Kirk Hinrich?

[andalusian]

We haven't had a chance to really see what he could do. He's a great spot up shooter and at the end of last year we started to see his slashing ability improve along with his defense. He's only like 22 years old.

We have seen 3 years of mostly average production with a glimpse of something special when his shot falls - which is not as often as you would like. Compare this to Batum - who is a rookie going on 19-20 and already had shown consistent play and more often flashes of greatness.

Again - I would love for Webster to really pan out - but I am not holding my breath for it to happen. It is more likely that he improves to be an average player and no more than the other way around...

 

[Wheels]

We have seen 3 years of mostly average production with a glimpse of something special when his shot falls - which is not as often as you would like. Compare this to Batum - who is a rookie going on 19-20 and already had shown consistent play and more often flashes of greatness.

Again - I would love for Webster to really pan out - but I am not holding my breath for it to happen. It is more likely that he improves to be an average player and no more than the other way around...

Can I ask where you get these Odds from? We have seen improvement from him to show him as an average player. I just dont understand how its more likely.. unless its just your opinion.

 

[MAS RipCity]

I still can't believe we passed on Deron and Granger for Martell

 

[Minstrel]

I still can't believe we passed on Deron and Granger for Martell

And Chris Paul.

Barring injury, Paul will be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Webster won't make it in on the first ballot.

 

[alex42083]

I still can't believe we passed on Deron and Granger for Martell

Blame these two:

But hey.. Brandon is arguably a better player than Granger and Deron. I don't know yet about CP3..

 

[Minstrel]

But hey.. Brandon is arguably a better player than Granger and Deron.

Portland could have had Roy even if they had taken Paul. They got Roy through trading Telfair for a draft pick (and then doing another swap).

Aldridge is the selection that depended on their record. As did Oden. If one wanted to try and weigh what Portland actually got against a parallel reality where they select Paul, the trade-off would be:

Greg Oden, LaMarcus Aldridge, Jerryd Bayless and Martell Webster or Chris Paul and three first-round draft choices

The three first-round draft choices need to be kept generic, since there's no way to know where they'd have been with Paul in the fold.

Our roster (without knowing what other moves Pritchard might make, and assuming he still did the Zach Randolph deal) would look like:

Chris Paul / Steve Blake / Sergio Rodriguez
Brandon Roy / Rudy Fernandez
Nicolas Batum / Travis Outlaw
Channing Frye / ???
Joel Przybilla / ???

And first-round picks in 2006, 2007 and 2008, whoever they would have been.

Would you prefer this alternate reality?

 

[Tince]

Outlaw is a known quanitity that some are fine with, while others want more. Outlaw has hit a lot of big shots, and gave us a great spark off the bench in many games.

Martell has spent the first few years in the NBA, showing why he should have gone to college. It would have been great for him to develop at the college level, but he did it on our dime. I do not believe Roy would have had much more success than Webster in his first 3 years had he came straight out of high school. Not to say Webster is going to become the next Brandon Roy, but that the window where he is going to prove himself really starts now.

 

[Tince]

Portland could have had Roy even if they had taken Paul. They got Roy through trading Telfair for a draft pick (and then doing another swap).

Aldridge is the selection that depended on their record. As did Oden. If one wanted to try and weigh what Portland actually got against a parallel reality where they select Paul, the trade-off would be:

Greg Oden, LaMarcus Aldridge, Jerryd Bayless and Martell Webster or Chris Paul and three first-round draft choices

The three first-round draft choices need to be kept generic, since there's no way to know where they'd have been with Paul in the fold.

Our roster (without knowing what other moves Pritchard might make, and assuming he still did the Zach Randolph deal) would look like:

Chris Paul / Steve Blake / Sergio Rodriguez
Brandon Roy / Rudy Fernandez
Nicolas Batum / Travis Outlaw
Channing Frye / ???
Joel Przybilla / ???

And first-round picks in 2006, 2007 and 2008, whoever they would have been.

Would you prefer this alternate reality?

While you did a great job of really breaking this down, I think it was a fertile effort.

When you draft a guy like Chris Paul, everything changes. Zach may have stayed. Blake wouldn't have resigned here. We might have made different trades.

I just think its best to judge that draft as a snapshot in time, and simply say that we did a poor job in that draft. We did a great job in the following draft. The two things are completely unrelated and we'll never know what would have happened had we drafted Paul.

 

[Minstrel]

I just think its best to judge that draft as a snapshot in time, and simply say that we did a poor job in that draft.

I do, too. This was entirely for fun, not for serious analysis.

 

[alex42083]

Portland could have had Roy even if they had taken Paul. They got Roy through trading Telfair for a draft pick (and then doing another swap).

Aldridge is the selection that depended on their record. As did Oden. If one wanted to try and weigh what Portland actually got against a parallel reality where they select Paul, the trade-off would be:

Greg Oden, LaMarcus Aldridge, Jerryd Bayless and Martell Webster or Chris Paul and three first-round draft choices

The three first-round draft choices need to be kept generic, since there's no way to know where they'd have been with Paul in the fold.

Our roster (without knowing what other moves Pritchard might make, and assuming he still did the Zach Randolph deal) would look like:

Chris Paul / Steve Blake / Sergio Rodriguez
Brandon Roy / Rudy Fernandez
Nicolas Batum / Travis Outlaw
Channing Frye / ???
Joel Przybilla / ???

And first-round picks in 2006, 2007 and 2008, whoever they would have been.

Would you prefer this alternate reality?

It certainly would've been interesting to see how far a Roy/CP3 backcourt could take us. But no inside game at all and no post presence would really suck.
I wish we could go Back to the Future style, make a skewed timeline and somehow convince Nash to take CP3, and see how that would turn out. But then KP may likely not have been given GM duties.

It's just too hard to tell what would happen.

 

[B-Roy]

I don't think we would have traded Z-Bo in that situation though.

 

[andalusian]

Can I ask where you get these Odds from? We have seen improvement from him to show him as an average player. I just dont understand how its more likely.. unless its just your opinion.

In his 3 healthy years as a player Webster's PER has never been as good as Nicolas's rookie season - and Webster was brought in as a shooter - something PER records very well - where Nicolas's defense is his calling card - and it is not well measured by PER. We all look at Nicolas and say - the defense is there, the court awareness is there - whatever offense we get from him is gravy.

Then you look at other measures - Batum's defensive rating is lower (better) as a rookie than Webster's ever was. Batum's offensive rating is higher (better) as a rookie than Webster's ever was, his 3P% is better than Webster's first and 2nd years (and remember - Batum was supposed to be the one without a jumper - but only in his 3rd and best year Webster's shot was better than Batum's rookie year - and not by much), Batum's TS% is higher than any year during Webster's career as well as his eFG%, his rebounding rate is higher (which is amazing - as he got to play next to rebound vacuums in Oden and Pryzbilla, his block% is twice as high as Webster's, his steal% is almost twice as high.

If you consider that 15 PER is an average starter in this league - and Webster in his best year (as a starter) had 12.0 PER - it is quite clear that so far he has been a below average starter in this league - and it would have to be an amazing jump in productivity to just get to the average level. Take a look at someone like Marvin Williams - who has the same body type as Webster and was considered a better prospect than him (remember - he was selected 2nd vs. Webster's 6th) - and compare their careers - in their first year they had about the same production, in his 2nd year Webster regressed a lot while Marvin stayed about the same, in his 3rd year Marvin improved to be an almost average starter in the league while Webster basically replayed his rookie year efficiency wise, in his 4th year Marvin finally broke above the average starter benchmark - but only by a hair - Webster was out all year.

Here is the question we have - do we think at this point that Marvin - a better prospect than Webster that has shown consistent improvement over the years and is only 6 months older than Webster is suddenly going to be a super-star or all-star? I would be shocked if it happened - I just did not see anything from him that would make me point to it and think he can do it - and Webster has a long way to get to where Marvin is.

Can it happen for Webster? I suppose. Would I like it to happen? You bet. Do I think it is likely to happen? No.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

snip (basically Batum>Webster, which I agree with)

Here is the question we have - do we think at this point that Marvin - a better prospect than Webster that has shown consistent improvement over the years and is only 6 months older than Webster is suddenly going to be a super-star or all-star? I would be shocked if it happened - I just did not see anything from him that would make me point to it and think he can do it - and Webster has a long way to get to where Marvin is.

Can it happen for Webster? I suppose. Would I like it to happen? You bet. Do I think it is likely to happen? No.

1) In our glimpse of Webster this year what we found out is that he can really be a factor if we run. If we don't, we're stuck with a 2G that can't create his own shot, and is below average. Will Webster break out? I "c" your question are raise you a question: "Will the Blazers run next year?"

2) According to Batum, Nate says the starting SF job is his to lose, so Nate is thinking along the same lines as you and I.

3) My first choice is to bring in a star SF to start and have Batum to back him up. However, if no roster changes are made, I can live with Webster backing up Batum - Can Webster?

 

[Wheels]

3) My first choice is to bring in a star SF to start and have Batum to back him up. However, if no roster changes are made, I can live with Webster backing up Batum - Can Webster?

My Guess is yes.. he seemed to develop a real chemistry with Rudy out there.. I know I know it was just one game, and in the pre-season, Against the Kings no less. But they both seemed to know exactly where the other was on the court, and where to be. Just my observation though.

 

[andalusian]

1) In our glimpse of Webster this year what we found out is that he can really be a factor if we run. If we don't, we're stuck with a 2G that can't create his own shot, and is below average. Will Webster break out? I "c" your question are raise you a question: "Will the Blazers run next year?"

2) According to Batum, Nate says the starting SF job is his to lose, so Nate is thinking along the same lines as you and I.

3) My first choice is to bring in a star SF to start and have Batum to back him up. However, if no roster changes are made, I can live with Webster backing up Batum - Can Webster?

My opinion is that this team will run more - especially the 2nd unit. My theory was that Nate insisted on slowing them down to protect the possessions because this team was too young to make good judgment calls and he wanted to make sure they do not just play street ball. We have seen that he implored them to run more at the end of the year and the playoffs (something they did not do as much as they should have in the playoffs).

I agree with you that Webster seems to thrive in the open-floor. He has a great deal of speed, he is strong and can jump - and running the break does not require him to think or do too many lateral movements - which is one of his limitations - he can just run like a freight train and be a recipient on the end of a Rudy or Blake or someone else's pass. I think these Blazers are growing up before our eyes - so yes - they should be able to push the ball more and I suspect they will.

As long as you use Webster as someone that runs the floor and finishes - he can be successful - but you notice that this is something we will do more off when the 2nd unit is in - as I suspect that Oden will be in the first unit next year - and our game will be a combination of Roy's half-court drives, LMA's pick and pops and Oden's inside-out game. I can not see Webster thriving in this style unless he makes a huge stride in his 3P shooting.

 

[MAS RipCity]

And Chris Paul.

Barring injury, Paul will be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Webster won't make it in on the first ballot.

I purposely left out Paul for numerous reasons.
One, I thought Bassy would be the future
Deron could have played the 2
CP would have improved us too much the next season, allowing for us to miss out on one of Roy and LMA..Deron and Danny took some time to get great..we'd still be able to get Roy and LMA

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think we would have traded Z-Bo in that situation though.

I thought about that, but it seemed like Pritchard traded him for chemistry/attitude reasons, wanting to create a nice, more professional environment. Also, I assume (though have no evidence beyond the fact that he dealt for him) that he liked Frye as a player at the time of the deal.

So whether he had Aldridge, it seems like he'd have made the deal anyway. But maybe not.

 

[Minstrel]

Take a look at someone like Marvin Williams - who has the same body type as Webster and was considered a better prospect than him (remember - he was selected 2nd vs. Webster's 6th) - and compare their careers - in their first year they had about the same production, in his 2nd year Webster regressed a lot while Marvin stayed about the same, in his 3rd year Marvin improved to be an almost average starter in the league while Webster basically replayed his rookie year efficiency wise, in his 4th year Marvin finally broke above the average starter benchmark - but only by a hair - Webster was out all year.

Here is the question we have - do we think at this point that Marvin - a better prospect than Webster that has shown consistent improvement over the years and is only 6 months older than Webster is suddenly going to be a super-star or all-star? I would be shocked if it happened - I just did not see anything from him that would make me point to it and think he can do it - and Webster has a long way to get to where Marvin is.

This is a great comparison and point.

To me, the main problem with Webster is his lack of improvement through his first three years. That, to me, nullifies a lot of the "But he's still so young" argument. He's older than when he came into the league and, in three years where he should have improved a lot, he didn't really improve at all. Maybe the next three years (even though they'll be nearer his prime and thus less likely to be major developmental years) will be where he grows a lot as a player. I certainly hope so, I just wouldn't bet on it.

 

[LittleAlex]

My opinion is that this team will run more - especially the 2nd unit. My theory was that Nate insisted on slowing them down to protect the possessions because this team was too young to make good judgment calls and he wanted to make sure they do not just play street ball. We have seen that he implored them to run more at the end of the year and the playoffs (something they did not do as much as they should have in the playoffs).

Where do you get the impression the team will run more from? I hope you are correct, but I don't see any evidence.

Blake can't do it. Roy won't do it as the primary ball handler. Sergio is done as a Blazer. Bayless hasn't proven he can lead the break. No one else can even handle the ball well enough to get it over half court.

Once again, I would love to see the team run more. That just isn't going to happen with the current roster, and I don't believe the current roster will change much over the summer.

 

[andalusian]

Where do you get the impression the team will run more from? I hope you are correct, but I don't see any evidence.

They did run more to end the regular season. I think that the playoffs really messed with their heads - especially since the defense against Yao really changed the usual way we did business - so they spent a lot more time thinking about that than what made them successful at the end of the year. Of course - LMA doubling Yao also prevented him from leaking out and running the break - which is what we were doing very successfully at the end of the year.

This is not conclusive evidence - but it was pretty clear that they were trying to run more and did it pretty well.

 

[Masbee]

Portland could have had Roy even if they had taken Paul. They got Roy through trading Telfair for a draft pick (and then doing another swap).

Aldridge is the selection that depended on their record. As did Oden. If one wanted to try and weigh what Portland actually got against a parallel reality where they select Paul, the trade-off would be:

Greg Oden, LaMarcus Aldridge, Jerryd Bayless and Martell Webster or Chris Paul and three first-round draft choices

The three first-round draft choices need to be kept generic, since there's no way to know where they'd have been with Paul in the fold.

Our roster (without knowing what other moves Pritchard might make, and assuming he still did the Zach Randolph deal) would look like:

Chris Paul / Steve Blake / Sergio Rodriguez
Brandon Roy / Rudy Fernandez
Nicolas Batum / Travis Outlaw
Channing Frye / ???
Joel Przybilla / ???

And first-round picks in 2006, 2007 and 2008, whoever they would have been.

Would you prefer this alternate reality?

In that alternate reality, they wouldn't have traded Zach for garbage. Half the reason they traded Zach was to open up development for Aldridge.

They would have signed the best big they could get instead of Blake. And, who knows what KP would have mined from those drafts. I think you can pencil in at least one other good pick that becomes a rotation player.

 

[Tince]

In that alternate reality, they wouldn't have traded Zach for garbage. Half the reason they traded Zach was to open up development for Aldridge.

They would have signed the best big they could get instead of Blake. And, who knows what KP would have mined from those drafts. I think you can pencil in at least one other good pick that becomes a rotation player.

We already covered this. Here is what I said:

Link

While you did a great job of really breaking this down, I think it was a fertile effort.

When you draft a guy like Chris Paul, everything changes. Zach may have stayed. Blake wouldn't have resigned here. We might have made different trades.

I just think its best to judge that draft as a snapshot in time, and simply say that we did a poor job in that draft. We did a great job in the following draft. The two things are completely unrelated and we'll never know what would have happened had we drafted Paul.

 

[maxiep]

Hinrich brings almost everything we need to the PG spot. The one thing he doesn't do all the much better than Blake is penetrate. I think it is important to get someone in here than can create easy shots for players by gettingot the lane and moving the defense around.

My question is if Hinrich was the answer, then why did we waste RLEC when the Bulls were looking to shed salary? Either we didn't like him or we made a huge mistake.

 

[andalusian]

My question is if Hinrich was the answer, then why did we waste RLEC when the Bulls were looking to shed salary? Either we didn't like him or we made a huge mistake.

Maybe they asked for more than we were willing to give - like Batum or Rudy or Bayless for him?

 

[Minstrel]

We already covered this. Here is what I said:

Link

Right, and I covered that. Here is what I said.

I do, too. This was entirely for fun, not for serious analysis.

Link

 

[Boob-No-More]

Hinrich played well against Boston in the first round, but that follows two seasons of significantly below average play. Both his offense and defense are way down from where they were three years ago. I think, in a large part, his defense these days is overrated and doesn't live up to the reputation he earned earlier in his career.

Offensively, he's a downgrade from Blake. Blake is a better shooter, turns the ball over less and is less foul prone. I see replacing Blake with Hinrich as, at best, a lateral move - slightly better defense (these days) , but worst offense. No thanks.

BNM

 

[andalusian]

Hinrich played well against Boston in the first round, but that follows two seasons of significantly below average play. Both his offense and defense are way down from where they were three years ago. I think, in a large part, his defense these days is overrated and doesn't live up to the reputation he earned earlier in his career.

Offensively, he's a downgrade from Blake. Blake is a better shooter, turns the ball over less and is less foul prone. I see replacing Blake with Hinrich as, at best, a lateral move - slightly better defense (these days) , but worst offense. No thanks.

With all due respect - he was wounded in both of the last 2 years - which would explain why he had down-years. Might be a good time to buy low.

Another issue to consider -

1. Turning the ball over - his TOV% is not a lot worse than Blake's - and you have to remember that Chicago plays much faster than Portland. When Blake played for the Bucks - that had the same pace as Chicago - his TOV% was actually worse than Kirk's. When Blake played for Denver (much faster) - his TOV% was very high - as high as Jack was last year. In other words - I suspect that playing in a slower-pace will help Kirk take care of the ball better - or alternatively - if Portland speeds up some - Hinrich will be as good as or better than Blake at protecting the ball.

Honestly - I think that a healthy Hinrich will regain the big defensive advantage he had over Blake - so I would not mind seeing him. It is actually a push for me between him and Miller.

 

[Boob-No-More]

With all due respect - he was wounded in both of the last 2 years - which would explain why he had down-years. Might be a good time to buy low.

So, he's injury prone. Great, just what we need.

Honestly - I think that a healthy Hinrich will regain the big defensive advantage he had over Blake - so I would not mind seeing him. It is actually a push for me between him and Miller.

And, exactly where are we going to get a healthy Hinrich? I know Paul Allen's wealthy, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't own a time machine.

If it comes down to an injury prone, broken down, overpaid, under-achieving Kirk Hinrich or Steve Blake, I'll stick with Blake. At least he's healthy and affordable.

BNM

 

[Nikolokolus]

So, he's injury prone. Great, just what we need.

And, exactly where are we going to get a healthy Hinrich? I know Paul Allen's wealthy, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't own a time machine.

If it comes down to an injury prone, broken down, overpaid, under-achieving Kirk Hinrich or Steve Blake, I'll stick with Blake. At least he's healthy and affordable.

BNM

I don't know where you're getting these "injury prone" and "broken down" tags, he missed 30 or so games this year with the torn ligament in his thumb, but he played in 75 games the year before and 80, 81, 77 and 76 in the years before that. As for his on court performance he definitely had a slighty down year in 2007-2008, but considering the amount of time he missed this season and the fact that he played as much shooting guard as point guard this year and still shot a good percentage doesn't exactly scream "underachieving."

Kirk's definitely not my first choice, but he's definitely at minimum a slight step up from Blake in quickness, strength and athleticism, and huge step up in terms of defensive chops.

http://www.82games.com/0809/08CHI3.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0809/0809CHI.HTM

There's some interesting nuggets if you look at his advanced stats.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I don't know where you're getting these "injury prone" and "broken down" tags, he missed 30 or so games this year with the torn ligament in his thumb, but he played in 75 games the year before and 80, 81, 77 and 76 in the years before that. As for his on court performance he definitely had a slighty down year in 2007-2008, but considering the amount of time he missed this season and the fact that he played as much shooting guard as point guard this year and still shot a good percentage doesn't exactly scream "underachieving."

Kirk's definitely not my first choice, but he's definitely at minimum a slight step up from Blake in quickness, strength and athleticism, and huge step up in terms of defensive chops.

Injuries were the excuse given for two seasons of significantly below average play. So, was he injured, or not. If he was, then he's injury prone and broken down. If he wasn't, he must totally suck.

His PER the last two years has been 13.1 and 13.9 and his DRtg has been 109 both seasons (that's Sergio territory). He's no better than Blake (slightly worse offensively, slightly better defensively) - and would make twice as much money. Again, no thanks.

BNM