Monday morning guesswork
Posted June 26th, 2006 by bwindhorst
Wednesday’s NBA Draft is going to be exciting because it is unpredictable. Usually even if the top pick isn’t known, you have a pretty good idea of who’s going 1-2 or even 1-2-3. This year you don’t.
I pay little attention to mock drafts and I won’t be doing one. Sure they can be fun, but are just fodder. A few years ago my boss asked me to do one and I got exactly three right out of 30 and two of those were Dwight Howard going with the No. 1 pick and Emeka Okafor going 2. I remember I had the Cavs taking Josh Childress with the No. 10 pick as my best guess, which turned out not even being close to being right as he went sixth. A few months later then general manager Jim Paxson told me he woke up the morning of the draft thinking it would be Childress, too and he obviously had 20 times as much info to guess with. This year, we’re talking about No. 25, even guessing two guys would be a wild stab for anyone.
What I have learned over the last four drafts I’ve covered is that all Danny Ferry and his two assistants, Chris Grant and Lance Blanks, can do is do as much pre-draft work as possible and rank their players. Ferry then must call every GM and gauge what it would take to move up or what they’re interested in to move down so when things happen there’s a basis to make quick trade talks.
Also, I think it is important to point out that just because you may be reading a lot of analysis of these players and what they can bring to various teams, most draft picks don’t have much impact on their team in the first year especially outside the top 5 or so. Sure there’s a history of stolen gems to be found later. Yet the big majority of the later picks, especially second rounders, never see the light of day despite all this hype, rumors and drama now flying through the league.
OK, with all that on the table, here is my current and somewhat-educated thinking as what might take place with the Cavs:
–I think the most prudent thing to do is take a guy that can play point guard at No. 25. You can always use big people but getting one here would be a project and they already have one of those in Martynas Andriuskevicius. They need a guy to develop at the position if nothing else. They aren’t going to get a starter (yet) here, so I’d look for a changeup to Eric Snow (a quick guy that can shoot a little) and one with lots of room to grow.
–I wrote a story the other day about rumors surrounding Daniel Gibson. I have no idea whether they are true, the facts just made sense. What I do know is that Ferry comes from the Spurs school of keeping a very low profile and going against the grain to find undervalued pieces. Gibson has been in hiding, so does this make him undervalued and hidden? Dunno, but I know he was a good player on a great college team.
–The Cavs were still working out lots of PG prospects at the end of last week, which could be an indication that they haven’t finalized their board or a smokescreen. Who’s to say? Here are some guys you can read up on who have a chance to be a Cav: Rajon Rondo, Shannon Brown, Gibson, Mardy Collins, Quincy Douby, Will Blalock, Sergio Rodriguez, Jordan Farmar, Kyle Lowry, Maurice Ager, Guillermo Diaz, and Darius Washington. Will it be one of those guys? I’d put a modest bet on it with reasonable odds.
–You hear all sorts of rumors of promises given to players. Teams deny they exist. Well, they do exist and there’s a lot of such talk going on. There’s probably several layers of promises that can be given, all depending on the agents and the mixed agendas. Ferry is a very respectable and honorable guy and he’s worked to further that rep in his first year on the job. He’s also a deep thinker. If he made a promise to someone to take them, I am sure he would honor it. But I also think it is questionable why anyone would make a promise with the 25th pick.
–This I know, the Cavs generally do not think this is a deep draft. Whether that opinion is true or not will be determined later. But I don’t think they are going to harm their roster to get a player.
I hope to have more updates in the next few days.
June 26th, 2006 at 8:10 am
You may have missed this post, which I previously posted verbatim as comment #8 on your last blog entry less than an hour before you posted today’s current blog entry about the draft. Before heading off to a discussion about the 25th pick of anything, I believe your readers are entitled to a valid response - -
Hey, I have a question: Our ubiquitous blog host has directly and emphatically declared that all other sportswriters and sports talking heads are total idiots and complete morons for saying that James’ Nike contract includes a provision for a pay increase if he plays in a major market. You have written, in no uncertain terms, that this is completely false. But yet, this is PRECISELY what Brandon Wright has now expressly contradicted and asserts is indeed absolutely true.
So which one is it? Let’s put it this way…combined with all of your recent rumor-mongering and your admitted fabrication of non-existent trade possibilities, if Wright’s purported confirmation of that Nike contract is indeed 100% true, then your repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated statement is the sports equivalent of Bush’s unwavering bombastic declaration of imaginary non-existent stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Which one is it, Brian? You can’t both be correct. It’s either one, or it’s the other. If Wright is indeed right, then much like Elvis, your credibility has left the building.
We await your response with bated breath.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Alan: It would help your comment above if you could reproduce, verbatim and with links to the original source so we could check context, both Windhorst and Wright’s statements. Of course, the premise for the question may be irrelevant if LeBron resigns (as he suggests he will) and it has nothing to do with Brian’s blog post, but I understand that you are trying to attack Windhorst’s credibility. Fair enough. I’ve felt the same about Finnan on occasion, who has slipped up without being held accountable more than once, but you need to do the real work if you want anyone to care about your criticism. At least based on prior evidence, I would give Windhorst more of the benefit of the doubt (and I’m pretty sure he conceded that there are relocation incentives in the Sprite contract) than Wright (it’s “Branson” not “Brandon,” just in case you want to get the facts right), but I haven’t seen Windhorst’s latest takes and he his ESPN guest columns may have inflated his ego and caused him to overclaim.
On the subject of the blog post, one question for Brian is to what extent the Cavs would be willing to draft a player they haven’t worked out. At 25, a player might slide to us who we either didn’t invite to work out because we thought they were out of reach or the player refused to work out because he thought he had a guarantee higher up. I know we had that situation with Sura many years ago and that didn’t work out well. Do the Cavs (or Spurs) have a philosophy on the need to work a player out prior to drafting them?
June 26th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
i’ll let brian speak for himself but i have it on good authority that what we have here is conflicting sources. as i see it, windy has been covering LBJ since he was 15 years old. branson wright, on the other had, was recently called out by LBJ on national tv during a press conference for picking the wiz to beat the cavs in the first round of the playoffs.
so, as you see, it’s entirely possible that somebody in the james camp is feeding wright some BS just to make him look bad.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Branson, Brandon, Brand X. Who cares. I’ll just call him “Pete.” It’s much easier to remember.
The point is the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s beat writer expressly and unequivocally contradicted the Akron Beacon Journal’s beat writer.
With respect to context, there is no “context.” It’s exactly what I said. Windhorst says that other sportswriters and media people throughout the country are brainless retards for claiming something that is entirely false. He’s written it so many times, that for people to believe otherwise means the sun sets in the east.
Wright, on the other hand, expressly wrote that the Plain Dealer (he) indeed confirmed it this past week.
So who’s right and who’s wrong?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:59 am
It would be great if the Cavs could select a good point guard but it seems crazy to draft for need at 25, especially if the team isn’t sold on a particular player.
There will be a couple good players taken after 24 and the Cavs can use help at any position, so why not try to find a “hidden gem” at any position or gamble on the player with the biggest upside?
I guess drafting for need would fit Ferry’s M.O. so far–he has tried to fill slots with whatever players are readily available and thus please fans with what seems like the conventional wisdom.
That isn’t how San Antonio drafts players, however, and I was hoping for some more creative thinking this offseason.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:44 am
I’m going to assume that since Windhorst continually states that he has read the contract, that he is correct. Honestly though, that is only a small part of my hunch. The much larger part is the fact that Branson Wright is complete garbage. He is absolutely attrocious in his Cavs and NBA coverage. The man does not know the game. The mere fact that myself and countless other Clevelanders have to come to ohio.com for decent Cavs coverage is proof of this. Tony Grossi is pathetic as well.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
strange I dont see anywhere on this blog anything about the LBJ contract.
tucker if you have something to bring up outside of the blog, EMAIL him.
honestly, do you have any friends?
June 27th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
the kidd,
as you may have ascertained, mr. tucker is an exhibtionist. he figures that if one is to do something, one might as well do it in front as many people possible….
having said all that, i actually think mr. tucker is well within bounds to bring up the wright vs. windhorst story as it is quite contemporary and relevant. i think his manner is typically surly and confrontational but he has a point, nonetheless.
i think windy is right and wright wrong (hehe), btw…
my 2 cents…
June 27th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Huh?
Can you name a bigger Cavaliers story than James’ intentions, whether it’s now or one or two or five years from now? If Wright’s confirmation is true, then that Nike contract has to be in the Top 3 of James’ considerations. For all anybody knows, maybe it’s #1. To dismiss Wright’s assertion as being nothing more than the ramblings of a garbage writer is idiotic.
Curiously, our blog host has not yet replied.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:11 am
I’m not trying to beat up on you Alan, but I think the comment of yours I’ve pasted below is a good illustration of why others want the context and the direct quote (as opposed to taking your word on it).
“With respect to context, there is no “context.” It’s exactly what I said. Windhorst says that other sportswriters and media people throughout the country are brainless retards for claiming something that is entirely false.”
I’ll go back and look, but I’m pretty sure Brian never used the words “brainless retards” to describe his brethren, for example. That sounds like the kind of vitriole for which you are renowned.
Its fair for the other posters here to wonder if this isn’t the same kind of paraphrase you’re using when attributing a perspective to Wright or Windhorst (or beat writers around the country).
I’m content to let this play out (as opposed to speculating). We’ll have firm answers about LeBron’s intentions in the next month or so.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:18 am
BTW, here’s what brian wrote about this most recently in this blog:
“–Two things discussed widely in the last week re: LeBron’s future. A Detroit columnist refreshed the New Jersey Nets/Jay-Z rumors by saying LeBron’s Nike contract had a clause that would make it “double” if he played in Chicago, NYC or LA. Second, some suggested LeBron was trying to send a message by putting his Yankees cap down on the table during his Game 7 postgame press conference.
I’ve only written this about a dozen times, but here does again: LeBron’s Nike contract does not have location escalator clauses. He signed the deal for the maximum penny the night before the lottery, a lottery the Bulls, Knicks and Clippers were in. That was three years and three days ago and the deal has four more years to run. Some of his other deals do have such clauses, but even if those endorsement deals tripled they would not cover the difference in him signing with the Nets rather than the Cavs. Sure, you can argue that if he did go there he could get new deals. But that isn’t what people are writing. It should be pointed out LeBron hasn’t had a new sponsorship deal in more than two years and the word on the street is that Nike is still a long way for breaking even on his products. Don’t assume anything as far as his pitchman status goes.
Now, the reason LeBron took the hat off is because due to the new NBA dress code he is not allowed to wear a hat during an interview. He wears a Yankees hat all the time and has for years and all his buddies/staff members do as well. If you want to analyze the angle of how the hat was placed and all that junk, feel free.
All I can do is go by what he tells me.”
Please note, he expressly says the NIKE CONTRACT doesn’t have location escalator clauses, but SOME OF THE OTHERS do.
Nowhere in there do I see the words (or the approximation of the words) brainless retards.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Please. The phrase “brainless retards” was OBVIOUSLY, to any reader with any semblance of sense, my very own words for effect, and not the sportswriter/blog host/author’s.
Yet again, for the zillionth time, Wright wrote that he CONFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF AN ESCALATOR CLAUSE IN THE NIKE CONTRACT IF JAMES PLAYS IN THE LA. MARKET, THE CHICAGO MARKET OR THE NEW YORK MARKET. This is 180 degrees from what Brian has *repeatedly* asserted is entirely false.
I’m not saying either sportswriter is correct. I don’t know who is correct. I haven’t read the contract, nor am I privy to it. However, Wright’s purported confirmation clearly deserves a Brian Windhorst response.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:24 am
Branson Wright also says in today’s PD that the Cavs three most likely options at #25 are Daniel Gibson (everyone agrees on this), Dee Brown (not likely b/c he’s smallish), and PATRICK O’BRYANT! Are you serious?! Would Danny Ferry honestly pick a 7′0″, very weak center from BRADLEY who had two good games in the talent-deprived NCAA torunament, and who is an ENORMOUS project who might never contribute to any NBA team in his career, at #25 in the first round? Give me a break.
If anyone follows what Branson Wright writes from week-to-week, you’ll clearly see the man is terrible. Why the PD continues paying him is beyond me. There are multiple posters on the Cavs forum on cleveland.com who have more insight, knowledge and writing ability than the guy who actually gets paid to do it for the paper.
I’ll trust Windhorst over Branson Wright any day. As someone else mentioned, there’s a reason LeBron called him out in a national press conference. The guy’s an idiot. Never trust a word he says or writes.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:43 am
Evidently some people think I’m making stuff up. And I have no clue why the people who believe me believe that Wright is simply making stuff up. Does anybody really think Wright is going to say something like that without being absolutely certain his source is totally credible?
For the sake of clarity and specificity, this is exactly what Wright put into print this week. Notice the word “Nike” expressly included in the sentence:
“The Plain Dealer confirmed this week that James’ deal with Nike and several of his other endorsements include increases if he plays in a major market such as Los Angeles, New York or Chicago.”
The time isn’t right with the present Knicks and Nets’ situations, so Brian is probably correct, James is likely to re-up this summer for the max. But common sense dictates that when he re-ups with Nike in a few years, that a similar escalator clause will also be in that new Nike contract. Parties don’t insist upon very specific non-boilerplate contract language just for the sake of laughs and yucks. It’s there for a reason.
With respect to the draft, I predict Ferry will select a foreign guy.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:32 am
The latest from Andy Katz on ESPN. Any updates Brian on who the Cavs might potentially be getting?:
“Boston and Philadelphia have been talking about an Iverson deal, as long as there is a third team involved. Sources said the third team was Utah with the player being Carlos Boozer, but that deal has been tabled. The Boston players involved were Al Jefferson, Gerald Green and Wally Szczerbiak.
Boston and Philadelphia are looking for a third team to see if the deal can be done and the latest team to enter the early talks is Cleveland. But there are contractual hang-ups about involving Drew Gooden in the deal at this stage. That could change in July, according to sources.”
June 28th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Well based on the fact that he is claiming the Cavs are considering drafting Patrick O’Bryant and Dee Brown, YES, I do believe Branson Wright would put something in print without being certain of his sources.
I repeat: PATRICK O’BRYANT (aka 7th grade version of Michael Oluwakandi, who is a 2nd grade version of the invisible man).
I also believe that the reason Wright said, “The Plain Dealer confirmed this week…”, as opposed to “I confirmed this week” is because claiming the PD confirmed it and not he personally gives it more credibility on its face, as no one believes a word Branson Wright writes, but people are more inclined to believe something if an entire ediorial board is supposedly supportive of the claim.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:55 am
I thought the Cavs did fairly well in the draft, nabbing an athlete then the point guard they reportedly had their eyes on.
I hope Coach Brown can play the young guards a lot and Ferry can trade Gooden for a shot-blocking bruiser with good hands and a soft touch around the hoop. Wilcox would be great.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Just a thought, but when LeBron re-signs next week, will Alan Tucker just evaporate into thin air and just cease to exist? Is this his only purpose in life? Just wondering, with the way he’s been spamming this blog from the beginning. He has an unhealthy obsession with Brian Windhorst and the prospect of LeBron leaving the Cavs.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:20 am
If it means anything, http://www.realcavsfans.com has a quote from Bob Finnan that basically confirms that there is a bonus in Jame’s contract if he goes to a larger market.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Amar, *I* have an obsession with the prospect of James leaving the Cavs???? Jesus Christ, the whole freakin city, not to mention the entire sports media, has that obsession. What in the world are you talking about?
It’s extraordinarily curious that Brian remains silent regarding Wright’s purported confirmation of the Nike escalator clause, a confirmation which directly conflicts with his repeated blanket statements that no such clause exists.