Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raptors Next GM

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quixotic
    replied
    Yeah, as I recall that sequence of events, there was a lot of talk that Durant would probably end up being the better player, but for the philosophy that you never pass on a quality center, which are few and far in between. 'Course, I don't have any quantitative evidence (i.e. 50% of pundits thought so and so), but that was the feeling at the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brandon
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    Tim,

    It's ok to be wrong sometimes you know. I have never seen you admit you're wrong on anything. You're always right to the bitter end. Well, if you can't see you're wrong here then I'm not going to waste any more time with you on this. It's blantantly obvious that Durant wasn't being consider a real option for the #1 overall pick heading into the 2007 draft. There was just a small minority. He wasn't being seriously tossed around by most. There was no large group saying he was the guy. That he was the best.

    If you called it back then, hats off to you because if you did you were in a select few.
    Durant was being talked about seriously as the #1 pick, because no one ever thought Greg "Airball" Oden could score, and he had an injury issue at Ohio State. Durant's dominant performances had him as no worse than a 50/50 choice for #1. The only thing that put Oden over the top was his enormous size and strength and the general lack of quality bigs in the NBA.

    The mistake Pritchard made in picking Oden was that he hoped Oden would be healthy, and you can't run a team on hope. The Blazers wanted to avoid another Sam Bowie/Michael Jordan situation, and that's exactly what happened. History repeated itself.

    Had the team with the #1 pick been Orlando or Boston, or another team with a quality lane-plugger, there would have been no question that Durant is their guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maleko
    replied
    yertu damkule wrote: View Post
    i think it would be awesome. plus, it'd give embry someone to play canasta with...
    HA! I would jump in on that game!

    Leave a comment:


  • MangoKid
    replied
    If it's not Colangelo that gets retained, I'm thinking that it's gonna be someone with no experience. Just call it a gut feeling. Whoever buys this team isn't going to want to make a big splash for front office personnel.

    Leave a comment:


  • yertu damkule
    replied
    Maleko wrote: View Post
    I'm not so sure. At his age? He is solid and would build a team right, but he may return to Indiana to 'finish out his days'. At one point Bird was waiting on the Walsh situation to see what would happen before deciding his own next course of action.
    i think it would be awesome. plus, it'd give embry someone to play canasta with...

    Leave a comment:


  • Maleko
    replied
    I'm not so sure. At his age? He is solid and would build a team right, but he may return to Indiana to 'finish out his days'. At one point Bird was waiting on the Walsh situation to see what would happen before deciding his own next course of action.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    Could Walsh be an Option?

    Donnie Walsh is conducting business as usual despite James Dolan not exercising the option year on the Knicks' president of basketball operation's contract Saturday.

    In his first comments since the Knicks were swept in the first round by the Boston Celtics, Walsh said via a text message Monday, "I am getting ready for the draft and the offseason."

    Walsh added that his current contract does not expire until June 30. That gives Walsh, the Knicks and the Garden's chairman two months to either negotiate a new contract or part ways. The clause in Walsh's contract called for organization to pick up his option by April 30, although that does not preclude Dolan from signing Walsh to an extension.

    The general feeling is that Walsh will return, but there are several key issues that need to be resolved, including the power to hire a successor. Dolan refused to allow Walsh to sign Chris Mullin as a general manager last summer. Instead, Dolan advised him to name Isiah Thomas GM but backed off when Walsh threatened to resign.
    Source: RealGM.com

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    golden wrote: View Post
    I won't add much to what Apollo said about the Oden #1 consensus/majority etc..., because he's bang on and it's self evident. I'm surprised you're even arguing that point so tenaciously.

    With respect to future injuries of draftees, that's a tough call that can go both ways. For example, many people slammed Babcock for passing on Granger (like so many other GMs) because of injury issues and picking Joey Graham. Didn't Babcock do exactly what you're suggesting. Also, I know that you love Ed Davis (as do I), but you could use the same logic to say that he was a way too high risk pick because of his injury history. And lest we all forget that he did in fact get injured again last summer playing pickup with the Young Nuns and GTA scrubs. What about Brandon Roy, for example? Was he a good pick for 4 years, and now he just became a bad pick?

    The point being that you can only make these type of arguments in hindsight. Projecting if players will be good or bad NBA pros is tough enough. Projecting career-threatening injuries is a whole other level of clairovoyance. I will fault a GM for poor talent evaluation, but not for injuries. With respect to injuries, it's luck more than anything.
    I don't know if either of you are understanding my point, which is why I'm arguing about it. Yertu got it. It really didn't seem that complicated.

    As for injuries, Ed Davis never appeared to be injury prone. And while there were questions about Granger's knees, there didn't appear to be any evidence to back up the questioning.

    Oden, on the other hand, has ALWAYS struggled with injuries and his right leg is like an inch and a half longer than his left leg, which is bound to always create problems. And it's not something you can fix. That alone should have been a huge warning bell for a franchise that drafted Bill Walton and Sam Bowie. Another issue with Oden, though, was he was not apparently very passionate about the game, which caused a few experts to like Durant more, who was maniacal about it. While Oden didn't enjoy working on his game, Durant was obsessive about it. When selecting number one, that's something that should always be taken into consideration.

    As I've been saying, there were enough negatives about Oden and so few about Durant, that while everyone EXPECTED Portland to take Oden, there were quite a number of experts who felt that Durant would have been the better pick.

    And as I said, I picked Oden, but I also didn't have all the information that came out after the draft.

    It's like DuJuan Blair. He was projected to be a top 10 pick, but when the information about his knees came out, he dropped. And rightly so. I think he dropped way too much, but I still think a drop of ten or even 20 spots was warranted.

    As for Brandon Roy, no he wasn't a bad pick, because there was no clear evidence that he would be in the position he is today. There was with Oden.

    Leave a comment:


  • yertu damkule
    replied
    golden wrote: View Post
    I won't add much to what Apollo said about the Oden #1 consensus/majority etc..., because he's bang on and it's self evident. I'm surprised you're even arguing that point so tenaciously.

    With respect to future injuries of draftees, that's a tough call that can go both ways. For example, many people slammed Babcock for passing on Granger (like so many other GMs) because of injury issues and picking Joey Graham. Didn't Babcock do exactly what you're suggesting. Also, I know that you love Ed Davis (as do I), but you could use the same logic to say that he was a way too high risk pick because of his injury history. And lest we all forget that he did in fact get injured again last summer playing pickup with the Young Nuns and GTA scrubs. What about Brandon Roy, for example? Was he a good pick for 4 years, and now he just became a bad pick?

    The point being that you can only make these type of arguments in hindsight. Projecting if players will be good or bad NBA pros is tough enough. Projecting career-threatening injuries is a whole other level of clairovoyance. I will fault a GM for poor talent evaluation, but not for injuries. With respect to injuries, it's luck more than anything.
    for the most part, i agree...but with a caveat: the oden/durant situation was, IMO, significantly different than either of the examples, because it was a case of there being two prospects who were clearly superior to others in the draft class, and it coming down to taking a guy who looked twice his age, who ran like a 55-yr-old, who had one leg significantly longer than the other, & who had just come off an injury-shortened season...or picking the guy who was about as pure a prospect as the game had seen in decades, with really no downside.

    the graham/granger 'debate' is laughable...granger slipped because of injury concerns, but it was in the mid-teens that the raptors picked graham over him, which i don't recall anyone thinking was a good move at the time. it's the middle of the first round, by that point in the draft, it's a crapshoot either way, so just take the guy who has the potential to be something special, even if it doesn't last.

    as for roy...slightly different case, he was picked high, but in a weak draft, and was obtained by a team that had already picked at #2...so the pressure was off somewhat. i'm sure concerns over roy's balky knee(s) is what triggered the trade in the first place, and i'm pretty sure that one of the reasons the blazers were willing to take a chance centred on the exceptionally deep pockets of its owner & the fact that they'd just banked a high pick. i'd argue that he was a good pick at the time...what's difficult now is that he's got so many more years on his deal. i think he can still be a solid player, but i doubt he'll be a consistent difference-maker again.

    with respect to davis...i'm not sure how his wrist injury at UNC had any factor leading up to his draft position. it may be one factor in why he slid, but not because teams felt he was injury-prone...he just didn't have a great year because, primarily, he missed so much time, (and the team really didn't have anything resembling a PG), so other guys moved ahead of him. i'd chalk his knee injury up to the stupidity of youth, but there are ZERO indications, based on his strong play late in the year, that he's going to have recurring knee 'issues.' you could argue that his injuries have been fortunate - the wrist injury caused his poor year, which caused him to slip & be available much lower than projected, allowing the raps to pick him...and the knee injury let him ease his way into the rotation & be strong at the end of the season (instead of at the beginning). without the knee injury, he'd likely have burned out/hit the wall by jan/feb, and there might have been questions about him going into this draft.

    Leave a comment:


  • golden
    replied
    Tim W. wrote: View Post
    I've admitted I'm wrong a number of times. It's just I'm not here. And I tend not to argue when I"m not sure of myself.

    As I already said, I didn't call it. I picked Oden (and I was wrong), but I recall very clearly that it wasn't nearly as cut and dried as you are making it out. Quite a number of people questioned Oden's longterm health as well as felt that you couldn't pass up on Durant, who was coming off one of the greatest freshman seasons we've ever seen.

    Speaking of being wrong, I don't recall you rushing to admit that very much, either.
    I won't add much to what Apollo said about the Oden #1 consensus/majority etc..., because he's bang on and it's self evident. I'm surprised you're even arguing that point so tenaciously.

    With respect to future injuries of draftees, that's a tough call that can go both ways. For example, many people slammed Babcock for passing on Granger (like so many other GMs) because of injury issues and picking Joey Graham. Didn't Babcock do exactly what you're suggesting. Also, I know that you love Ed Davis (as do I), but you could use the same logic to say that he was a way too high risk pick because of his injury history. And lest we all forget that he did in fact get injured again last summer playing pickup with the Young Nuns and GTA scrubs. What about Brandon Roy, for example? Was he a good pick for 4 years, and now he just became a bad pick?

    The point being that you can only make these type of arguments in hindsight. Projecting if players will be good or bad NBA pros is tough enough. Projecting career-threatening injuries is a whole other level of clairovoyance. I will fault a GM for poor talent evaluation, but not for injuries. With respect to injuries, it's luck more than anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    yertu damkule wrote: View Post
    fellas, fellas...chill with the pissing contest. i get the impression that tim is implying that while most pundits thought portland WOULD pick oden over durant, there were more who felt that they SHOULD pick durant over oden. i actually thought the blazers would pick durant, simply because of the risk for that franchise in particular in picking a big who had a questionable health history over a guy who had the potential to be an all-timer...and how devastating it would be for the fanbase to go through something like that again.

    and, uh, remembering that it's ok to be wrong sometimes is applicable to everyone.
    Yes. Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    Tim,

    It's ok to be wrong sometimes you know. I have never seen you admit you're wrong on anything. You're always right to the bitter end. Well, if you can't see you're wrong here then I'm not going to waste any more time with you on this. It's blantantly obvious that Durant wasn't being consider a real option for the #1 overall pick heading into the 2007 draft. There was just a small minority. He wasn't being seriously tossed around by most. There was no large group saying he was the guy. That he was the best.

    If you called it back then, hats off to you because if you did you were in a select few.
    I've admitted I'm wrong a number of times. It's just I'm not here. And I tend not to argue when I"m not sure of myself.

    As I already said, I didn't call it. I picked Oden (and I was wrong), but I recall very clearly that it wasn't nearly as cut and dried as you are making it out. Quite a number of people questioned Oden's longterm health as well as felt that you couldn't pass up on Durant, who was coming off one of the greatest freshman seasons we've ever seen.

    Speaking of being wrong, I don't recall you rushing to admit that very much, either.

    Leave a comment:


  • yertu damkule
    replied
    fellas, fellas...chill with the pissing contest. i get the impression that tim is implying that while most pundits thought portland WOULD pick oden over durant, there were more who felt that they SHOULD pick durant over oden. i actually thought the blazers would pick durant, simply because of the risk for that franchise in particular in picking a big who had a questionable health history over a guy who had the potential to be an all-timer...and how devastating it would be for the fanbase to go through something like that again.

    and, uh, remembering that it's ok to be wrong sometimes is applicable to everyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    Tim,

    It's ok to be wrong sometimes you know. I have never seen you admit you're wrong on anything. You're always right to the bitter end. Well, if you can't see you're wrong here then I'm not going to waste any more time with you on this. It's blantantly obvious that Durant wasn't being consider a real option for the #1 overall pick heading into the 2007 draft. There was just a small minority. He wasn't being seriously tossed around by most. There was no large group saying he was the guy. That he was the best.

    If you called it back then, hats off to you because if you did you were in a select few.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    Yes, let's get technical:

    Source: Dictionary.com


    No doubt but Golden posted a link that showed the minority (7%) was not a large portion.
    Again, those were predictions, not polls as to who they THINK should be drafted first. As I said, it was pretty clear that Portland was going to draft Oden, which is why everyone predicted they would. Only 7% predicted they would select Oden. But that has nothing to do with what people felt they should have done.

    Oden was the favourite, but there was quite a few who felt that Durant would be the better player and the better pick. Of course, the only one I can think of at this point is Bill Simmons, but he wasn't the only one by far. I know my buddy and I debated right up until the draft who they should pick (we both decided Oden).

    Not that it matters, but here's another definition...

    1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
    2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consensus

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X