Pat Connaughton

[Rastapopoulos]

View attachment 15899

Exactly what kind of players do you think Pat got his numbers against? We were either up 20 or down 20 with under 3 minutes to play.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Not necessarily. The coaches wanted to see how he would do playing PG. Turns out, not very well. So, he won't be called on to play that position during the regular season. It was an experiment, It failed. Back to 3rd string SG for Pat.

BNM

Are the coaches really that cruel? Having Pat "play" "PG" is like having a fish ride a bicycle.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Are the coaches really that cruel? Having Pat "play" "PG" is like having a fish ride a bicycle.

You never really know if something is possible until you give it a shot.

 

[Boob-No-More]

What is this "knowing the system" bullshit. That only matters if either (a) you're an assistant coach, or (b) you're going to be out there playing. Well it sure as hell isn't (b) (unless something terrible befalls the rest of the team), so is he being paid over a million dollars to teach the other players? I'd be a bit envious if I was an ACTUAL assistant coach.

It saves time in practice vs. guys who don't know the system mucking things up. The coaches can focus on improving other players rather that trying to teach some 3rd stringer the playbook.

Plus, injuries happen. Its nice to have someone who knows the playbook that can fill in for a game, or two, without fucking things up.

You seem really pissed off by this. In your opinion what did this cost us? We still have another open roster spot we can use to sign another min contract player. So, it's not like Neil spent his final roster spot to keep Pat.

The GM, owner and coach thought he was worth keeping around for another year on a min contract. They see how well he does in practice and how much he is improving (or not). If they thought he was a lost cause, he'd be gone. This isn't a half way house to wayward baseball players. What exactly is your beef here? What do you know that they don't?

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Are the coaches really that cruel? Having Pat "play" "PG" is like having a fish ride a bicycle.

Not sure if cruel is the right word. Remember when Mo Cheeks thought Qyntel Woods would be a great back up PG? Yeah, let's put the guy with the BBIQ of a 2x4 in charge of running our offense.

BNM

 

[e_blazer]

That game, presumably. I see all the other games.

I guess that didn't include this one:

 

[blue9]

Exactly what kind of players do you think Pat got his numbers against? We were either up 20 or down 20 with under 3 minutes to play.

Prove it.
Actually, don't. I don't care enough to argue about Pat, or with someone who has cemented their opinion of a 3rd string player.
He passed my eye test - better dribbler, passer, shooter, and higher BBIQ than Aminu.

 

[Five Second Violation]

Pat isn't that bad, not sure what the hubbub is about here. The bottom line is that we still need more depth at SG and he can provide it, cheaply, while being a good locker room guy. Declining the option at this point makes little sense.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

You seem really pissed off by this.

Hardly. Slightly bemused more like. If I was one of the hundreds of prospects hanging around the fringes of the NBA who never get "their shot" - THEN I'd be pissed.

 

[chzbrgr]

I like Patty baseball he looked like a nice little role player at the end of the year last year. He seems like a player who really benefits from having the structure of an offense around him. Summer league is just basically glorified pick up which is not his strength. I think he can be a productive guard off the bench, he wont play 28min a game like crabbe but I think he can average 7-8 ppg on catch and shoot opportunities. That's all we will really ask of him. I dont get why rasta is so mad about this.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Pat isn't that bad,

This is what the phrase "damning with faint praise" was invented for.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't get the comments about his shot starting to fall. He shot .514 2FG% and .515 3FG% last season. Yeah, I know - small sample size, blah, blah, blah, but it's not like he shot .342 2FG% and .255 3FG% (Jake Layman, cough, cough...).

Yes, you're right--I actually confused his shooting numbers with those of Layman's.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Prove it.
Actually, don't. I don't care enough to argue about Pat, or with someone who has cemented their opinion of a 3rd string player.
He passed my eye test - better dribbler, passer, shooter, and higher BBIQ than Aminu.

And yet Aminu is so much more valuable, in part because he's BY FAR the Blazers' best and most versatile defender.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I guess that didn't include this one:

I guess a broken clock is right two times a year.

(Waiting for you to find his third best game.)

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Look, I've nothing against Pat. I actually gave him some minor praise late last season when it looked like he was kind of helping the team while on the floor for short stretches. For sure, if he has a value, it's as a glue guy who helps the team play smoothly (which I guess is what you could mean by "knowing the system"). That's the kind of player that's valuable on a contending team. Your James Jones type.

We're not a contending team. Other teams have exciting young prospects who could really turn into something (think of the Spurs with Dejounte Murray, for example). We have a guy who will obviously never be more than a spot-minutes guy because he has the game of a stretch-4 in the body of a combo guard.

 

[BBert]

It better be because they're trading him or he all the sudden is going to blow up.

Option three: He becomes an adequate rotation player. Option four: He continues to be bench and practice fodder. In any case, I don't see a down side.

 

[BBert]

He "can" hit the three, but "doesn't" and looked outclassed in SUMMER LEAGUE. (Until he got injured and the team immediately got miles better.)

Awe, come on my man. You know they played him at point guard. Of course the team did better when they quit that stupidity.

 

[e_blazer]

I guess a broken clock is right two times a year.

(Waiting for you to find his third best game.)

You're asking a lot for a guy who barely got any PT last season. Look, I'm not saying that he's an All-Star in waiting. I do think that if you look at his clips you can see that he's got a bunch of NBA-level skills that indicate that he has room to improve. He can shoot the ball well. He's athletic. He has some nice assists in those clips. He has good court awareness. This is the last year on his contract so it's not a long-term commitment. He should see more PT this season with Crabbe gone. He either shows that he's worth a new contract or he's gone.

 

[e_blazer]

I don't see where anybody's posted this link to OregonLive that confirms that the Blazers guaranteed Pat's contract: http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/i...eep_pat_connaughton_f.html#incart_river_index

 

[Denny Crane]

Unfortunately it's not. If it was, we would have at least made it to the WCF with Crabbe/Turner. But, as illustrated above, Pat wasn't really much worse - and in some respects, was much better - than Turner...statistically speaking.

In theory, if a GM is a great talent evaluator, and not factoring in market forces (e.g. another team bidding up the price), the $4.5M player should be the better of the two.

Put it another way: which would you rather have to spend on a player if you were GM: $1.5M or $4.5M?

 

[Minstrel]

Other teams have exciting young prospects who could really turn into something (think of the Spurs with Dejounte Murray, for example).

Dejounte Murray isn't their 14th or 15th player--he's a rotation player for them. Granted, he's a more interesting player than Portland's counterpart (Shabazz Napier?), but he's not really comparable to a player who won't be on Portland's active 12 man roster.

After waiving and stretching Nicholson, Portland still has an open roster spot with Connaughton on the roster. So he's not even an opportunity cost at this point. Are there two players you think the Blazers can reasonably sign who would be better than Connaughton? We probably also have to consider Portland constrained not to add any significant net (after deleting Connaughton's minimum) salary, since it appears that they don't want to be in the luxury tax til they re-sign Nurkic.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

After waiving and stretching Nicholson, Portland still has an open roster spot with Connaughton on the roster. So he's not even an opportunity cost at this point. Are there two players you think the Blazers can reasonably sign who would be better than Connaughton? We probably also have to consider Portland constrained not to add any significant net (after deleting Connaughton's minimum) salary, since it appears that they don't want to be in the luxury tax til they re-sign Nurkic.

I'm only arguing about this because there's fuck-all else Blazer-related to talk about, but if there AREN'T better people out there than there are a lot fewer decent players than I believe there are. Obviously Gutierrez is a better player, but the argument against signing him is that we have Shabazz (who can shoot but who is smaller, a much worse defender and not really a PG) but we're thin on the wings. So yes, there are better players (TONS) certainly playing in Europe (and that's just the Americans). I think keeping Connaughton is the fallacy of sunk costs. I'm just glad I'm not the one paying him OVER A MILLION DOLLARS.

In fact, I have to avoid talking about money in the context of sports, otherwise I'll never be able to enjoy it.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Awe, come on my man. You know they played him at point guard. Of course the team did better when they quit that stupidity.

No, it was RJ that they were playing at PG. He's terrible at it, but at least better than Connaughton.

 

[Minstrel]

I think keeping Connaughton is the fallacy of sunk costs. I'm just glad I'm not the one paying him OVER A MILLION DOLLARS.

In fact, I have to avoid talking about money in the context of sports, otherwise I'll never be able to enjoy it.

I don't think they're concerned about Connaughton's salary--if they had cut him, they would have been free of his salary, no? I don't think this is a case where the money was already spent so they decide they might as well keep him and play him.

I think they're more concerned with better players than Connaughton costing more and pushing them further into the luxury tax. I can understand not really want to talk about money when it comes to sports, but if that's a constraint Portland is operating under (which may or may not be a wise constraint), then that's where we are*. I personally don't think Connaughton is significantly better or worse than other team's inactives and I think he has a chance to provide most of what Crabbe did (which is not a high standard to meet).


*Is "that's where we are" any better than "it is what it is?"

 

[Boob-No-More]

Hardly. Slightly bemused more like. If I was one of the hundreds of prospects hanging around the fringes of the NBA who never get "their shot" - THEN I'd be pissed.

Why? Its not Pat Connaughtons' fault they aren't on an NBA roster. He is a 14th/15th man on a min contract. He is appropriately paid for his role and his ability. There are worse players making a lot more money.

BNM

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Why? Its not Pat Connaughtons' fault they aren't on an NBA roster.

I didn't say I'd be pissed at Connaughton.

 

[dviss1]

No, it was RJ that they were playing at PG. He's terrible at it, but at least better than Connaughton.

PC started at PG then got injured.

 

[tester551]

He can't dribble. He can't pass above a rudimentary level. He can't move his feet fast enough to defend wings. I guess he must be an INCREDIBLE motivational speaker behind closed doors.

And he's still better at those things than Crabbe

 

[dviss1]

And he's still better at those things than Crabbe

Right?!?

 

[mook]

Listened to some Blazers podcast earlier this year (can't remember which) and there was a lot of focus on Pat, and two recurring themes kept coming up:

1. He's a natural leader. Eh, I know, leadership doesn't mean much if you aren't NBA-level talent, but if you see that trait in a guy who also has a lot of athleticism and some NBA upside, well, it's an intangible that tips the scales over another guy with similar stats. If somewhere down the line he develops into a Derek Fisher-level utility player, well, it's nice to know he's got that ability to bring along younger players on the team down the road.

2. He sees Allen Crabbe as his role model for sticking in the league. Work hard, develop a bankable skill or two, and that contract will come. If you look at Crabbe's three point shooting in 3 years of college (.382) and Pat's 4 years (.386) you can kind of see how he connects those dots in his mind. In Pat's mind there's a template for success, and I think it's pretty realistic (as compared to, say, Meyers Leonard, who seems to just drift with the wind.)

I'm also a big believer in trajectory. Crabbe had a nice little growth curve. CJ and Dame did too. Not just in scoring but overall production over multiple years early in their careers. It can be a small, incremental stat improvement that just sneaks up on you. In Pat's first year, he played 4mpg and had a PER of 4. In his second, he was trusted with 8mpg and had a PER of 11.8. The PER is less important than the minutes, in my mind--the coach actually saw more ways he could help the team the longer he was on our team. That's encouraging. Does that mean he plays 16mpg this year with a PER or 22? Probably not. But he improved from his first season to the second. Seems pretty likely he can do that again.

(A complete absence of even the smallest incremental trajectory in Vonleh and Meyers is why I've pretty much given up on them.)

I'm glad we picked him up for the year. There's limited downside, he seems like a positive personality on the bench, and I think given the lack of pressure on him and the opportunities he'll see this year with Crabbe gone, he's got a good chance to get to be a Crabbe-level utility player.