KP's interest in Conley

[graybeard]

Once again, you're overgeneralizing. Unless you're referring to yourself with the royal "we".

This reminds me of the Al Franken line about the difference between a conservative's and a liberal's love for their country: a conservative thinks his/her country is mommy and mommy can do no wrong, but a liberal loves like an adult and can recognize flaws while still loving. Everybody's biased. Sometimes being a fan can make you biased against your team: you're so invested in them winning that their failings hurt you personally (like one of those horrible parents who gets on their kid when he or she loses).

Whatever, Dude. I don't want to participate in your mental ejaculations

 

[Nikolokolus]

I am speculating, you are speculating. You should take a look at the Memphis board. They're homers for Conley just like we're homers for Bayless.

There's no speculating about it, the majority of Memphis boards that I've browsed are WAY down on Conley, and most are ready to dump him. That doesn't make Memphis fans experts on Conley's potential, but it is a way to take an unscientific "pulse" and get a feel for what people think, from people who actually watch him. Conley's piss poor numbers do nothing but back up that general impression.

As for people around here being excited about Bayless and his potential, that's because he's still mystery meat and we have no idea how good or bad he is as an NBA player -- comparing Conley and Bayless is apples and oranges. The only legitimate comparison I can see between Memphis fans and Portland fans and their opinions on their young point guards is the comparison between Conley and Sergio.

 

[andalusian]

1) If you're going to include Daequan Cook as an "NBA Level Talent", then you should probably include Chase Budinger, who's been projected as a low lottery pick each of the last two years (compare with Cook @ 21).

Good point. Forgot about him. I still say that a team with Bayless and Budlinger does not equal in talent a team that had Cook and Greg freaking Oden on the roster - so I still think that GB's claim that Conley have done a lot more in college than Bayless based on team-play is NOT a big deal. FWIW - I think there is a reason Budlinger pulled out of the last 2 drafts - because he never was projected to go much higher than Cook - so I doubt he is a much better prospect than Cook in the eyes of most teams.

3) KP has said that Bayless's biggest problem isn't his talent, his shot, his defense. It's that he doesn't know how to play with great players. Conley doesn't have that problem...he's been playing (and winning) with Greg for years.

This, I think, is actually something that is more in favor of Bayless, to be honest. If Conley knows how to play next to good players - why has he been so ineffective in the NBA next to Gay, Mayo and Gasol Jr.? It is pretty clear that talent is not a problem on this team - and yet he has not been able to contribute next to them or lead them to great success.

If there is an adjustment that could be made - it seems to me that Bayless learning to play next to other great players is much more likely than Conley learning to become a great shooter at the NBA level when he never was in high-school, college or the NBA so far.

Am I intrigued with Conley? Yeah, I actually am. Would I give up Sergio for him? Maybe, but probably not. Bayless? Seems extraneous to me right now, though I hope if he stays he gets better. I don't think he'll magically turn into Ron Harper or Derek Fisher anytime soon...which means he'll be behind Roy and Rudy (and whoever the starting PG is).[/'QUOTE]

You know what - I am intrigued by Conley as well - because of his defense - and I would actually think hard about giving Sergio for him - we trade for a guy that defends great, can score in the lane, can't shoot and is average at distributing with a guy that is a bad defender, is not a good scorer in the lane, can't shoot and is a great distributor - a talent less important when playing next to Roy and Rudy.

But - I think that Bayless who is strong in 3 categories (defense, scoring in the lane, shooting) while being only slightly less capable as a distributor to Conley - is a better prospect than both of them.

I think you're 3 years away from seeing how good Conley will be. Same with Bayless. But based on their games, and what we've seen over the last few years of them, I like Conley more for this team. PS: How long has Devin Harris been in the league??

I want to understand why you think Conley is a better prospect than Bayless, however. It seems to me that the Devin Harris (this is his 5th year, btw) - is a lot more like Bayless (Size, scoring, shooting, defense) than Conley...

FWIW -Bayless's freshman career in college is remarkably similiar in production to Harris's last year (his 3rd) in college.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Damn Crim, who was that? Was it the guy who used to be a regular poster with us after the migration from O'live, you know, the contract and salary cap expert that has his own website now. What the hell was his name? I'm having an Alzheimers moment right now. He has a FAQ website about NBA stuff.

I don't think it was Storyteller, but I could be wrong.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I want to understand why you think Conley is a better prospect than Bayless, however. It seems to me that the Devin Harris (this is his 5th year, btw) - is a lot more like Bayless (Size, scoring, shooting, defense) than Conley...

Hang on...I didn't say Conley's a "Better Prospect"--I said "I like him more for this team". Here's why:

First, I just haven't seen Bayless play much. That's ignorance on my part, and I'm trying not to bias against him b/c of that, but the observations I have are from the NCAA tourney game and summer league and preseason. For Conley I've seen more tourney games, maybe 5 or so Grizzly games on LeaguePass last year.

Second, it's in style of play. Bayless may be a defensive beast, and I'd love to see it. But I just haven't (yet). Conley is a pass-first guy that can break down a defense and has been playing Robin to Oden's Batman his whole life. Bayless seems to me to be a shoot-first guy that can also break down a defense, but I can't get past the fact that if he was everything we think he is, he'd be getting minutes....right??

Maybe another way of putting it is this; I see Bayless as much closer to Raja Bell than Ron Harper. And he may be great someday. But Raja Bell wouldn't get off the bench with our SG situation. So it's a risk/reward thing for me much more than "pure talent"

And I just brought up Harris b/c he's a guy who didn't blossom until his 5th year. IIRC, his first 30-pt game was last month. Then he puts up a 47/7/8. Yikes.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Of all players that play 25 minutes or more a game, Conley is ranked 11th in the league in Assist Ratio.

Assist Ratio is the percentage of a player’s possessions that ends in an assist. Assist Ratio = (Assists x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]

 

[Minstrel]

And I just brought up Harris b/c he's a guy who didn't blossom until his 5th year. IIRC, his first 30-pt game was last month. Then he puts up a 47/7/8. Yikes.

I wouldn't use Devin Harris as a comparable example. His raw statistics were held down by lack of minutes on a generally talented team. His PER numbers (which are more dependent on per-minute efficiency) showed Harris to be a very good player. His lowest PER (which came as a rookie) was 14.7, which meant he was about the caliber of a league-average starter. His PERs were between 16.0 and 17.5 in his next three years (15.0 PER is average starter, 20.0+ PER is generally All-Star caliber).

This season, though, he's taken off and shot to star/superstar level. It's such a huge increase, I'm not convinced he can keep it up long-term. But he was always a quality player and was improving toward stardom.

Conley has had PERs of 12.6 last year and 11.8 this year. Not hideous, but not all that promising.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Conley is not a consistent shooter. His shooting numbers look worse than he is though. He is improving. His FG% is now above 40% and is matching his rookie season percentage at 43%. He has improved his FT% from 73% to 76%.

His TS% is on par with the following players:

- Sergio Rodriguez
- Derek Fisher
- Baron Davis
- Rodney Stuckey
- Luke Ridnour
- Andre Miller
- Jordan Farmar

The last 5 games, he's shot 19/31 FGs, 5/7 3-pt FGs, and 1/1 FTs.

He is getting better. Young players require patience.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Whatever, Dude. I don't want to participate in your mental ejaculations

Don't worry dude, there's no danger of you getting mentally pregnant.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Does my tinfoil hat act as a mental condom, too? Two for the price of one!

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Mike Conley's TO ratio is 22nd for PGs in the league with 11. Rondo, Felton, Chalmers, Nate Robinson, Duhon, Farmar, Brooks, and Augustin all had worse TO ratios.

Rose, Foye, and Mo Williams were just above him in the 10s.

I like Sergio, but his free-wheeling does come at cost. His TO ratio is currently over 15.

Turnover Ratio is the percentage of a player’s possessions that end in a turnover. Turnover Ratio = (Turnover x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]

 

[andalusian]

I wouldn't use Devin Harris as a comparable example. His raw statistics were held down by lack of minutes on a generally talented team. His PER numbers (which are more dependent on per-minute efficiency) showed Harris to be a very good player. His lowest PER (which came as a rookie) was 14.7, which meant he was about the caliber of a league-average starter. His PERs were between 16.0 and 17.5 in his next three years (15.0 PER is average starter, 20.0+ PER is generally All-Star caliber).

This season, though, he's taken off and shot to star/superstar level. It's such a huge increase, I'm not convinced he can keep it up long-term. But he was always a quality player and was improving toward stardom.

This is going OT, really - but I think that Harris's great production this year is really a product of a system that is geared to his strength - Dallas really played a system geared to iso plays for Dirk when he was there - a bit like Steve Nash blooming when he played under D'antoni in a system geared to his strengths.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Rebounding numbers seem silly for guards, but I think they're one way of proving athleticism. Conley is currently 11th for PGs with over 25 minutes a game.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I must say, I am surprised how quickly a segment of Blazer fandom has decided Bayless is a flop. Is it just because Bah-toom has taken off so quickly? Are people assuming that he must stink just because Nate doesn't like him?

 

[Ed O]

I must say, I am surprised how quickly a segment of Blazer fandom has decided Bayless is a flop. Is it just because Bah-toom has taken off so quickly? Are people assuming that he must stink just because Nate doesn't like him?

I don't know. I guess it's the classic "what have you done for me lately?" syndrome.

I watched a bit of Courtside last night and Michael Holton said something that struck me as incredibly obvious but also very true... a rookie arrives on a good team and he doesn't get minutes and people are going to start doubting whether he even belongs in the NBA, but if a rookie arrives on a bad team and gets minutes and shots then he's going to put up numbers and appear to be better than many expected.

I'm very excited about Bayless down the road, and LOVE that we're back to the good ol' days where rookies would have to earn minutes behind other good options, rather than be plugged in by default to the rotation.

Ed O.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I must say, I am surprised how quickly a segment of Blazer fandom has decided Bayless is a flop. Is it just because Bah-toom has taken off so quickly? Are people assuming that he must stink just because Nate doesn't like him?

I like Bayless a lot. I like a lot of players. I don't see where he fits in yet. This team has only two true point guards. That's Sergio and Kopenen. Kopenen's off gallivanting in Europe. Blake is doing a fantastic job for us, but I'm not sure he's the ultimate playmaker that I envision. Brandon is a star, and is more than capable of finding the open guy when he's double-teamed, but he's a scorer, first and foremost.

If I had my choice, we would have Hinrich (the starter) to compliment Roy and Conley off the bench (who could play IMO better defense and take it to the hole better than Serg).

 

[Minstrel]

I don't see where he fits in yet. This team has only two true point guards.

Why is a "true" point guard necessary? Roy isn't a "true" shooting guard, because he has distribution skills. It doesn't seem like the team needs to pair a pure point guard with Roy. The team needs to pair Roy with a guard that has some passing skills (which Bayless does), who can defend the opposing point guard (which all scouting information indicates he can) and who can shoot the ball (a strength of Bayless').

It actually seems like Bayless is the perfect compliment to Roy. If you brought in a pure point guard to handle all the decision-making and distribution, you'd devalue those abilities in Roy. If you pair him with a guard who can supplement Roy's passing skills (as Bayless can), it seems like you maximize Roy and Bayless.

If Rodriguez can improve his decision-making, he seems like a perfect change-of-pace backup point guard, especially paired with Fernandez, with whom he has great chemistry.

Bayless and Roy, backed up by Rodriguez and Fernandez, seems like a pretty ideal set-up.

 

[WarriorFan]

OT bus as most of you feel the Blazers would be best served with someone who can play 2 on offense and 1 on D, how would you feel about trying to aquire Monta Ellis when he's back from his moped incident. He fits that description perfectly and I have a feeling he could be on his way out soon.

The W's handled his punishment which I'm sure left a bad taste in his mouth. He's a Mullin guy and Mullin is all but gone. Now that they've aquired Crawford and extended Jackson, they don't really have a spot for him. Finally, Nelson has made plenty of comments indicating that Monta is not who he wants running the show.

Since all signs point to him being available soon, do you think the Blazers would aprt with much of their young talent for him?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

OT bus as most of you feel the Blazers would be best served with someone who can play 2 on offense and 1 on D, how would you feel about trying to aquire Monta Ellis when he's back from his moped incident. He fits that description perfectly and I have a feeling he could be on his way out soon.

The W's handled his punishment which I'm sure left a bad taste in his mouth. He's a Mullin guy and Mullin is all but gone. Now that they've aquired Crawford and extended Jackson, they don't really have a spot for him. Finally, Nelson has made plenty of comments indicating that Monta is not who he wants running the show.

Since all signs point to him being available soon, do you think the Blazers would aprt with much of their young talent for him?

Blazers need a pass first PG . . . KP went after Harris and Calderon last year (pure PGs) and I suspect he will continue his search for a pure PG.

Nothing against Ellis, he is a stud . . . but the Blazers don't have enough shots in a game for their roster right now.

 

[graybeard]

I like Bayless. But I think you will probably have to give up young talent to get young talent.

 

[andalusian]

I like Bayless. But I think you will probably have to give up young talent to get young talent.

I am OK with that - I just do not understand why you want to give superior young talent for inferior young talent.

 

[graybeard]

I am OK with that - I just do not understand why you want to give superior young talent for inferior young talent.

At this point I'm not sure it is superior talent. In KP I trust.

 

[STOMP]

I was never trying to say I had some great insight, or that I knew more. All I stated is it makes trade discussion difficult because of what you stated. It is fine to discuss, it gives us something to talk about, which is always fun, I was merely stating that the difficulty in discussing trades on a board populated primarily with one teams' fans is that there is more homerism than in a more open forum of other fans, and you get the Conley is a bust responses, and the lets try to get Amare for Outlaw and Bayless type of trades. And then i got attacked for my low post count, generalizations, and being an ass. Such is life. It does still lead to good discussion a lot of times, but in lots of trade threads, there are those who have fallen in love with our players, and put a much higher value on them, and seem to start to distance themselves from reality in trade discussion because of, as an example, Outlaw hitting some clutch shots for us last year.

how about your poor reading comprehension and ridiculous victim complex?

It's always fun having trade discussions with posters like that.

STOMP

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Why is a "true" point guard necessary?

Because we only have one on the roster presently - Sergio. At this point, Blake next to Roy had made the most sense for the reasons you pointed out. Bayless would appear to also be a perfect compliment to Roy. He defends and shot the long ball well in college. We know he can get his own shot if necessary. I'm not certain how well he can take care of the ball. But to this point, Portland has had to settle on Blake. I don't mean that in a negative way either. Blake is a very talented guard. He is limited though, in that he's not an exceptional facilitator.

The way I see it is that Pritchard should be wanting to put together the most well-rounded team possible. There should be as little amount of weaknesses as possible. Sure we don't necessarily NEED to have a true-point guard to be good or maybe great, but boy, how much better could we become if we did? Sergio is coming on strong. I'm wondering if a "true" point guard can actually play well off of Brandon, as long as he's able to a) defend b) hit the open shot c) move without the ball d) take care of the ball and e) create when Brandon can't. Unfortunately for Bayless, Blake and Sergio are playing too well. He can't get on the court. And he shouldn't be. There's no need. I just don't see where Bayless is going to fit.

So if Sergio remains consistent, and he has, it may be a good idea replace either Bayless or Blake with another more complete point guard.

 

[Minstrel]

The way I see it is that Pritchard should be wanting to put together the most well-rounded team possible. There should be as little amount of weaknesses as possible. Sure we don't necessarily NEED to have a true-point guard to be good or maybe great, but boy, how much better could we become if we did?

Right. My point is that I'm not convinced that not having a true point guard is a weakness, or that we should want one. My opinion, for reasons outlined in my last post, is that a pure point guard would waste Roy's distributing ability and wouldn't be the perfect compliment. A perfect compliment, to me, is someone like Bayless profiles to be: a player with good size for a one, who can defend point guards well, bring the ball up the court against pressure and play like a shooting guard who can pass, on offense.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Blazers need a pass first PG . . . KP went after Harris and Calderon last year (pure PGs) and I suspect he will continue his search for a pure PG.

Nothing against Ellis, he is a stud . . . but the Blazers don't have enough shots in a game for their roster right now.

Devin Harris isn't a pure pg

 

[graybeard]

Because we only have one on the roster presently - Sergio. At this point, Blake next to Roy had made the most sense for the reasons you pointed out. Bayless would appear to also be a perfect compliment to Roy. He defends and shot the long ball well in college. We know he can get his own shot if necessary. I'm not certain how well he can take care of the ball. But to this point, Portland has had to settle on Blake. I don't mean that in a negative way either. Blake is a very talented guard. He is limited though, in that he's not an exceptional facilitator.

The way I see it is that Pritchard should be wanting to put together the most well-rounded team possible. There should be as little amount of weaknesses as possible. Sure we don't necessarily NEED to have a true-point guard to be good or maybe great, but boy, how much better could we become if we did? Sergio is coming on strong. I'm wondering if a "true" point guard can actually play well off of Brandon, as long as he's able to a) defend b) hit the open shot c) move without the ball d) take care of the ball and e) create when Brandon can't. Unfortunately for Bayless, Blake and Sergio are playing too well. He can't get on the court. And he shouldn't be. There's no need. I just don't see where Bayless is going to fit.

So if Sergio remains consistent, and he has, it may be a good idea replace either Bayless or Blake with another more complete point guard.

I agree completely. My thinking is that I don't want to mess with the chemistry of this team now, hell, we're 13-6. Bayless really isn't a very large piece right now, having not played much. Conley however, would be in the mix for serious playing time right now.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Because we only have one on the roster presently - Sergio. At this point, Blake next to Roy had made the most sense for the reasons you pointed out. Bayless would appear to also be a perfect compliment to Roy. He defends and shot the long ball well in college. We know he can get his own shot if necessary. I'm not certain how well he can take care of the ball. But to this point, Portland has had to settle on Blake. I don't mean that in a negative way either. Blake is a very talented guard. He is limited though, in that he's not an exceptional facilitator.

The way I see it is that Pritchard should be wanting to put together the most well-rounded team possible. There should be as little amount of weaknesses as possible. Sure we don't necessarily NEED to have a true-point guard to be good or maybe great, but boy, how much better could we become if we did? Sergio is coming on strong. I'm wondering if a "true" point guard can actually play well off of Brandon, as long as he's able to a) defend b) hit the open shot c) move without the ball d) take care of the ball and e) create when Brandon can't. Unfortunately for Bayless, Blake and Sergio are playing too well. He can't get on the court. And he shouldn't be. There's no need. I just don't see where Bayless is going to fit.

So if Sergio remains consistent, and he has, it may be a good idea replace either Bayless or Blake with another more complete point guard.

Blake is certainly not All-star caliber, but since mid-November he's been putting up some really good numbers, his assists have mostly been increasing, he's carrying a 3 to 1 A/T ratio, hits the long ball exceptionally well (42%), and is even hitting his two point shots at a much better rate this year (47%). his PER of 15+ is nothing to sneeze at either.

Is Blake good enough to ride to title contention? I'm not so sure, but I don't see a lot of substantial upgrades out there that teams seem to be eager to part with either.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Pritchard had the following issues leading up to the start of the season:

His options at PG were questionable. Worse-case scenario would appear to have been having Bayless as a secondary parachute if the primary ones (Blake and Sergio) didn't open.

His options at SF were questionable. Webster and Outlaw appeared to be the stop gap until a superior player could be attained through trade.

Well Steve is having a career-best year, Sergio is kicking loose out of his cocoon, and Batum is so much more than anyone bargained for. So how does this change thing?

The need for Bayless, Outlaw, and Frye is becoming less and less. It's now a possibility that a consolidation deal could be made for either a) superior starting PG (with Sergio still as the reserve), b) reserve PG (with Sergio becoming the starter), c) reserve PF or d) more young, developing talent.

I think option B is very unlikely since Sergio plays so well with Rudy and Rudy isn't going to break the starting unit. I doubt Nate would decide to break that up. So ideally it's option A. And if Blake continues to play this well, a deal for say Hinrich may not be justified. It may have to be for a bigger name - Parker, Terry, Bibby, Nash, Calderon, or Kidd. Otherwise, making a move for more young talent seems like the way to go.

 

[andalusian]

With the way Toronto is going down in flames - maybe we can have Calderon here for some nice pieces like Blake/Webster or Outlaw, Frye, an overseas talent and a pick.

I am not sure how much of an upgrade it will be defensively - but maybe it is worth it.

IKPWT.