giving KP some credit

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
the ob

the ob

the original blake
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
288
Likes
2
Points
18
people spend a lot of time bashing KP for the things he does not do. how about some credit for his positive draft day moves. we have third string players who are playing significant minutes and who are beating other teams first string players. as long as I am at it, i think nate deserves some credit for his game plans as well......
 
I like KP's philosophy of drafting guys with 3 or 4 years in college (when possible). Pendegraph and Cunningham are both ready to play some minutes in the NBA without embarrassing themselves or hurting the team. Another draft of lunchpail guys like them, and we will have the right balance of fancy offensive players and down & dirty pick-setters/rebounders.
 
Jeff and Dante have been impressive in terms of doing the things that NBA vets often do. I also credit Howard, Nate was quick to mention that Howard has done a great job teaching the young guys how to play in the NBA.
 
Sug said:
Jeff and Dante have been impressive in terms of doing the things that NBA vets often do. I also credit Howard, Nate was quick to mention that Howard has done a great job teaching the young guys how to play in the NBA.
Click to expand...

Agreed; another smart pick up.
 
I've never had a problem with KP's ability to identify and draft talent, my only complaint is that he doesn't appear to know how to balance a roster. Great work by Jeff and Dante :twothumbs: ... and this team still will have the same chemistry issues they had at the start of training camp until he thins the herd.
 
Nikolokolus said:
my only complaint is that he doesn't appear to know how to balance a roster.
Click to expand...

He's using the Intel model. Drop the bottom 2 players each year, and in three years, you'll have the best roster in the league.

As far as balancing said roster, if some GM would just take Outlaw and Blake off our hands, and give us a backup Center in return, we'd be balanced. Regardless, both those guys are expiring, so really all KP has to do to balance the roster is wait and save Paul Allen some bucks.
 
Quick question: which pick did we get back for Sergio: Pendergraph or Cunningham?
 
Nikolokolus said:
I've never had a problem with KP's ability to identify and draft talent, my only complaint is that he doesn't appear to know how to balance a roster. Great work by Jeff and Dante :twothumbs: ... and this team still will have the same chemistry issues they had at the start of training camp until he thins the herd.
Click to expand...

Tell me. If KP had already "thinned the herd" where would we be now?
 
ob_pink.jpg


I found an avatar for you OB.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
He's using the Intel model. Drop the bottom 2 players each year, and in three years, you'll have the best roster in the league.

As far as balancing said roster, if some GM would just take Outlaw and Blake off our hands, and give us a backup Center in return, we'd be balanced. Regardless, both those guys are expiring, so really all KP has to do to balance the roster is wait and save Paul Allen some bucks.
Click to expand...

That's a great way to build a fantasy basketball team.

tlongII said:
Tell me. If KP had already "thinned the herd" where would we be now?
Click to expand...

Well, if you believe that teams usually get about 80% of their production from 20% of their roster (ie their stars) then I tend to think that if Roy and Aldridge were still healthy the team might not be dominant, but they'd still be performing at a somewhat high level. If the 20% go down for an extended period it doesn't matter how much depth you have, you're going to struggle.

Think of it this way, when fully healthy, we sort of have a bench full of sixth men and what is it that sixth men are usually best suited to doing? Scoring right. Well now that we have guys like Blake, Pendergraph and Cunningham filling our 7th, 8th and 9th spots, hustling, defending (some better than others), rebounding and filling the gaps on offense the team is playing loose and free because roles are well defined.

I think people have been suckered into thinking that having 12 rotation quality players is a great way to immunize yourself against injury, that might be true in this extraordinary circumstance, but if you build your roster planning for this kind of event rather than building it to surround your core 2 or 3 stars with complimentary players then you don't really have your eye on the prize anyway -- that's raising your floor, not raising your ceiling (so to speak).
 
Last edited:
Nikolokolus said:
That's a great way to build a fantasy basketball team.
Click to expand...

I know your intent is to disparage the technique, but I think KP is also aware of positional concerns and chemistry concerns. This technique is successful, and basketball is no different than any other small business.

I work at a small company that turns a big profit every year because we only keep the best people we find, with a mind for overlapping and unique talents. It's not that hard. When you bring in three people for a project, you watch them work, judge their ability to do their work and work with the rest of the team, and if you like what you see, they stay. When the work gets lower, and you need to let someone go, you look at where you are, who's doing the best work, and you choose the guy who is performing the worst, again being mindful of the type of work you foresee and everyone's skills.

This technique works. Earlier in the summer, KP let the two worst PER guys go. He traded one for (effectively) Jeff Pendergraph. The other he simply let go. Both moves were for the best overall, imho.

I think this technique can work in basketball. Real basketball, not "fantasy basketball."
 
BlazerCaravan said:
I know your intent is to disparage the technique, but I think KP is also aware of positional concerns and chemistry concerns. This technique is successful, and basketball is no different than any other small business.

I work at a small company that turns a big profit every year because we only keep the best people we find, with a mind for overlapping and unique talents. It's not that hard. When you bring in three people for a project, you watch them work, judge their ability to do their work and work with the rest of the team, and if you like what you see, they stay. When the work gets lower, and you need to let someone go, you look at where you are, who's doing the best work, and you choose the guy who is performing the worst, again being mindful of the type of work you foresee and everyone's skills.

This technique works. Earlier in the summer, KP let the two worst PER guys go. He traded one for (effectively) Jeff Pendergraph. The other he simply let go. Both moves were for the best overall, imho.

I think this technique can work in basketball. Real basketball, not "fantasy basketball."
Click to expand...

I agree it's always good to add more talented players to your roster when you have the opportunity, but there is a tipping point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in. I just think he's carrying too many young or rookie scale guys that are worried about their next contract (as they should be), worried about their minutes and are at their best scoring the ball and not enough defensive minded guys, hustle guys and glue guys.

For instance I would gladly trade Webster and Rudy for Shane Battier even though he has mediocre PER of 11 but he would fill a role better than either and add veteran savvy to this roster without crowding the rotation with yet another mouth to feed.

All of these players added to our roster only make sense if KP is viewing them as trade able assets to be cashed in, so far I'm not sure KP sees it this way.
 
Nikolokolus said:
I agree it's always good to add more talented players to your roster when you have the opportunity, but there is a tipping point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in. I just think he's carrying too many young or rookie scale guys that are worried about their next contract (as they should be), worried about their minutes and are at their best scoring the ball and not enough defensive minded guys, hustle guys and glue guys.

For instance I would gladly trade Webster and Rudy for Shane Battier even though he has mediocre PER of 11 but he would fill a role better than either and add veteran savvy to this roster without crowding the rotation with yet another mouth to feed.

All of these players added to our roster only make sense if KP is viewing them as trade able assets to be cashed in, so far I'm not sure KP sees it this way.
Click to expand...

I think that's why he's starting to invest in lunch pail second rounders: professional benchers. Of the guys on rookie scale, only Rudy is a sore point.

Bayless has a career path: Blake is expiring, Miller is temporary. Bayless will likely start for us in two years or less.

Mills has proven nothing yet, but could be something special as a backup for now, and maybe a starter if Bayless doesn't work out. For now, he's not an issue, though.

Batum has a career path: Webster is a placeholder until Batum can take back the starting SF role. He'll start by season's end, and will cement his status as a core member.

Dante is a lunchpail guy who has shown sparks of good play, but nothing to warrant him getting shirty about being stuck behind Batum.

Pendergraph is the same way. He will be a career backup, but get lots of minutes as a PF/C backing up both LMA at PF and Joel as 3rd center.

Rudy is the tough one. He has no career path. He feels he should start in the league. We probably will trade him over the summer, or let him go after next year.

Webster, Blake, Outlaw all have shown themselves to be superfluous, unfortunately. Webster might get packaged with Rudy, but honestly, I'd rather just get an expiring and a pick and cull the herd. I think it'll happen; it happened this last summer, and it will likely happen this next summer too.

KP moves slowly, but I do see direction in his movements.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
I think that's why he's starting to invest in lunch pail second rounders: professional benchers. Of the guys on rookie scale, only Rudy is a sore point.

Bayless has a career path: Blake is expiring, Miller is temporary. Bayless will likely start for us in two years or less.

Mills has proven nothing yet, but could be something special as a backup for now, and maybe a starter if Bayless doesn't work out. For now, he's not an issue, though.

Batum has a career path: Webster is a placeholder until Batum can take back the starting SF role. He'll start by season's end, and will cement his status as a core member.

Dante is a lunchpail guy who has shown sparks of good play, but nothing to warrant him getting shirty about being stuck behind Batum.

Pendergraph is the same way. He will be a career backup, but get lots of minutes as a PF/C backing up both LMA at PF and Joel as 3rd center.

Rudy is the tough one. He has no career path. He feels he should start in the league. We probably will trade him over the summer, or let him go after next year.

Webster, Blake, Outlaw all have shown themselves to be superfluous, unfortunately. Webster might get packaged with Rudy, but honestly, I'd rather just get an expiring and a pick and cull the herd. I think it'll happen; it happened this last summer, and it will likely happen this next summer too.

KP moves slowly, but I do see direction in his movements.
Click to expand...

I agree that Pendergraph and Cunningham fit the "luch bucket" mold, but frankly this team needs veterans that fit that mold too ... this team is also desperate for an enforcer type in the front court (not named Jeff Pendergraph).

When I say 'cull the herd' I mean consolidate; simply letting assets walk at the end of their deals when they have value strikes me as being completely passive and not doing your best to get value ... especially when I think there are still some considerable holes to be filled in this roster defensively.

But let's be honest about this roster. It has one bona fide star in Roy, an above average player in LaMarcus (who I have serious doubts that he will ever post a PER above 21), and a promising but completely unreliable player in Greg as their big three ... this team is short one star by my calculation if it ever wants to truly compete for a championship. I'm not sure if KP has the ammo to go out and get that second star, but as of now I see this as being a perpetually "good" team that may eventually have a Western Conference finals appearance, but probably not a lot more.
 
I usually watch the games pretty closely, but we seem to disagree on something here.

Why do you feel that Webster is "superfluous", but Dante is a "lunchpail" guy who deserves to be Batum's backup?
 
BlazerCaravan said:
I know your intent is to disparage the technique, but I think KP is also aware of positional concerns and chemistry concerns. This technique is successful, and basketball is no different than any other small business.

I work at a small company that turns a big profit every year because we only keep the best people we find, with a mind for overlapping and unique talents. It's not that hard. When you bring in three people for a project, you watch them work, judge their ability to do their work and work with the rest of the team, and if you like what you see, they stay. When the work gets lower, and you need to let someone go, you look at where you are, who's doing the best work, and you choose the guy who is performing the worst, again being mindful of the type of work you foresee and everyone's skills.

This technique works. Earlier in the summer, KP let the two worst PER guys go. He traded one for (effectively) Jeff Pendergraph. The other he simply let go. Both moves were for the best overall, imho.

I think this technique can work in basketball. Real basketball, not "fantasy basketball."
Click to expand...

The biggest difference is that in your company everybody that stays gets to work. The reality for the Blazers is that (in a normal year when half the team isn't injured) the 9th, 10th, 11th . . . players on their roster recently have been guys who think they should have a greater role than they do. Channing Frye didn't want to play spot minutes at PF/C and focus on defense/rebounding. Sergio Rodriguez didn't want to be handcuffed to a slow paced offense, and thought he should play more also. Jarryd Bayless thought he deserved more run. Rudy Fernandez thought his role was too limited. So what some people were calling "depth" was creating problems inside the team. And some of our "assets" at the bottom of the roster weren't considered all that valuable around the league b/c they weren't playing much or being allowed to play a style that suits their strength. What do you think we could get for Channing Frye now? (Throw in RLEC + prospect) Maybe KP does overvalue guys, but then again there was/is some talent on the roster that is hard to qualify when they don't get a chance to play.

Look at the bottom 5 on the Lakers roster right now: Josh Powell, Sasha Vujacic, DJ Mbenga, Shannon Brown, Adam Morrison. You wouldn't expect any of these guys to demand a trade or complain about minutes. It's a fine line, but you have to have guys on the end of your bench that are 1) okay to be there and 2) can contribute something if needed. In other words, too much "depth" ain't always a good thing.
 
Nikolokolus said:
But let's be honest about this roster. It has one bona fide star in Roy, an above average player in LaMarcus (who I have serious doubts that he will ever post a PER above 21), and a promising but completely unreliable player in Greg as their big three ... this team is short one star by my calculation if it ever wants to truly compete for a championship. I'm not sure if KP has the ammo to go out and get that second star, but as of now I see this as being a perpetually "good" team that may eventually have a Western Conference finals appearance, but probably not a lot more.
Click to expand...

Bear with me a moment, I'm going to try something. Here's the Total PER for the top 6 players in each Championship team going back 8 years.

2009 Lakers: 113.7
2008 Celtics: 111.1
2007 Spurs: 119.4
2006 Heat: 114.5
2005 Spurs: 114
2004 Pistons: 104.2
2003 Spurs: 107.9
2002 Lakers: 111.5

Here's last year's Blazers: 107.2

Rudy, Joel, and Travis were the bottom three of the top 6, all hovering around 15. To go from shouting distance to really contending, we need our starting SF to give us 17 PER, our starting PG to give us 16 PER, and our fist guy off the bench to give us 16 PER.

The problem with this year is that we never got to see Batum play with the full starting lineup. Next year should be interesting: Roy and LMA are down in PER, but Oden and Bayless more than made up for it in their gains this year, giving us a net positive. If Batum can come in and be 16 PER player, we're suddenly in the 112 PER range.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I usually watch the games pretty closely, but we seem to disagree on something here.

Why do you feel that Webster is "superfluous", but Dante is a "lunchpail" guy who deserves to be Batum's backup?
Click to expand...

This season, Dante is making 1/10 of what Webster makes. In 2012, it will still be 1/5. Is Webster worth the difference? IMHO, the jury is still out on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top