Grade the draft

[Boob-No-More]

I also think we took Claver, Pendergraph and Cunningham too high.

I think Claver would have still been available at 31 - and picking him there would have had two big advantages. First, by taking him at 22, he immediately counts as $1,012,900 against our cap. So, we lose over a million in cap space for our big free agent push. 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. I think we screwed ourselves twice by taking Claver at 22 - once due to the cap hold, and once due to the the rookie salary scale limitations that may keep him in Europe.

I think Pendergraph would have been available at 33 (I still would have taken Blair, though) and Cunningham would have possibly been available at 55, and who cares if he wasn't?

BNM

 

[STOMP]

We did great! Got 2 potential good guys in Pendergraph and Mills. But we don't need ANY rookies. NOT ANY ROOKIES!!! We do NOT need to get younger. This draft is POINTLESS for a team like ours. We need vets.

what would have been the point of trading up to grab someone in a draft as weak as this one? The price of moving to the front of the line probably was pretty steep, and from where I sit I didn't see the value. They basically did what I hoped/predicted a couple months back... given the circumstances I gave them a B.

STOMP

 

[Tince]

I can't wait to look at this a few years from now. I'd give it a B-. I think we got the guys we wanted at 22, 31, and 55. I can't say if those are going to be the best guys, but our record with international players is very impressive considering where we've taken them.

 

[Boob-No-More]

but our record with international players is very impressive considering where we've taken them.

Really? Other than Sabonis, Drazen Petrovic, Rudy, and Batum we've wasted a lot of picks on international player who haven't panned out.

Federico Kammerichs?

Nedzad Sinanovic?

Ha Seung-Jin?

Sergei Monia?

Viktor Khryapa?

Joel Freeland?

Sergio Rodriguez?

Petteri Koponen?

Discounting Sabonis and Petrovic, because they are ancient history, that's 10 international players drafted in the previous 7 drafts (I'm not counting Omer Asik, since we immediately traded him). Of those 10 picks, two have panned out (Rudy and Batum). A third, Sergio, is still in the NBA, but we just had to pay the worst team in the league to take him off our hands. Three others (Ha Seung-Jin, Sergei Monia and Viktor Khryapa) have played in the NBA, but are no longer in the league. The other four have never played in the NBA and we are about to renounce our rights to Koponen and Freeland to help free up the cap space that will be eaten up by Claver, our latest international pick.

To me, that makes us 2 for 10 - a 20% success rate on our last 10 international picks (25% if you count Sergio, who is at least still in the league).

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

Really? Other than Sabonis, Drazen Petrovic, Rudy, and Batum we've wasted a lot of picks on international player who haven't panned out.

Federico Kammerichs?

Nedzad Sinanovic?

Ha Seung-Jin?

Sergei Monia?

Viktor Khryapa?

Joel Freeland?

Sergio Rodriguez?

Petteri Koponen?

Discounting Sabonis and Petrovic, because they are ancient history, that's 10 international players drafted in the previous 7 drafts (I'm not counting Omer Asik, since we immediately traded him). Of those 10 picks, two have panned out (Rudy and Batum). A third, Sergio, is still in the NBA, but we just had to pay the worst team in the league to take him off our hands. Three others (Ha Seung-Jin, Sergei Monia and Viktor Khryapa) have played in the NBA, but are no longer in the league. The other four have never played in the NBA and we are about to renounce our rights to Koponen and Freeland to help free up the cap space that will be eaten up by Claver, our latest international pick.

To me, that makes us 2 for 10 - a 20% success rate on our last 10 international picks (25% if you count Sergio, who is at least still in the league).

BNM

I think it's far more reasonable to look at just the international players drafted under Pritchard. What other GMs did isn't terribly relevant to evaluating the likelihood of success of a Pritchard selection.

Sergio, Rudy and Batum have all turned out to be legitimate NBA players. Freeland and Koponen are yet to be determined as talents...they're currently being squeezed out of this franchise by a numbers game, which is partially a problem of overall success...the team doesn't have the money, roster spots or development time to spend on them because they're contending now.

Personally, considering that none of them were top-half of the first round selections, I think that's a pretty strong hit rate.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I think it's far more reasonable to look at just the international players drafted under Pritchard. What other GMs did isn't terribly relevant to evaluating the likelihood of success of a Pritchard selection.

Sergio, Rudy and Batum have all turned out to be legitimate NBA players. Freeland and Koponen are yet to be determined as talents...they're currently being squeezed out of this franchise by a numbers game, which is partially a problem of overall success...the team doesn't have the money, roster spots or development time to spend on them because they're contending now.

Personally, considering that none of them were top-half of the first round selections, I think that's a pretty strong hit rate.

The problem isn't just about picking talent. It's about using 1st round picks on guys who may never play for us. No matter how good Freeland and Kopenen become, if they never play for us, they were wasted draft picks. The biggest problem with stashing 1st round picks in Europe is that if they become good enough to make it in the NBA, they will be paid considerably more to stay in Europe than they can make under the NBA rookie salary scale. We're damn lucky Rudy had such a strong desire to play in the NBA that he was willing to take a huge pay cut to realize his dream.

And, in the end, we had to pay another team to take Sergio off our hands. I'm not sure if I'd consider picking him a "success".

BNM

 

[Blaze01]

lol...how can you not like Pendergraph?

[video=youtube;Q1oWxGneSyE]

hilarious....



[video=youtube;Wks7elE8C28]

[video=youtube;3LbBFFjAthk]

[video=youtube;BtNuvB02Tdw]


and I like Cunningham as well....

[video=youtube;ll2XG-sStyY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll2XG-sStyY[/video]

[video=youtube;07eyQ-rnXvw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07eyQ-rnXvw[/video]

look at the teams\competition he is playing against here...

[video=youtube;rLqqVx2JwU8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLqqVx2JwU8[/video]

[video=youtube;Q3pxrgsLBwA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3pxrgsLBwA&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;v9m5FoUBzZw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9m5FoUBzZw&feature=related[/video]

(double click on image above)

Could he not be a Landry like player? I think he could....very scrappy and versatile...

Let's see what they do, before they are labeled bad picks....after reading and watching more on both of them (and Claver) I am not nearly as dissapointed as my initial reaction....I think both Cunnigham & Pendergraph make the team....

DeJuan Blair would had been an instant updgrade at the back-up 4. I'm not sold on Pendergraf. Blair put up much better numbers in a tougher conference as a sophomore than Pendergraph did as a senior.

I think Pritchard's quote speaks for itself...

We like size. We think that makes a difference in our league.

http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/Pritchard_And_McMillan_Discuss-317507-1218.html

If this doesn't give you any insight into what they are looking for in a SF\PF then I don't know what will...I think his comment reflects a part of thier overall draft philosophy...Blair measured in at 6'5...yes, with a long reach, but also with a history of weight and knee problems...double ACL injuries (both knees...No ACL's? How the hell can that be?) is significant....remember POR wasn't the only team that passed on him....repeatedly... and his history of weight problems certainly should be a concern as well...I mean is he Glen Davis best case scenario? or Tractor Traylor? After watching both Pendergraph and Cunningham, I am not nearly as upset about POR passing over him as I was initially...nor should you IMO...but time will tell...

and almost every other team in the Western Conference got better today. So, IMHO, we lost ground on the competition. A net minus for the day.

I agreee with you here, this is only a piece of the puzzle....in that same transcript that I linked above, Nate\KP mention 5 open roster spots (obviously Raef, Ruffin, Shavlik, Sergio and Frye are considered gone)...and these two guys presumably would take up two of the open roster spots ( I think KP alluded to Mills being sent overseas with his passport comment, but we will see)...that leaves 3 open spots for FA and\or trades....

But I DEFINITELY agree that KP has to do something SIGNIFICANT via FA\trades to keep up with the arms race in the WC....

It also depends on what you mean by length. Blair has a greater wing span that both Pendergraph and Cunningham. His standing reach was the same as Cunningham's and 1/2" less than Pendergraph's. Did I mention he had far better stats as a sophomore than either of these seniors? Besides, we have plenty of length. What we need is a little width. We got pushed around in the Houston series by Chuck Hayes and Carl Landry. We could use a little more muscle to go with our length. Blair would have given us that. Claver, Pendergrah and Cunningham do not.

I disagree with your assumption here.....Watching both Pendergraph & Cunningham, I don't see either being guys who can be pushed around by the Carl Landry's or Chuck Hayes' of the NBA...I think Nate's comments on Blazer Edge regarding Blair were pretty telling...He wasn't even on thier board....both Cunningham AND Pendergraph appear to me to be hard working, tough guys who know and accept thier roles and are willing to do whatever needs to be done to help the team...good role players...and that is part of what POR needs....

http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/6/25/925892/be-exclusive-interview-with-nate

In fact, I look at a guy like Cunningham in particular, as a guy who reminds me a lot of Carl Landry...in game and overall toughness...look, I am not saying that these were brilliant picks, I gave them a "C", but I just don't see how anyone can give Pritchard an "F" given his history, or before we even see how they perform in summer league or as rookies....Certainly KP deserves the benefit of the doubt given his picks the last few years.

 

[Entity]

I didn't think it was terrible. The only disappointment I could gather, if there could be one, is that none of these picks were used in a trade for a player that's already in the NBA.

But none of these picks are of players that we have to commit to this season (or ever). Mills is nothing more than insurance. If Bayless is going to be the back up point, regardless of who will be the starting point guard come fall, then Mills is the bench warmer that is there in case there's injury, and even then he might not play. If Portland finds a better point guard, then he's just cut.

Pendergraph and Cunningham are two four year college players who are more NBA ready as back-up power forwards than a two year player like Blair. If we're filling a need here, then why wait for someone to develop into that role when the time-table, according to Paul Allen, is now? If Portland finds a better power forward, then these guys are relegated anyway. Portland could take a risk on a guy like Blair (and a risk is what many have labeled him), because "what's there to lose as a second rounder, right?" But if we want a backup to be as ready as possible right now, then let two guys duke it out and pick the better one.

The first round pick is the only contract that has to have a commitment for right away... but only if you're talking about an American player. A foreigner doesn't have to be committed to right away. So HERE is where you take your risk. This is your big gut feeling player. KP thinks Claver has the potential to be a really good player in a few years. Maybe he will.

And maybe some of these guys end up in a trade anyway. I want older players. Portland just had 54 wins, and 60 is definitely not an unreachable goal next year. 60 is contender territory, no matter who you are. When LaMarcus comes out, who do you want coming off the bench to cover his guy in the Western Conference Finals in 11 months?

I'm giving this draft a "B", and waiting to see what happens before the end of July.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Chad Ford gives us a B-, which is about the same grade the board gives us:

PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS GRADE: B-

Round 1: Victor Claver (22)

Round 2: Jeff Pendergraph (31, obtained from Kings), Dante Cunningham (33, obtained from Clippers), Patrick Mills (55, via Nuggets)

Analysis: I love the aggressive way Blazers GM Kevin Pritchard approaches the draft -- even before it began this year, he made two trades to reposition his team.

But I'm not in love with his picks this time around. Claver has real upside and could be a good pick down the road, but he isn't exactly Rudy Fernandez, and he's going to have to make a big leap to make it. Pendergraph is solid but stiff, while Cunningham is talented but undersized and Mills is fast as lightning and a good scorer but small and not a great distributor.

Could Portland have done better? I think so, by taking DeJuan Blair and DaJuan Summers. And yes, it would have been fun to see Pritchard move all the way up to land Ricky Rubio or Stephen Curry.

The Blazers had a solid draft, but Pritchard's rep has made "solid" seem disappointing.

 

[blue32]

For me, to never see the "sergio vs blake, or Bayless" posts in game-threads ever again, makes it a great draft.

I give a B, because i'd like to see Outlaw, Frye, Ruffin traded as well.

 

[illmatic99]

Anyone else get the feeling that KP didn't draft Blair because he had promised these other guys?

Here's an excerpt from a Blazersedge interview with Nate that sounds kinda fishy:

Blazersedge: So you had both Jeff Pendergraph and Dante Cunningham above Blair on your board going into Thursday night?

Nate:We didn't have Blair on our board. We thought he would be gone.

Blazersedge: Even at 22?

Nate: We didn't know where Blair would go but the guys we targeted we got.

 

[Ed O]

D. The Claver pick seemed like a slight reach, and I don't think it's likely that any of the guys we took in the second round helps us very much over the next few years.

Not that mock drafts are the be-all, end-all, but the past few years Portland has been picking guys who are good "value" relative to their expected spot. This year, with the possible exception of Mills, all of the players were taken earlier than expected.

I'm not impressed in the least.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

D. The Claver pick seemed like a slight reach, and I don't think it's likely that any of the guys we took in the second round helps us very much over the next few years.

I honestly do not know how you make these assumptions. These guys were seniors, mature and tough. They seem like perfect fit for immediate contribution in the reduced roles we need them...

This team drafted with a different strategy this year - but you guys keep thinking about it as if we are a 21 win team that needs to find diamonds and it's OK if they take a while to mature.

These guys are ready to contribute, right now, in the 2nd unit. They are not likely to be starters, they are very unlikely to be stars - but they offer the same production (hopefully better) that we got from Frye/Ike/S-Bo/Ruffin for a fraction of the cost.

Done and done.

 

[RoyToy]

I honestly do not know how you make these assumptions. These guys were seniors, mature and tough. They seem like perfect fit for immediate contribution in the reduced roles we need them...

This team drafted with a different strategy this year - but you guys keep thinking about it as if we are a 21 win team that needs to find diamonds and it's OK if they take a while to mature.

These guys are ready to contribute, right now, in the 2nd unit. They are not likely to be starters, they are very unlikely to be stars - but they offer the same production (hopefully better) that we got from Frye/Ike/S-Bo/Ruffin for a fraction of the cost.

Done and done.

One of the few posts that have actually made sense around here the past couple days. Good stuff.

 

[Ed O]

These guys are ready to contribute, right now, in the 2nd unit. They are not likely to be starters, they are very unlikely to be stars - but they offer the same production (hopefully better) that we got from Frye/Ike/S-Bo/Ruffin for a fraction of the cost.

I doubt it.

Frye and Ike were both stars in the PAC-10. They were mature players who were lottery picks. They have accumulated years of experience and have learned some tricks of the trade. You expect rookies to step in and be just as good?

We drafted a couple of guys who were around for four years because they weren't good enough to get drafted as underclassmen and they were around in the second round because they're not particularly good prospects.

I just don't agree with those who would expect mediocre college players to somehow emerge, as rookies, as better players than Frye or Ike. They could do so, of course, but I find it very unlikely.

Ed O.

 

[Blazer4life]

I'd give KP an A+ on the draft. Dumped Sergio to open up some cap space. Stashed a guy in Europe who may have a chance at being a decent player in a few years but won't need to find PT for him now. Took a flyer on a few second rounders who will most likely never play a game for the Blazers but may be useful in trades this summer. All in all, avoided taking on any more projects, freed up more cap space for the moves he wants to make in July. Great job.

Seriously, I read here over and over how people want KP to make moves for a stud veteran this summer and then they get their knickers in a bunch because he positions the team to do just that by clearing more cap space and avoiding taking on excess baggage that would limit his ability to make moves.

LOL. Totally agree. We basically drafted for the future and positioned ourselfs (by freeing up even more money) to go after a vet or 2 in free agency and just wait till we sign those vets and people bitch that it wasn't the player or players they wanted. I think I will trust KP, our front office and the scouts over some internet GM's that think they know whats best for our team. Just because you can watch clips of players on youtube doesn't mean you know more then the the team when it comes to drafting. These guys evaluate them from head to toe, do private workouts with these players that we are not privy to. Its unbelievable to me how much flack KP and the team has gotten for this draft. Do people not remember where we were 3 years ago????? In KP I trust.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Bottom Line:
If Nash was our GM and made the identical moves, 90% of the people would be crazy upset.

 

[number 10]

I also think we took Claver, Pendergraph and Cunningham too high.

I think Claver would have still been available at 31 - and picking him there would have had two big advantages. First, by taking him at 22, he immediately counts as $1,012,900 against our cap. So, we lose over a million in cap space for our big free agent push. 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. I think we screwed ourselves twice by taking Claver at 22 - once due to the cap hold, and once due to the the rookie salary scale limitations that may keep him in Europe.

I think Pendergraph would have been available at 33 (I still would have taken Blair, though) and Cunningham would have possibly been available at 55, and who cares if he wasn't?

BNM

I'm wondering if the Blazers' draft board was something like this:
1) Lawson
2) Claver
3) Pendergraph
4) Cunningham

And when Lawson was taken ahead of the #22, they just went to the next player on their board. Color me unimpressed if that's the case. Even though I'm cautiously optimistic about the guys we drafted, it would have been possible to get more value out of the picks by trading down for a future 2nd rounder or something.

 

[Blazer4life]

Bottom Line:
If Nash was our GM and made the identical moves, 90% of the people would be crazy upset.

True. But it wouldn't have mattered who we drafted. People get excited about the draft for months, watch certain players, fall in love with them and once your team has an oppurtunity to draft such player and they pick someone else all of a sudden its a bad draft. I'll admit, I wanted Portland to draft Blair, thought he was the kind of physical back up PF that the team needed but KP and the rest of the staff felt otherwise for whatever reason. Who am I to question them as to why. Frankly, I know they know more then me and have evaluated every possible scenario.

 

[mobes23]

I don't if you guys noticed, but we were not in the lottery this year. Our picks came late and the talent level isn't the same in a season when you win 50+ games. Few immediate needs get resolved in the lottery. Far, far fewer get resolved when you pick where we did.

Thinking a few steps ahead, in the next years we will almost certainly be over the cap. Claver may not have value now, but I could imagine he becomes important when our cap flexibility is near nil. Maybe he develops and plays for us, but it's possible he's the inexpensive/high value player we combine with a bad contract to fill another important need. And anyway, when has the team whose first pick is #22 ever been crazy happy the day after the draft? The best we can hope for are some diamonds in the rough and that usually (not always, Mr. Batum) takes a couple years to assess.

Honestly, just getting rid of Sergio thrills me. I'll admit I wasn't Sergio's biggest fan, but it's the impact on the rotation that's most important. With Blake, Bayless and Sergio all clamoring for PT, there was little chance to allow Bayless or Sergio to flourish. Bayless will now get the minutes he needs and I'm pretty danged stoked about that.

 

[andalusian]

I doubt it.

Frye and Ike were both stars in the PAC-10. They were mature players who were lottery picks. They have accumulated years of experience and have learned some tricks of the trade. You expect rookies to step in and be just as good?

At doing what we need them to do - which is play hard defense and rebound? Sure. Frye was allergic to rebounding and defense. Ike was allergic to defense. The fact that they were stars in the Pac-10 means nothing. The Stache was a star in the Pac-10. Sarunas Jasikevicious was a mega-star in Europe with multiple Euro-league championships and MVP awards and he was not worth much in the NBA because he was not good enough to be a mega-offensive star in the NBA (like Frye/Ike) and he was allergic to defense (like these guys, playing a backup role and needing to play defense). (Surprise - this is exactly what happened to the Stache as well - not good enough offensively to make a difference in the next level - but no athletic ability/toughness/interest in defense to find another role).

We drafted a couple of guys who were around for four years because they weren't good enough to get drafted as underclassmen and they were around in the second round because they're not particularly good prospects.

Like Landry and Hayes (who went un-drafted, did not even make it in the 2nd round) who thrive in this role in the NBA? They were not stars - but they are hard-nose, tough guys that are not afraid to fight for rebounds and play defense.

Every once in a while you have a Bunny that goes mental and start biting - but if you are looking for someone to bite - it might be better to start with a Buldog, even if the bunny was voted "most likely to succeed" in his high-school...

I just don't agree with those who would expect mediocre college players to somehow emerge, as rookies, as better players than Frye or Ike. They could do so, of course, but I find it very unlikely.

What you agree and expect is very nice - but not relevant to the situation. What we have here is a case of the organization telling us they wanted to get tougher, knowing that a backup PF is an issue and deciding that Frye and Ike were not the answer (as anyone that actually paid attention noticed). The worst that could happen is that these guys are just as bad as Frye and Ike - but we have a bunch of pretty decent basketball minds managing the team that think they are worth a try - at a much lower cost than these converted bunnies were. Sounds like a nice option to me.

 

[mobes23]

The Stache was not in the Pac-10.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

True. But it wouldn't have mattered who we drafted. People get excited about the draft for months, watch certain players, fall in love with them and once your team has an oppurtunity to draft such player and they pick someone else all of a sudden its a bad draft. I'll admit, I wanted Portland to draft Blair, thought he was the kind of physical back up PF that the team needed but KP and the rest of the staff felt otherwise for whatever reason. Who am I to question them as to why. Frankly, I know they know more then me and have evaluated every possible scenario.

Sigh.
With that logic, who are we to say Martell Webster over Chris Paul and Deron Williams wasn't right. Hey, Nash knows more than you and he evaluated every possible scenario. Obviously, we made the right decision.

Look, I hope I'm wrong. I hope Claver comes in and kicks ass, Pendergraph is the bees knees, and the others come in and dominate. No one else believes that, and I'm going to have to see it before I believe it. Part of the problem is that we may never know. It is very possible that Claver and Cunningham never gets a shot at PT.

OTOH, suppose I'm right, KP messed up. No big deal, really. Everyone messes up. What's frustrating me is that people want to pretend he didn't, and are being illogical and often self-righteous in their defense of him.

 

[andalusian]

The Stache was not in the Pac-10.

Sorry. He was a college star somewhere else. Who cares. The idea is clear however. Just because someone was a star at a lower level playing a different role - does not mean that he will make it playing a reduced role that requires different skills at the next level. The analysis and interpretation are just wrong.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Bottom Line:
If Nash was our GM and made the identical moves, 90% of the people would be crazy upset.

Nash didn't have the track record Pritchard has.

 

[Blazer4life]

Sigh.
With that logic, who are we to say Martell Webster over Chris Paul and Deron Williams wasn't right. Hey, Nash knows more than you and he evaluated every possible scenario. Obviously, we made the right decision.

Look, I hope I'm wrong. I hope Claver comes in and kicks ass, Pendergraph is the bees knees, and the others come in and dominate. No one else believes that, and I'm going to have to see it before I believe it. Part of the problem is that we may never know. It is very possible that Claver and Cunningham never gets a shot at PT.

OTOH, suppose I'm right, KP messed up. No big deal, really. Everyone messes up. What's frustrating me is that people want to pretend he didn't, and are being illogical and often self-righteous in their defense of him.

Well you answered the 1st part, it was Nash not KP that picked Martell so why mock me and act like I'm an idiot. We were talking about KP.

So on one hand people are being illogical and self righteous in defending him, but what about the other extreme. Aren't some people already assuming he f*cked everything. How can we possibly know is all I'm trying to convey. And if KP messes up, which he will on some draft picks, it happens. But at least it is not on guys that are crucial to our franchise. He nailed the important picks and orchestrated some pretty clever trades to make it happen. These are role players anyways and possibly could be a part of a trade this summer.

And for the record, I'm not sippinng the KP Kool Aid. I will criticize him if things don't pan out but why get up in arms over players drafted that no one has seen play is my point.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Well you answered the 1st part, it was Nash not KP that picked Martell so why mock me and act like I'm an idiot. We were talking about KP.

So on one hand people are being illogical and self righteous in defending him, but what about the other extreme. Aren't some people already assuming he f*cked everything. How can we possibly know is all I'm trying to convey. And if KP messes up, which he will on some draft picks, it happens. But at least it is not on guys that are crucial to our franchise. He nailed the important picks and orchestrated some pretty clever trades to make it happen. These are role players anyways and possibly could be a part of a trade this summer.

And for the record, I'm not sippinng the KP Kool Aid. I will criticize him if things don't pan out but why get up in arms over players drafted that no one has seen play is my point.

You are certainly right in that the picks are not crucial, we already have our core.

 

[adrenalize74]

Still dont understand why soo many people feels Sergio is "garbage". I think he is a very talented, young PG and was always very high on him. Unfortunatly he just didnt fit Nates system and therefor never got to realize his potential. On the right team, he is gonna florish.

Anyway, I give this draft a C+ on the surface, based solely on the picks we got. I was a HUGE Blair fan and couldnt believe we passed on him 3x!!!! But I like Pendergraph a lot and think we may see some good things from him.....may even turn into a stud backup someday.

But, I would be shocked if the real action doesnt take place in FA soon.

By the way, when does FA start? When can we start expecting some moves?

 

[andalusian]

By the way, when does FA start? When can we start expecting some moves?

You can talk to them starting July 1, and sign them on the 8th I think - but do not quote me on that 2nd part.

 

[Ed O]

At doing what we need them to do - which is play hard defense and rebound? Sure. Frye was allergic to rebounding and defense. Ike was allergic to defense. The fact that they were stars in the Pac-10 means nothing. The Stache was a star in the Pac-10. Sarunas Jasikevicious was a mega-star in Europe with multiple Euro-league championships and MVP awards and he was not worth much in the NBA because he was not good enough to be a mega-offensive star in the NBA (like Frye/Ike) and he was allergic to defense (like these guys, playing a backup role and needing to play defense). (Surprise - this is exactly what happened to the Stache as well - not good enough offensively to make a difference in the next level - but no athletic ability/toughness/interest in defense to find another role).

Not every star makes it in the NBA, but stars are MUCH more likely to succeed in the L than mediocre college players. There's some math involved there, if you need proof.

Like Landry and Hayes (who went un-drafted, did not even make it in the 2nd round) who thrive in this role in the NBA? They were not stars - but they are hard-nose, tough guys that are not afraid to fight for rebounds and play defense.

I don't think it's a matter of fear. It's a matter of capabilities. Pendergraph and Cunningham were not that good even in college. I don't think they will make a difference in the NBA.

What you agree and expect is very nice - but not relevant to the situation. What we have here is a case of the organization telling us they wanted to get tougher, knowing that a backup PF is an issue and deciding that Frye and Ike were not the answer (as anyone that actually paid attention noticed). The worst that could happen is that these guys are just as bad as Frye and Ike - but we have a bunch of pretty decent basketball minds managing the team that think they are worth a try - at a much lower cost than these converted bunnies were. Sounds like a nice option to me.

There's no WAY that it's the "worst that could happen".

The worst that could happen is that both Pendergraph and Cunningham aren't nearly as good as Frye. As bad as Frye was last year, he still had moments of productivity.

Until I see it work, I don't think that using a pair of high second rounders on middle-of-the-road college players trying to find another hardworking overachiever as a backup power forward is a good strategy. I hope I'm wrong, but at least for the purposes of this thread I have been asked to grade the draft, so what I agree and expect IS relevant to this situation.

Ed O.