Are Kemba Walker and Jerryd Bayless redundant?

[Apollo]

I'd rather worry about who will be a better player 3 years from now

Exactly and this is what Colangelo stressed about if he's in the future plans of the Raptors. Working for the future instead of thinking about the present.

[jeff_hostetler]

The thing is I don't really care who is the better player right now. If we were a piece away from being a playoff team, then sure, I'd stick with Bayless and see how it goes. But we're about 5 pieces away, plus a coach and a GM. I'd rather worry about who will be a better player 3 years from now, and I think there's no question Walker will be a better player.

See, I think there definitely is a question. That's the whole issue here. Who knows how Walker will play in the NBA? Do you really even know how tall he is? How will his game adjust to playing against much bigger players?

Jerryd Bayless has improved in nearly every statistical category that counts each year he's been in the league, including scoring, rebounding, assists, FG%, 3PFG% and steals. By the end of this year he improved significantly. It's one thing to argue that end of year improvements don't mean anything, which is for another discussion. But place the end of year improvements he showed alongside his sustained year-by-year progression, and you're left with a player who has done nothing but get better with every game he's played.

As j_bean said: I haven't heard a good reason why his success as a starter can't continue if given the opportunity.

All signs - from improving numbers, improving confidence and improving experience - indicate that it is in fact likely that he will continue the success he achieved as a starter. Doing so would only continue the trend he's already established.

[j bean]

Exactly and this is what Colangelo stressed about if he's in the future plans of the Raptors. Working for the future instead of thinking about the present.

If Colangelo had a crystal ball and knew how good a player would be three years down the road the Raptors would be World Champions.

[Apollo]

Colangelo has one of the better track records in the draft. Davis, DeRozan, Bargnani, Stoudemire, Marion, S.Jackson and Nash immediately come to mind.

[ezz_bee]

Take the best player available. If there ends up being conflict or a better option comes along a PG then you make a trade.

[j bean]

Colangelo has one of the better track records in the draft. Davis, DeRozan, Bargnani, Stoudemire, Marion, S.Jackson and Nash immediately come to mind.

I like BC but let's not forget Mario Bennett, Jake Tsakalidis, Casey Jacobson and Zarko Cabarkapa all selected in the first round by BC.
The point is we don't know who will be better between Bayless and Walker 3 years from now.
We do know that Bayless when given the chance to start has played very well. What are the good reasons he won't be able to continue and even improve his game?
Walker has never played against the speed and size he'll encounter in the NBA. There is just no way of knowing where he will be in three years.

[Tim W.]

The question should be not whether they are similar enough players, but whether Walker really is going to be that much of a better player than Bayless. If Walker is the best player available you take him. You certainly don't make decisions on who you're going to draft with the 3rd pick by whether or not his game is too similar to one of your bench players that might not even be a rotation player on a good team.

Now if the question is whether or not drafting Walker means that Bayless should be traded, I would say yes. Not because their games are too similar, but because I'm not a big fan of having two players that young at PG.

[ebrian]

Why is everyone talking about best player available to picking Walker too high? This thread is about whether or not Walker and Bayless are too similar to make him worth being drafted by this team.

Truthfully we don't know if Kemba Walker will be better. I think he will, but others will beg to differ. It's just a difference of opinion on something we really won't know until he plays. But what we do know is, while Bayless has improved his stats with more minutes played, he still wasn't very good. And after 3 years in the NBA I think it's pretty clear that he is not an NBA starter on a good team. I mean, he was barely a starter on a team that lost 60 games. And since we're striving to become a good team, it's clear that Bayless is not the answer in 3 years' time. So I think we can all agree on that. Therefore, in a draft as weak as this, I see no issue in drafting a similar player who has the potential of being great.

This is more of an aside, but Kemba Walker also makes sense from.. for a lack of a better word, an "employment" standpoint. Colangelo finds himself in a precarious situation where he needs to be looking 3-4 years ahead, while he is trying to preserve his job wherein his bosses are looking for results, YESTERDAY. You really can't go wrong drafting Kemba in this case because everyone's 2nd cousin knows who Kemba Walker is because of what he did in the NCAA tournament.

[Apollo]

I like BC but let's not forget Mario Bennett, Jake Tsakalidis, Casey Jacobson and Zarko Cabarkapa all selected in the first round by BC.

Oh, I'm not forgetting them. Everyone misses but Colangelo has proven to miss a lot less than most.

The point is we don't know who will be better between Bayless and Walker 3 years from now. .

It doesn't matter, if Walker is the best player on the board when the Raptors are on the clock. Where Walker is taken in the draft isn't going to mean a damn thing three years down the road if he turns out to be a good pro. If their selection busts then I want to know it happened for reasons other than they second guessed their draft board or they accommodated their current roster instead of following their draft board.

We do know that Bayless when given the chance to start has played very well..

So you're suggesting they should let eight games influence the draft to the point where they're bypassing their draft board and not taking the best player available?

What are the good reasons he won't be able to continue and even improve his game?

It was eight games. He could have been on a hot streak. The guy was streaky all year as evident by the frequent generation of "trade Bayless" and "Bayless should be starting" threads. I have no doubt he's going to improve but I am not sold on eight games. An eight game window can make anybody look good if you catch them at the right time.

Walker has never played against the speed and size he'll encounter in the NBA. There is just no way of knowing where he will be in three years.

Walker is faster than 99% of the league. Guys will struggle to keep in front of him if anything. Not to mention you can take Walkers' name out of that phrase and insert anybody entering the draft and it's still just as applicable.

[jeff_hostetler]

Is Walker really that much better than Bayless? Please back up whatever your argument may be.

What are people expecting Walker to do that Bayless can't - so much so that you'd be willing to essentially waste this draft to - in the best case scenario - marginally upgrade a position already filled by a player with good potential?

[Apollo]

It's not about what player is better, Walker or Bayless. It's about who will turn out to be the best out of the choices the Raptors have when they select. If you want my opinion on Walker's game it's all over the draft thread and in other places in here. I'm not rehashing and it's not needed for the point I am making.

[jeff_hostetler]

Since we're striving to become a good team, it's clear that Bayless is not the answer in 3 years' time.

No one has given a good argument yet why Bayless isn't capable of putting up the numbers he did as a starter, which are:

18ppg on 47% shooting, 6.7 asts, 3.6 rebs and a steal.

Not only that, but he hasn't given any indication at all that he isn't still improving.

How is it "clear" that Bayless isn't a good - if not excellent - solution at the point?

[Apollo]

No one has given a good argument yet why Bayless isn't capable of putting up the numbers he did as a starter, which are:

18ppg on 47% shooting, 6.7 asts, 3.6 rebs and a steal.

Not only that, but he hasn't given any indication at all that he isn't still improving.

How is it "clear" that Bayless isn't a good - if not excellent - solution at the point?

What's your reason for why you're confident he can keep it up? It's an eight game window. Did you get the honor of seeing Mike James close out the 05/06 season in Toronto? How did those numbers work out for the team and how did Mike James look the following season?

I think it's wrong to write off the possibility that he becomes excellent but I also think it's equally wrong to pencil him in as excellent after eight games... I'm happy sitting on the fence until I see more.

[jeff_hostetler]

So you're suggesting they should let eight games influence the draft to the point where they're bypassing their draft board and not taking the best player available?

It was eight games. He could have been on a hot streak. The guy was streaky all year as evident by the frequent generation of "trade Bayless" and "Bayless should be starting" threads. I have no doubt he's going to improve but I am not sold on eight games. An eight game window can make anybody look good if you catch them at the right time.

It wasn't eight games. Bayless started 14 games. When he wasn't starting, it's already been said by the coaching staff that he was trying to adapt his game to play as more of a pass-first point guard. They said when he started, he was much more confident to just relax and play the game the way it came naturally for him.

I understand the BPA argument. But that doesn't mean you're married to the pick no matter what. My argument is that Bayless doesn't change the fact that you draft BPA, but if turns out to be Walker isn't there more to be gained for the team by looking to trade Walker, trade the pick itself, or trade down?

[jeff_hostetler]

What's your reason for why you're confident he can keep it up?

See my post above, where I wrote:

Jerryd Bayless has improved in nearly every statistical category that counts each year he's been in the league, including scoring, rebounding, assists, FG%, 3PFG% and steals. By the end of this year he improved significantly. It's one thing to argue that end of year improvements don't mean anything, which is for another discussion. But place the end of year improvements he showed alongside his sustained year-by-year progression, and you're left with a player who has done nothing but get better with every game he's played.

All signs - from improving numbers, improving confidence and improving experience - indicate that it is in fact likely that he will continue the success he achieved as a starter. Doing so would only continue the trend he's already established.

[Tim W.]

It wasn't eight games. Bayless started 14 games. When he wasn't starting, it's already been said by the coaching staff that he was trying to adapt his game to play as more of a pass-first point guard. They said when he started, he was much more confident to just relax and play the game the way it came naturally for him.

I understand the BPA argument. But that doesn't mean you're married to the pick no matter what. My argument is that Bayless doesn't change the fact that you draft BPA, but if turns out to be Walker isn't there more to be gained for the team by looking to trade Walker, trade the pick itself, or trade down?

Putting up great numbers in a handful of games is not the same thing as being a good player. Darren Collison put up fantastic numbers on a bad New Orleans team but they couldn't win with him. He gets traded to Indiana and he's suddenly not nearly as good. While I think Bayless has shown enough to warrant keeping him, I'm certainly not willing to pass up a player simply because they play the same position. At this point, I see Bayless as a decent backup who MIGHT one day end up being a decent starter. At this point, however, he'd be hard pressed to get minutes on a good team, so I make absolutely no draft decisions based on him being on my team.

[Apollo]

if turns out to be Walker isn't there more to be gained for the team by looking to trade Walker, trade the pick itself, or trade down?

Last time the Raptors had a high pick in a weak draft it was 2006. Colangelo tried trading down there but no one was offering anything worthy of the pick. If he had traded down he would have been criticized for getting fleeced so instead he elected to make sure he got the guy he wanted and took the heat that comes with drafting a project high. That one worked out relatively well when you step back and look at the mine field that was the 2006 draft.

Calderon is nearly done in Toronto. They're going to need two good PG's and so even if they draft Walker and keep him that's better than a scenario of not taking him if he's the best option or trading him/the pick away while giving another team a discount in the process.

Putting up great numbers in a handful of games is not the same thing as being a good player. Darren Collison put up fantastic numbers on a bad New Orleans team but they couldn't win with him. He gets traded to Indiana and he's suddenly not nearly as good. While I think Bayless has shown enough to warrant keeping him, I'm certainly not willing to pass up a player simply because they play the same position. At this point, I see Bayless as a decent backup who MIGHT one day end up being a decent starter. At this point, however, he'd be hard pressed to get minutes on a good team, so I make absolutely no draft decisions based on him being on my team.

Collison is an excellent example. I agree with all that post. Good points all around.

[Tim W.]

Last time the Raptors had a high pick in a weak draft it was 2006. Colangelo tried trading down there but no one was offering anything worthy of the pick. If he had traded down he would have been criticized for getting fleeced so instead he elected to make sure he got the guy he wanted and took the heat that comes with drafting a project high. That one worked out relatively well when you step back and look at the mine field that was the 2006 draft.

This is exactly the problem with all the people who say they want to trade the pick. For what? And if the pick really isn't good enough to worth keeping, then why would anyone else give you something good for it? The Clippers basically gave theirs away. New Jersey didn't have a problem trading theirs away. I've never seen a draft where two lottery teams traded away unprotected picks right before the deadline.

Calderon is nearly done in Toronto. They're going to need two good PG's and so even if they draft Walker and keep him that's better than a scenario of not taking him if he's the best option or trading him/the pick away while giving another team a discount in the process.

Are you saying that you believe he's going to be traded? I think Calderon is probably someone they should hold onto, unless they get a good deal for him (which is doubtful, with his contract). If they draft a PG, he'd be a great veteran PG to have and
if they don't, well they pretty much need him.

Collison is an excellent example. I agree with all that post. Good points all around.

Thank you. You should really say that more often.

[Apollo]

Are you saying that you believe he's going to be traded? I think Calderon is probably someone they should hold onto, unless they get a good deal for him (which is doubtful, with his contract). If they draft a PG, he'd be a great veteran PG to have and
if they don't, well they pretty much need him.

If they draft Irving or Walker or Knight for that matter I think Calderon is out of here. If they draft a PG in the top three they're looking at a PG salary of around $17M(Calderon + Bayless + the rookie). That's too much money allocated to one position with no star player at that position next season. It's a waste in my opinion. Not to mention either Bayless or the rookie loses PT to a vet on a team going no where or they're paying a guy $10M to sit on the bench and play mentor while he feels he's still in his prime and should be playing.

Thank you. You should really say that more often.

Your welcome. Sure. Just as soon as you write more posts that I agree with.

[Tim W.]

If they draft Irving or Walker or Knight for that matter I think Calderon is out of here. If they draft a PG in the top three they're looking at a PG salary of around $17M(Calderon + Bayless + the rookie). That's too much money allocated to one position with no star player at that position next season. It's a waste in my opinion. Not to mention either Bayless or the rookie loses PT to a vet on a team going no where or they're paying a guy $10M to sit on the bench and play mentor while he feels he's still in his prime and should be playing.

You have a very good point, there. I'm just not a fan of having two really young and inexperienced PGs.

Your welcome. Sure. Just as soon as you write more posts that I agree with.

What?! ALL my posts are like that!