That "Scout" Guy On Wheels @ Work

[ABM]

..says that the Blazers are a model that many teams will follow after. Said that the Blazers have done all the right things in re-building this franchise. Said that the Blazers are not quite ready for prime-time, but are definitely on, or ahead of, the right pace.

All in all, a good interview. Very encouraging.

I asked Wheels what Scout's real name is, but he said if he told me he'd have to kill me afterwards.

 

[drexlersdad]

that shit cracks me up.

"the model we should follow is to be horrible and have multiple high draft picks, and then draft all star level players with a few of them".

we could have easily had tyrus thomas and adam morrison in 06, and corey brewer in 07. then i doubt ANYONE would want to follow in those footsteps.

 

[RR7]

that shit cracks me up.

"the model we should follow is to be horrible and have multiple high draft picks, and then draft all star level players with a few of them".

we could have easily had tyrus thomas and adam morrison in 06, and corey brewer in 07. then i doubt ANYONE would want to follow in those footsteps.

Well, clearly the model we are following isn't:
"Draft super athletic, basketball challenged guys too high" or
"Draft slow white guys high"

So I would say it is a good model to follow. Primarily the drafting super athletes, and hoping they eventually become something. That could work better for good teams, because they won't be looked to as much. On, say, SA, Tyrus Thomas might be a lot better, because he would be allowed to do one or two things really good, and come along slowly on everything, whereas the Bulls needed him, or wanted him, to do everythig good, or else just not play. They couldn't afford to have him be completely inept on offense, so he would get benched. If you are going for a complete rebuild, starting with a guy in a ROy, Granger type of mold probably makes a lot mroe sense than Tyrus Thomas sort of mold.

 

[cloudydays]

Well, clearly the model we are following isn't:
"Draft super athletic, basketball challenged guys too high" or
"Draft slow white guys high"

So I would say it is a good model to follow. Primarily the drafting super athletes, and hoping they eventually become something. That could work better for good teams, because they won't be looked to as much. On, say, SA, Tyrus Thomas might be a lot better, because he would be allowed to do one or two things really good, and come along slowly on everything, whereas the Bulls needed him, or wanted him, to do everythig good, or else just not play. They couldn't afford to have him be completely inept on offense, so he would get benched. If you are going for a complete rebuild, starting with a guy in a ROy, Granger type of mold probably makes a lot mroe sense than Tyrus Thomas sort of mold.

If I'm looking for a player to draft to build around, Griffin is choice 1 (obviously), and then probably Harden. I'm not sold on Rubio/Jennings/Aminu/anyone else being a guy who you can build around.

 

[Ed O]

that shit cracks me up.

"the model we should follow is to be horrible and have multiple high draft picks, and then draft all star level players with a few of them".

we could have easily had tyrus thomas and adam morrison in 06, and corey brewer in 07. then i doubt ANYONE would want to follow in those footsteps.

Well... I agree with you. Of course every team should simply not fuck up their draft picks.

That's the model to follow.

It doesn't hurt to
-- luck into the top three twice, including the #1 pick overall
-- be able to buy extra first rounders whenever you want
-- have really low expectations in the city so your coach can go well under .500 for his first several years without any danger of losing his job

The Blazers are looking really good for the future, but I don't know that there's much of a model that any other team can follow with any confidence of success.

Ed O.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think the model is also about drafting players whoose character fits with the team. For Ptd, that means not going for the bling-bling kind of player but a down to earth, stay out of trouble, team first kind of player. And to find 2-3 stars and build role players around those stars . . . not the Bob model of accumulate as much talent as possible and hope it all fits together.

 

[THE HCP]

I think he was talking about a mix of very talented players that are also quality people. No gangstas!

 

[rocketeer]

If I'm looking for a player to draft to build around, Griffin is choice 1 (obviously), and then probably Harden. I'm not sold on Rubio/Jennings/Aminu/anyone else being a guy who you can build around.

i'd go with both harden and greg monroe over griffin.

 

[Ed O]

I think the model is also about drafting players whoose character fits with the team. For Ptd, that means not going for the bling-bling kind of player but a down to earth, stay out of trouble, team first kind of player. And to find 2-3 stars and build role players around those stars . . . not the Bob model of accumulate as much talent as possible and hope it all fits together.

Whitsitt was never OPPOSED to getting 2 or 3 stars. He just never was in a position to get a single star because the team was in the playoffs every year and was expected to be. He added as many sub-star players as he could, hoping that depth could overcome the NBA system that favors superstars so heavily. He was almost right in terms of winning a title and he was unquestionably correct in terms of consistency of success over the course of a decade or so.

And I don't think passing on "bling-bling" kind of players or on guys with bad attitudes or with poor college production would have anything to do with passing on a player like Adam Morrison.

The reason Portland would pass on a player like Adam is because (a) they know more than other teams, or (b) luck.

Does anyone really think that being luckier and smarter than opponents is something that anyone can build a franchise around?

Ed O.

 

[rocketeer]

Does anyone really think that being luckier and smarter than opponents is something that anyone can build a franchise around?

Ed O.

luckier? no. smarter? definitely.

 

[ABM]

Does anyone really think that being luckier and smarter than opponents is something that anyone can build a franchise around?

Ed O.

San Antonio:

1) Robinson

2) Duncan

3) The rest is history

 

[Ed O]

luckier? no. smarter? definitely.

I don't think you can have a replicable and alienable system that says, "We're going to be smarter than our opponents."

That's like saying, "We're going to have a system where we win more basketball games."

Being smart is the input into a process (or, from another perspective, the result of one)... not a process in and of itself.

Some individuals are smarter than other individuals, but every franchise that is interested in winning is trying to be smarter than everyone else. It's a question of how and why the franchise is smarter.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

San Antonio:

1) Robinson

2) Duncan

3) The rest is history

If the Spurs management had interviewed a GM candidate a year before they won the DRob lottery, and he had come in saying, "We're going to be smarter and luckier than everyone else. That's my plan." ... would that have been reasonable? Should they have hired that person?

Clearly the Spurs did many things right, but every decision they've made, and every success they've had, was augmented by the incredible luck of winning two of the best lottery top picks in NBA history.

Ed O.

 

[rocketeer]

I don't think you can have a replicable and alienable system that says, "We're going to be smarter than our opponents."

well of course not. but to say that being smarter than other teams isn't something to build a franchise around isn't correct either.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

3) The rest is history

I think drafting Tony Parker with the last pick of the first round and Ginobili with a LOW second rounder took a little smarts...

 

[Ed O]

well of course not. but to say that being smarter than other teams isn't something to build a franchise around isn't correct either.

It's a useless thing to say. It's like saying you're going to build a franchise around having a better team.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

well of course not. but to say that being smarter than other teams isn't something to build a franchise around isn't correct either.

Wait. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.

Are you talking about a system of having smarter PLAYERS than other teams? Like some teams might value intelligence more highly relative to other considerations (height, shooting, youth/experience, etc.?)

If you're saying that, I agree that it's a viable strategy and part of a system that could be used as a blueprint by other franchises.

I am talking, though, about making smarter decisions in the front office. Every franchise tries to make the best possible decisions, so having a "system" where the front office (and franchise as a whole) is smarter would be rather uselessly defined one.

Ed O.

 

[rocketeer]

Wait. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.

Are you talking about a system of having smarter PLAYERS than other teams? Like some teams might value intelligence more highly relative to other considerations (height, shooting, youth/experience, etc.?)

If you're saying that, I agree that it's a viable strategy and part of a system that could be used as a blueprint by other franchises.

I am talking, though, about making smarter decisions in the front office. Every franchise tries to make the best possible decisions, so having a "system" where the front office (and franchise as a whole) is smarter would be rather uselessly defined one.

Ed O.

no, i'm talking about what you are talking about as well. though obviously having smarter basketball players is generally a plus too.

 

[Ed O]

no, i'm talking about what you are talking about as well. though obviously having smarter basketball players is generally a plus too.

How can you create a system where the system is based on making better decisions?

Honestly, how would that work?

What system does not bake in "being smart" as part of the system?

Ed O.

 

[ABM]

Wait. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.

Are you talking about a system of having smarter PLAYERS than other teams? Like some teams might value intelligence more highly relative to other considerations (height, shooting, youth/experience, etc.?)

If you're saying that, I agree that it's a viable strategy and part of a system that could be used as a blueprint by other franchises.

I am talking, though, about making smarter decisions in the front office. Every franchise tries to make the best possible decisions, so having a "system" where the front office (and franchise as a whole) is smarter would be rather uselessly defined one.

Ed O.

For whatever reason, This Article came to mind. I realize it was a long time ago, but I wonder how the Blazers might have fared had they not drafted Wicks?

The summer of 1971, Inman says, the Blazers began a relationship with sports psychologist Bruce Ogilvie in which he would provide psychological profiles on prospects before the draft. That summer, though, he tested Portland’s picks after the draft.

“In drafting Sidney, I was going on what John Wooden and his assistant coach told me, and what I saw on the court,” Inman says. “We needed a power guy who could score, and Sidney was both. There was no question about his talent level.

“I remember I was sitting in a Lewis & Clark College lecture room with our owners (Larry Weinberg and Herman Sarkowsky) and (general manager) Harry Glickman. Bruce was unbelievably honest about the frailties in Sidney’s athletic personality. The more Bruce talked, the more the owners slumped in their chairs. Sidney didn’t fall down in just one or two categories, but four or five, which really raised the red flag. Had we known, we probably would not have taken him.”

 

[Ed O]

For whatever reason, This Article came to mind. I realize it was a long time ago, but I wonder how the Blazers might have fared had they not drafted Wicks?

Interesting article.

Look at that draft class... who could possibly have made the all-star game four times?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_NBA_Draft

There are only four guys who made the all-star team from that draft TOTAL, and that includes Carr (#1) and Wicks (#2). Fred Brown made it at #6 and Spenser Haywood made it at #30, but Haywood was a big gamble given that he was the first "early entry" candidate.

It's easy to say the Blazers messed up by taking him, and that they didn't place enough emphasis on the data they had (psychological testing)... but would the team have been better with the likes of Kenneth Durrett (120 games played in his career, 10.7 PER taken at #4) or George Trapp (379 games, 13.7 PER)?

Wicks clearly never fit in on the Blazers, but neither did Petrie, if we look merely at team accomplishments. Wicks's absence MIGHT have helped us win the title in 76-77, but too many things changed (Petrie retired, Wilkins replaced by Ramsey, Walton healthy, Mo Lucas in town) to know how much Wicks had been holding the team back and how much the rest of the situation was just stacked against the team.

Ed O.

 

[ABM]

Wicks's absence MIGHT have helped us win the title in 76-77, but too many things changed (Petrie retired, Wilkins replaced by Ramsey, Walton healthy, Mo Lucas in town) to know how much Wicks had been holding the team back and how much the rest of the situation was just stacked against the team.

Ed O.

OTOH, had the Blazers not drafted Wicks, their following records may have become better, resulting in lower draft picks, resulting in not getting the chance to draft Walton, resulting in no 1977 Championship.

 

[Masbee]

How can you create a system where the system is based on making better decisions?

Honestly, how would that work?

What system does not bake in "being smart" as part of the system?

Ed O.

True. None.

However, as in most areas, it is the emphasis, priority and effort and resources dedicated to the target that is important.

The devil is in the details.

Everybody wants "good" things. Few people can or should want ALL good things. You have to pick and choose.

Most all NBA management candidates are "smart" in terms of the general population.

But, how many owners demand the 99th percentile?

I can imagine owners who place a priority on hiring management with: experience, long basketball resume/name, connections, personality, nepotism, etc.

I think for an organization to be "smart" they have to make a top priority of hiring exceptionally smart management staff; provide the money and resources to allow those smart people to gather the information they need to make smart decisions (not easy or cheap), and support these "smart" people when they make decisions that are counter to the current trend or fasion (ie, Dantoni in Phoenix)

You show me where owners as a collective group place "smart" as their number one priority. In fact, I can almost guarantee it is NOT the number one priority.

 

[crandc]

It's not enough to have the $ to buy extra draft picks. It's putting the resources into scouting, to know what international players to get, and having the patience to wait a year for Rudy Fernandez. It's having the guts to ignore a trumped up "draft the stache" campaign and go for Brandon Roy, even if it makes Stephen A Smith froth. After all, 5 other teams could have had Roy but did not. It's not just getting good players, or good players who are decent human beings. It's also about the parts fitting. A lot of the fake trades that get posted involve, for example, getting a star starting two guard. Bad fit. The Blazers have a star starting two guard. The Whitsitt era, while not all bad until the last year or so, involved getting as many talented players as possible and then telling the coach to figure out how to play them. It is also having patience with a coach, knowing the team will lose games for a couple of years, as long as they improve, as the Blazers have, by about 10 games per year for 4 years.

 

[azsun67]

The Plan:
Portland:

1. Roy/LMA

2. Oden

3. The rest will be history

 

[ABM]

The Plan:
Portland:

1. Roy/LMA

2. Oden

3. The rest will be history

Love it.