Paul Allen at Yesterday's Work Out

[Crimson the Cat]

He generally doesn't show up at these unless there's a player that Portland's pretty high on. Personally the player that I think they're interested in is either Danny Green or Wayne Ellington.

Wayne's on the smallish side for a forward. If they're seriously looking at him, would this be a sign that we're strongly considering moving Rudy? I doubt it.

I'm thinking it's Danny Green. He's been heavily touted since the beginning of his Junior season. He's the kind of talent I think would draw the attention of Allen.

Any thoughts?

 

[Wheels]

He just wants to see who's draft rights he is gonna pay 3 Mill for this draft

 

[ehizzy3]

i really like danny green, he will be solid and good third string sf

 

[<-=*PdX*=->]

I dont know where everyone keeps getting this idea that we are going to trade Rudy?...

 

[hasoos]

i really like danny green, he will be solid and good third string sf

That isn't a good thing when your not even sure if you have a legit starting SF.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I dont know where everyone keeps getting this idea that we are going to trade Rudy?...

It's not something I've seen even hinted at by the team or "insiders". I've seen it bantered about by some of us, and even myself. I personally wouldn't entertain such a thought, unless we were getting back an equally or more than talented player at the 1 or the 3. My reasoning is that long term he doesn't fit our plans ... I don't think. I might be wrong on this. He is quite versatile and can get minutes at the 3, 2 (when Brandon's not playing or playing at the 3 or 1), or 1. But, it's pretty obvious that Rudy's best position is at the 2. It's conceivable that he won't want to be in Brandon's shadow forever. I just have a feeling we're going to have to address this issue with Rudy playing the same position as our franchise star.

He's on his rookie contract for a few more seasons, so there's absolutely no reason to do anything. But if the right package became available, it's something that should be looked into.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

David Thrope chimed in on Danny Green today during his chat:

I'm very high on him, but teams I've talked to think I'm crazy. I think he's the closest thing to Artest I've seen.

 

[oldmangrouch]

It's not something I've seen even hinted at by the team or "insiders". I've seen it bantered about by some of us, and even myself. I personally wouldn't entertain such a thought, unless we were getting back an equally or more than talented player at the 1 or the 3. My reasoning is that long term he doesn't fit our plans ... I don't think. I might be wrong on this. He is quite versatile and can get minutes at the 3, 2 (when Brandon's not playing or playing at the 3 or 1), or 1. But, it's pretty obvious that Rudy's best position is at the 2. It's conceivable that he won't want to be in Brandon's shadow forever. I just have a feeling we're going to have to address this issue with Rudy playing the same position as our franchise star.

He's on his rookie contract for a few more seasons, so there's absolutely no reason to do anything. But if the right package became available, it's something that should be looked into.

Agreed. Rudy is a valuable commodity - but he should not be considered untouchable.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/6/9/904226/tuesday-pre-draft-workout-report

More info on the work out yesterday, including thoughts on Ellington and Paul Allen

Ellington, in particular, stood out because of his size (seemed bigger than his list weight of 200 pounds), his jumper (absolutely beautiful form, which should come as no surprise) and moxie (he carries himself like a professional already).

Generally regarded as a late-first/early-second round pick, I asked Ellington if he had made any bets with his fellow Tar Heels regarding who would be drafted first. He said that he hadn't so I asked him, if he were a GM, which Tar Heel he would draft first. He smiled and without pausing said "Me, man" and started laughing. It wasn't the answer I've come to expect in that situation but I loved the honesty and confidence. "Well, in that case, would you take yourself number one overall?" I asked, testing his braggadocio a little bit. He laughed and said, "Nah... Blake's got that, Blake, man, he's a monster."

"But you're number two after Blake, then?

"Yeah, I'm number two," he said, again laughing.

Honestly, I'd draft Ellington based on that 20 second exchange alone. That's why I'm not in charge. But at least one observer mentioned that he thought Mr. Allen seemed to be looking extensively in Ellington's direction. Buchanan called Ellington "polished" and that's surely accurate. He has a prettier stroke than any current Blazer, Martell included.

I guess the questions with Ellington are defense (Buchanan noted that Green was a better defender) and his height (although he measured 6.5.25" in Chicago, which seems sufficient). In addition to his sense of humor, easy-going nature, and confidence, Ellington boasts a national reputation (McDonald's All American) and winning pedigree (National Champ at Carolina). Honestly, I'm not sure what's keeping him out of the first round on some draft boards. Seems like he will be a solid pro for years to come.

 

[THE HCP]

Actually this is Paul's favorite time of the year. He's at a lot of the workouts, I don't think there was anybody there yesterday that was anything special. He likes being around during the draft.

 

[BlazerWookee]

That isn't a good thing when your not even sure if you have a legit starting SF.

Who isn't sure? At worst, we have Batum, who is at the very least adequate now, and will likely improve drastically. If Marty beats out Nic for the starting job, we're just that much better off.

 

[RickyRubio]

My reasoning is that long term he doesn't fit our plans ... I don't think. I might be wrong on this.

How exactly does he not fit into our long term plans?

 

[hasoos]

Who isn't sure? At worst, we have Batum, who is at the very least adequate now, and will likely improve drastically. If Marty beats out Nic for the starting job, we're just that much better off.

No Batum filled in, but wasn't adequate. Likely improving drastically and definitly improving drastically are 2 different things. I for one, don't expect Batum's offense to fill out for about 3 years into his career if not a little longer. I definitly don't expect Batum to come in and average 13 points a game this year as the starting SF, and that is IMO what the team needs offensivly from a SF, 13 points a game, consistently, efficiently.

The one thing that Portland should learn from watching this years playoffs is the less holes you have on your team offensivly, the further you go in the playoffs. The more holes on your team, the quicker you went out. Right now, with the team as it was, they were trying to play Houston with Pryzbilla and Batum in the lineup, that was basically 2 guys who weren't going to score dick in the lineup. That means 2 guys that can roam free, and double up on Roy and Aldridge at will, and hold their production down. If Portland is going to get where they can compete at the highest level, all 5 positions have to produce, because when you are facing the best defenses in the league, they take away your best weapons. If you work on Roy and Aldridge, that leaves Pryzbilla, Batum and Blake to score. I wouldnt' be very scaref of that, at all if I was the opposition.

 

[<-=*PdX*=->]

How exactly does he not fit into our long term plans?

Thats the same question I have...?

 

[Crimson the Cat]

How exactly does he not fit into our long term plans?

If Nate feels comfortable, eventually, playing both Rudy and Brandon together for much longer periods in the future than what we saw last season, then I'd be ecstatic. I don't get the feeling that Nate wants to do this. Because of this, I don't see Rudy receiving starter minutes at the 1 or the 3. And to be honest, as much as I like Rudy, there are always going to be more ideal 1s and 3s out there. Rudy's a 2. Sure he's versatile enough to slide over when those match ups present themselves, but not on a consistent basis.

In a couple of seasons, Rudy will need to begin focusing on playing for a "big boy" contract. Will he be able to make the most of his opportunities playing out of position or playing off the bench? Will we want to pay him large dollars as a reserve?

Again, I love Rudy. I just can't help ponder whether the team, long term, would be best off converting his awesome talents, rather sooner than later, into a point guard with awesome talents.

If we can keep him content with this role and find a way for him and Brandon to coexist, I'm all for making him a Blazer4life. I just have this sneaking suspicion that it won't work.

 

[andalusian]

No Batum filled in, but wasn't adequate. Likely improving drastically and definitly improving drastically are 2 different things. I for one, don't expect Batum's offense to fill out for about 3 years into his career if not a little longer. I definitly don't expect Batum to come in and average 13 points a game this year as the starting SF, and that is IMO what the team needs offensivly from a SF, 13 points a game, consistently, efficiently.

I do not share this belief - because I think Oden will turn into a reliable 3rd scorer. A team that have 3 reliable scorers just do not need another double-digit guy from the SF position - nice to have? Sure, required? No.

 

[hasoos]

I do not share this belief - because I think Oden will turn into a reliable 3rd scorer. A team that have 3 reliable scorers just do not need another double-digit guy from the SF position - nice to have? Sure, required? No.

Really? How many guys that can score are on the starting lineups of the Finals this year? Including both teams, that would be 10. Every single guy can score. The weakest of them probably being Fisher, but you know what, he is a pretty consistent player, and that is what matters. He hits his shots when he gets them.

Now go down a round, to the teams that got beat by them. How many did Cleveland have? 4. How many did Denver have? 4.

Lets go down to the 2nd round now. This gets difficults because Houstons lineup changed during this round. But lets look at this. The teams that lost in this round were:

Houston: (Yao, Artest, Brooks, Scola and Battier to start, (5 guys who can score if counting Battier) by end of series was minus Yao and plus Chuck Hayes. 4 scorers if you give the gift of Battier being a scorer. (I personally don't.)
Dallas: Dirk, Howard, Kidd. Sometimes Terry, but he isn't a starter. 3 scorers

Atlanta: 3 scorers

Boston: 3 scorers

Now the 1st round:

New Orleans: 2 scorers.
Portland: 2 scorers.
San Antonio: 2 scorers because of no Ginobili and Duncan was hobbled.
Jazz: 2 scorers
Pistons: 2 scorers
Bulls: 2 scorers.
Heat: 1 scorer.


I think the pattern if fairly self evident. There may be some disagreement as to how many players are bonified scorers on a team, but it is fairly evident, the more balanced your team is, the better chance you have to overcome playoff defensive intensity and succeed when forced to run half court offense against such said defense.

 

[andalusian]

Really? How many guys that can score are on the starting lineups of the Finals this year? Including both teams, that would be 10. Every single guy can score. The weakest of them probably being Fisher, but you know what, he is a pretty consistent player, and that is what matters. He hits his shots when he gets them.

Now go down a round, to the teams that got beat by them. How many did Cleveland have? 4. How many did Denver have? 4.

Lets go down to the 2nd round now. This gets difficults because Houstons lineup changed during this round. But lets look at this. The teams that lost in this round were:

Houston: (Yao, Artest, Brooks, Scola and Battier to start, (5 guys who can score if counting Battier) by end of series was minus Yao and plus Chuck Hayes. 4 scorers if you give the gift of Battier being a scorer. (I personally don't.)
Dallas: Dirk, Howard, Kidd. Sometimes Terry, but he isn't a starter. 3 scorers

Atlanta: 3 scorers

Boston: 3 scorers

Now the 1st round:

New Orleans: 2 scorers.
Portland: 2 scorers.
San Antonio: 2 scorers because of no Ginobili and Duncan was hobbled.
Jazz: 2 scorers
Pistons: 2 scorers
Bulls: 2 scorers.
Heat: 1 scorer.


I think the pattern if fairly self evident. There may be some disagreement as to how many players are bonified scorers on a team, but it is fairly evident, the more balanced your team is, the better chance you have to overcome playoff defensive intensity and succeed when forced to run half court offense against such said defense.

The Magic had 4 double-digit scorers in their starting lineup this year (they have 5 on the roster that did - but 2 of those play the same position in Nelson and Alston) On the other hand - their bench is not as deep as Portland's is or is projected to be.

The Lakers had 3 double-digit scorers in their starting line-up (They only have 4 overall - but I have not seen them start Odom and Bynum with Kobe/Gasol) - but they have a deeper bench.

The Blazers this year had 3 double-digit scorers in their line-up (and an additional one off the bench in Travis) - making them the same, consistency wise, as the Lakers - the numbers are there. If the Blazers add Oden as a double-digit scoring starter - they are basically right where the Magic have with 4 double-digit starters and one backup. Since we hope that Rudy and Bayless will also become better consistent scorers in the NBA - there is additional scoring off the bench (as currently constituted).

Again - where is the need to have Batum in double-digits every-night?

Yes, it would be nice to have more scoring from him - but if Oden can become this 3rd consistent high scorer (and he is already at 8PPG in 22 minutes - so it is not that impossible to see it happen) - the need is just not as big as you claim.

 

[PapaG]

Really? How many guys that can score are on the starting lineups of the Finals this year? Including both teams, that would be 10. Every single guy can score. The weakest of them probably being Fisher, but you know what, he is a pretty consistent player, and that is what matters. He hits his shots when he gets them.

Now go down a round, to the teams that got beat by them. How many did Cleveland have? 4. How many did Denver have? 4.

Lets go down to the 2nd round now. This gets difficults because Houstons lineup changed during this round. But lets look at this. The teams that lost in this round were:

Houston: (Yao, Artest, Brooks, Scola and Battier to start, (5 guys who can score if counting Battier) by end of series was minus Yao and plus Chuck Hayes. 4 scorers if you give the gift of Battier being a scorer. (I personally don't.)
Dallas: Dirk, Howard, Kidd. Sometimes Terry, but he isn't a starter. 3 scorers

Atlanta: 3 scorers

Boston: 3 scorers

Now the 1st round:

New Orleans: 2 scorers.
Portland: 2 scorers.
San Antonio: 2 scorers because of no Ginobili and Duncan was hobbled.
Jazz: 2 scorers
Pistons: 2 scorers
Bulls: 2 scorers.
Heat: 1 scorer.


I think the pattern if fairly self evident. There may be some disagreement as to how many players are bonified scorers on a team, but it is fairly evident, the more balanced your team is, the better chance you have to overcome playoff defensive intensity and succeed when forced to run half court offense against such said defense.

I'm wondering how you define a "scorer". I don't consider Trevor Ariza or Andrew Bynum to be "scorers" for the Lakers, and I don't consider Rafer Alston or Courtney Lee to be "scorers" for Orlando. They all have games where they "score", but how are they "scorers" and Mehmet Okur (for an example) is not?

I also wonder why Shane Battier is a "scorer"? He average 7 ppg in the playoffs on 41% shooting.

 

[andalusian]

I'm wondering how you define a "scorer". I don't consider Trevor Ariza or Andrew Bynum to be "scorers" for the Lakers, and I don't consider Rafer Alston or Courtney Lee to be "scorers" for Orlando. They all have games where they "score", but how are they "scorers" and Mehmet Okur (for an example) is not?

I share the same opinion - that's why I went by averages and defined someone in the double-digits as someone that is a reliable offensive producer for the team. Portland had 4 players like this last year - Roy, LMA, Travis, Blake. Oden was really close (9 PPG) in very short minutes. Heck, even Rudy was a double-digit scorer this year - but I chose to ignore him because he was not so consistent doing it...

The Blazers just do not need the SF starter to be a double-digit scorer to be successful, especially if we keep Travis as our bench scorer guy.

 

[RR7]

I disagree with you rlist of "scorers". If Pietrus and Fisher are scorers, then by that argument, so is Blake. Adding Oden to the starting lineup gives us 4. Battier? Gimme a break. Kidd a scorer? No. 4 on Cleveland would imply that one of either Delonte West or Anderson Varejao is a scorer. Again, no. Unless we're including Blake as a scorer.