nd round picks)? I see Rudy leaving the NBA and going back to Europe after his rookie contract. Batum will definitely be in the NBA long term and is clearly our best international player since Sabonis. Patty's initial 2-year contract is up. Depending on who the Blazers draft, they may, or may not bring him back. If they do, I expect it to be something like a 1-year contract with a team option for a second year. Unless he shows significant improvement, I don't see him lasting past that in the NBA.

BNM

 

[Mediocre Man]

Those two statements seem inconsistent to me. Or, is one of the top three or four post players in all of Europe really destined for a career as nothing more than a serviceable back-up post player in the NBA? Shit, if that's true, I wouldn't be in any hurry to come over either if I was Freeland. He makes millions of euros to play a much shorter schedule and is considered one of the top big men in all of Europe and he's supposed to give that up for a chance to make less money to be a backup role player?

BNM

I think it shows the talent difference in the leagues more than anything else. People have argued with me about the Euro league being better than the D league, and I am not trying to bring that back into play, but remember that Babbitt lit up the D league and couldn't get off the bench in the NBA on a depleted roster.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

freeland and claver are both top players in europe, and when they come over should help, whats the problem with that?

comparing them to players we missed on, why not compare them to players who were picked before them and have ALREADY proven that they cant do shit in the league?

 

[Mediocre Man]

freeland and claver are both top players in europe, and when they come over should help, whats the problem with that?

comparing them to players we missed on, why not compare them to players who were picked before them and have ALREADY proven that they cant do shit in the league?

Our own acting GM said Freeland would be nothing more than a back up, and they have a tendancy to sugarcoat things

 

[3RA1N1AC]

lol oh no! we didnt get an all star with the 30th pick in the draft!

gimme a fucking break

 

[Boob-No-More]

freeland and claver are both top players in europe, and when they come over should help, whats the problem with that?

comparing them to players we missed on, why not compare them to players who were picked before them and have ALREADY proven that they cant do shit in the league?

The problem with that is we don't know:

a) will they EVER play for the Blazers
b) if they do, will they be any good

At best, Freeland comes over for the seventh season after he was drafted. So, we missed out on six seasons of Paul Millsap before we even get to see if Freeland can play at the NBA level. I was a big advocate of drafting Millsap at either 30 or 31 (we had both picks) in 2006 and a big advocate of drafting Blair in 2009, even if we had to move up to get him. I was shocked when he was available at 24 and we passed on him to take Claver, and even more shocked when we passed on him two more times in favor of Pendergraph and Cunningham.

The point being these were two guys who were proven college players who could have contributed immediately that we passed on for guys who may never play for us. Seriously, how good will Freeland need to be to offset the six productive seasons we could have had from Millsap?

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

lol oh no! we didnt get an all star with the 30th pick in the draft!

No, but we could have had a guy who has already played five productive seasons in the league with a career PER of 17.9 and a PER of 19.8 last season. What have we got out of Joel Freeland the past five seasons? What will we get from him next season?

BNM

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

lol oh no! we didnt get an all star with the 30th pick in the draft!

gimme a fucking break

That's sort of how I feel as well. We took a few flyers on young euros late in the draft where there was no one on anyone's radar and we'll see how it turns out. But so many around here expect allstars with every pick we make. It drives me nuts.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Seriously, how good will Freeland need to be to offset the six productive seasons we could have had from Millsap?

BNM

lol, yeah what was THE ENTIRE LEAGUE thinking, passing on milsap, THE ENTIRE LEAGUE is comprised of moron GM's

when you get to the 30th pick, its a crapshoot, and you cant take your bet back after rolling the dice

get over it

 

[Drttimmy]

At one time, the "euro stash" made sense, especially if you already had a very deep roster with no immediate holes that could be filled where you were drafting, but those days were over at least five years ago.

BNM

I think we're only 2 years removed that strategy, which is the last time we invested a high pick on a Euro stash player. Two drafts ago, we were arguably 2 deep with young or prime players at every position. Now the circumstances are completely different and we need talent upgrade at every position. But in the Claver draft, with a stable full of young, talented players (or what it seemed) it made sense to take a shot on a guy with lottery upside who would be a long-term investment. I think it still makes sense given we're stacked across the board. I don't think we'll seen them go this route anytime soon though.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

No, but we could have had a guy who has already played five productive seasons in the league with a career PER of 17.9 and a PER of 19.8 last season. What have we got out of Joel Freeland the past five seasons? What will we get from him next season?
BNM

Alternatively, we could be like the genius GMs that took Maurice Ager and Mardy Collins with the two picks above Freeland and had to pay them first round draft pick money for at least three years. Freeland has cost us nothing while other people have invested a lot in developing him.

 

[mook]

Alternatively, we could be like the genius GMs that took Maurice Ager and Mardy Collins with the two picks above Freeland and had to pay them first round draft pick money for at least three years. Freeland has cost us nothing while other people have invested a lot in developing him.

Excellent point. repped

 

[Boob-No-More]

That's sort of how I feel as well. We took a few flyers on young euros late in the draft where there was no one on anyone's radar and we'll see how it turns out. But so many around here expect allstars with every pick we make. It drives me nuts.

The whole allstar thing is a strawman. Nobody here claimed we should expect to get an allstar with the 30th pick in the draft. However, getting a solid role player is not an entirely unrealistic expectation.

Here's what I wrote about Millsap prior to the 2006 draft:

Assuming they don't trade the picks, if he's available I'd use one of 30 or 31 on Paul Millsap. He's a rebounding animal. He measured out shorter than his listed height (as expected, and just like almost everybody else), but I think he'd make a solid back-up 4. It's interesting that Shelden Williams is both taller and has a longer wingspan, yet Millsap has a greater standing reach (8' 9.5" vs. 8' 8"). Obviously, Willams played against better competition and has a more polished all around game, but with Williams rumored to be going as high as 5, I think Millsap would be a steal at 30 or 31. There's a lot more to being a great rebounder than height. Just ask Charles Barkely and Dennis Rodman - and Millsap did something neither of them did in college - lead the NCAA in rebounding three years in a row. You're not likely to get a star, or even a future starter at 30 or 31, so why not go for a role player who fills a need and addresses one of your team's weaknesses?

Does that sound like I was expecting to get an allstar? Millsap was a known quantity that filled an immediate need and we passed on him for a guy who may (or may not) finally fill that same role seven seasons later.

BNM

 

[3RA1N1AC]

you being an all seeing prophetic draft genius, while impressive, means nothing

paul milsap is good ≠ freeland was a bad pick

 

[andalusian]

2006 was a very different year for the Blazers - they had a crappy team and had to roll the dice as much as possible with the hope that one of these guys will turn into stars. It turns out that it was the obvious choices - Roy/Aldridge that did come out of it - but since no one was sure at draft time - it is not a surprise that the Blazers did all the wheeling and dealing later in the draft to get Sergio and Petteri.

In 2007 they had a good draft pick in Rudy (not a star, but a good player for sure) and a home run in the Batum pick after. When you analyze the deal with 20/20 hindsight - you also have to remember where the team was when the selection was made. They have gone for high-risk, high-reward - and these things either turn fantastically well - or crap all the way. They needed to go that way in 2006 for an obvious reason - so crying about passing on a role player at the time (even if Milsap turned out to be a very good role-player) - just has to be done when you remember why the selection was made.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I think we're only 2 years removed that strategy, which is the last time we invested a high pick on a Euro stash player. Two drafts ago, we were arguably 2 deep with young or prime players at every position. Now the circumstances are completely different and we need talent upgrade at every position. But in the Claver draft, with a stable full of young, talented players (or what it seemed) it made sense to take a shot on a guy with lottery upside who would be a long-term investment. I think it still makes sense given we're stacked across the board. I don't think we'll seen them go this route anytime soon though.

I disagree on the timing. The tide turned when Josh Childress got more money to play in Europe than he was offered in the NBA. That really highlighted that playing in the NBA was no longer the financial windfall it once was and that if a guy you drafted and stashed to develop in Europe actually did pan out, he could very well make more playing there than in the NBA.

Here's some relevant comments I made when we drafted Claver:

Claver is years away from being NBA ready - and if he has any success in Europe, he'll stay there where he can make more money.

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.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Alternatively, we could be like the genius GMs that took Maurice Ager and Mardy Collins with the two picks above Freeland and had to pay them first round draft pick money for at least three years. Freeland has cost us nothing while other people have invested a lot in developing him.

That's not 100% true. We lost the opportunity cost of taking someone productive (like Paul Millsap) with that 30th pick and as a first round draft pick Freeland also counted as a cap hold of about $1 million against our available cap space even though he wasn't under contract with us and has never played for us. We would have fared far better if we would have taken Millsap at 30 and Freeland at 31, where as a second rounder there would have been no cap hold and we would not be limited to the rookie salary scale when competing for Feeland's services against teams in Europe. Of course, since six years (at the minimum) will have passed before we sign Freeland, he will no longer be subject to the rookie salary scale limitations, but in general, you can offer more money sooner to a second round pick than you can to a first rounder due to the rookie salary scale imposed on all first round picks. So, if you think that player you plan to stash to develop on Europe may actually someday be good enough to play in the NBA, you're better off taking him in the second round than the first.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

you being an all seeing prophetic draft genius, while impressive, means nothing

paul milsap is good ≠ freeland was a bad pick

No, but Millsap would have been a better pick - and if the Blazers REALLY wanted Freeland, they could have taken Millsap at 30 to address an immediate need and Freeland at 31 to stash in Europe for the future.

BNM

 

[3RA1N1AC]

woulda coulda shoulda, not sure where you are going with all of this, only one team got milsap, it wasnt us, i suggest we all move on

 

[Rastapopoulos]

So, if you think that player you plan to stash to develop on Europe may actually someday be good enough to play in the NBA, you're better off taking him in the second round than the first.

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. There's a reason that San Antonio has pursued this strategy for years. Sure you whiff on a few Millsaps, but getting one of those is blind luck. You've dug up text of yourself advocating drafting Milsap - great. But full disclosure: let's see ALL the players you've EVER advocated us taking.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

we shoulda drafted monta ellis at #6 and david lee at #27 in 2005!

 

[handiman]

I ALMOST agree with you, but this whole fascination with drafting international players and hoping they might someday become valuable assets was not exclusive to Pritchard. It started with Whitsitt (or even before, if you count Sabas and Drazen - who were both drafted by the Blazers in 1986), extended through the Nash/Patterson era and was taken to the extreme by Pritchard. Whittsit took Federico Kammerichs and Nedzad Sinanovic with second round picks in his last two drafts, and Nash spent two first round picks on Viktor Khryapa and Sergei Monia and a second round pick on Ha Seung-Jin in his first draft. At least those three saw time on the floor in Blazers uniforms (back when we were the worst team in the league). So, someone at the top has been encouraging the Blazers GMs to take chances on international players for a very long time. I would suspect that someone would be Paul Allen since he's been the one constant through the Whitsitt, Nash/Patterson and Pritchard regimes.

So, as Rudy and Nic enter the final year of their rookie contracts, out of all the international players the Blazers have drafted, who was the last one to make an NBA roster past their initial rookie contract? Was it really Arvydas Saboniis drafted 25 years ago in 1986? Have the Blazers REALLY wiffed that badly on international prospects over the last 25 years? It sure looks that way. Yet. they keep passing on guys like Paul Millsap, Dejuan Blair, Delonte West, Tony Allen, Kevin Martin, Chris Duhon, Trevor Ariza, etc. that had successful college careers to take a chance on some international player who has proven less and will likely never even wear a Blazers uniform.

At one time, the "euro stash" made sense, especially if you already had a very deep roster with no immediate holes that could be filled where you were drafting, but those days were over at least five years ago. Due to escalating salaries in Europe, combined with the weak dollar and declining NBA salaries, it hasn't made any sense in years to waste draft picks on players that will likely never play for your team. Either they will never develop into NBA caliber players, or if they do develop to the point where they could actually play at the NBA level, they will make more money playing a much shorter schedule in Europe. Either way it's a wasted draft pick. You either wasted it on a crappy player, or a decent player who will never play for you.

So, out of the three international players that finished the season with Portland, how many will remain in the NBA past their rookie contracts (or 4 seasons in the case of 2nd round picks)? I see Rudy leaving the NBA and going back to Europe after his rookie contract. Batum will definitely be in the NBA long term and is clearly our best international player since Sabonis. Patty's initial 2-year contract is up. Depending on who the Blazers draft, they may, or may not bring him back. If they do, I expect it to be something like a 1-year contract with a team option for a second year. Unless he shows significant improvement, I don't see him lasting past that in the NBA.

BNM

You forgot one angle, however: Marketing. Much-hyped international players create more intrigue and interest than decent but not great college ones, and that sells tickets.

 

[Luther]

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

 

[MARIS61]

Those two statements seem inconsistent to me. Or, is one of the top three or four post players in all of Europe really destined for a career as nothing more than a serviceable back-up post player in the NBA? Shit, if that's true, I wouldn't be in any hurry to come over either if I was Freeland. He makes millions of euros to play a much shorter schedule and is considered one of the top big men in all of Europe and he's supposed to give that up for a chance to make less money to be a backup role player?

BNM

At any rate, I wouldn't expect him to want to play for a team that has already convinced themselves he's mediocre and will never improve and announced it to the world.