Chad Ford: Upshaw's off-the-court issues more serious than initially thought

[Beat LA]

Relax, everybody, I've found the real reason why Upshaw was dismissed from Washington - he was on the same team as one Shawn Kemp Jr. (sarcasm), lol . Enough said .

In all seriousness, though, I really hope that Ainge consults Walton about him, because if Bill says that he's completely turned his life around, then I'm down, lol .

[Lucky17]

Would rather just sign Larry Sanders to a contract, and use the #16 to draft someone else.

[rondohondo]

Would rather just sign Larry Sanders to a contract, and use the #16 to draft someone else.

agree

[Beat LA]

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-pm-can-upshaw-put-his-past-behind-him/

[TheFlex]

I hope that Danny is the one spreading this rumor.

TP.

[Tr1boy]

Upshaw wants to put the bad things behind him.  But Chad Ford won't let him

Welcome to the cruel sports media world Robert Upshaw.  Blakely will probably spell your last

name Upshow next

[tazzmaniac]

Here's a good article on Upshaw's issues.  Another article I read mentioned that he'd gone into rehab after his Fresno State dismissal.  Alcohol and drug addiction is serious and recovering from it is difficult and often temporary.  I would not touch Upshaw at #16.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/5/21/8627453/nba-draft-2015-robert-upshaw-washington-sleeper

So get a player with very little upside instead, right?

I'd prefer to trade up with Charlotte or Miami.  However who says there won't be other players available at #16 that have upside?  I'd probably choose from Oubre, Booker, Lyles, Looney, Turner.  One or two of them should be available at #16. 

As for Upshaw, his upside is probably DeAndre Jordan.  However it is far from certain that he'd reach that level even without his addiction problems.  To be dismissed by two college coaches, should tell you how serious Upshaw's issues are.

Well, of course, if those names (sans Booker and Lyles, we disagree on that) are available, we take them. I'm working on the assumption that those names would be taken, which is highly likely, that he's going to be one if not the only one with star potential. So take him and just work with his red flags to keep him check.

I don't think I've seen a recent mock draft where Looney wasn't available at #16.  Lyles mostly played out of position at SF for Kentucky.  In the tournament, Lyles, in contrast to WCS, showed a pretty good post offense when Towns was on the bench.  Booker is the youngest player in the draft.  He's a great shooter, has good size for his position and is a better athlete than I initially thought.  With the (over)emphasis on 3pt shooting, I expect him to have a long NBA career.

Looney and Lyles are PF's. We have plenty of PF's and that's not including the free agents. We have our own Devin Booker in James Young. We draft him, we might as well give up on Young.

Upshaw has upside, and fills a desperate need. You can't say that with Looney, Lyles or Booker.

Since I'm not high on Sully or KO, I think we have plenty of room to improve our PF situation.  Young could not get any minutes on a mediocre team.  There is no reason to give up on him yet but I wouldn't pencil him in as a future starter let alone star. 

I'm actually not high on any of our starters.  In two years, I hope Smart is the only starter remaining from our current team.  We need across the board talent infusion.

And you have a kid who, according to Chad Ford, outside of the red flags, is a lottery talent. So I don't see why we can't gamble on Upshaw.

Upshaw does have upside but he's quite raw both offensively and defensively.  He's 21 but only played 39 games in his college career.  At this point, there is no indication that any other team is considering taking Upshaw any sooner than late 1st so I don't see why we should.  I'd also point out he just did some interviews and got measured at the combine.  He didn't play 5-on-5 nor do the skills test.  If he starts wowing teams with his workouts there may be reason to reconsider taking him at #16. 

[LooseCannon]

Here's a good article on Upshaw's issues.  Another article I read mentioned that he'd gone into rehab after his Fresno State dismissal.  Alcohol and drug addiction is serious and recovering from it is difficult and often temporary.  I would not touch Upshaw at #16.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/5/21/8627453/nba-draft-2015-robert-upshaw-washington-sleeper

So get a player with very little upside instead, right?

I'd prefer to trade up with Charlotte or Miami.  However who says there won't be other players available at #16 that have upside?  I'd probably choose from Oubre, Booker, Lyles, Looney, Turner.  One or two of them should be available at #16. 

As for Upshaw, his upside is probably DeAndre Jordan.  However it is far from certain that he'd reach that level even without his addiction problems.  To be dismissed by two college coaches, should tell you how serious Upshaw's issues are.

Well, of course, if those names (sans Booker and Lyles, we disagree on that) are available, we take them. I'm working on the assumption that those names would be taken, which is highly likely, that he's going to be one if not the only one with star potential. So take him and just work with his red flags to keep him check.

Like the Rockets did with Royce White?  It doesn't always work.  We need to get more of a guarantee at #16.  We can't risk ending up with nothing.

The difference is we have a ton more assets than Houston, so we can afford to swing for the fences here.

I'm not denying the risk, all I'm saying is he could probably be the best prospect by the time we need to pick at #16. At the end of the day, you still need talent to win basketball games. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't. But if it does, we may end up having a Center for the foreseeable future. With a lot of picks in the next 5 years coming in, we could afford to gamble this one.

If this is a top 5 pick, I get it. But at #16, I'd gamble on a star potential player with problems than a guaranteed future role player.

He could be the player with the highest upside at #16.  That doesn't mean that it is a good gamble.

I'm not a fan of treating picks like the draft is a crapshoot so you might well go with the player who will pay off the most if you get lucky.

If you want to gamble on Upshaw, I think I'd rather gamble that his problems cause him to slip far enough that you can get him with a lower pick, but it mostly depends on assessing the sort of information that the team should know about but which we don't.

[LooseCannon]

Here's a good article on Upshaw's issues.  Another article I read mentioned that he'd gone into rehab after his Fresno State dismissal.  Alcohol and drug addiction is serious and recovering from it is difficult and often temporary.  I would not touch Upshaw at #16.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/5/21/8627453/nba-draft-2015-robert-upshaw-washington-sleeper

So get a player with very little upside instead, right?

I'd prefer to trade up with Charlotte or Miami.  However who says there won't be other players available at #16 that have upside?  I'd probably choose from Oubre, Booker, Lyles, Looney, Turner.  One or two of them should be available at #16. 

As for Upshaw, his upside is probably DeAndre Jordan.  However it is far from certain that he'd reach that level even without his addiction problems.  To be dismissed by two college coaches, should tell you how serious Upshaw's issues are.

Well, of course, if those names (sans Booker and Lyles, we disagree on that) are available, we take them. I'm working on the assumption that those names would be taken, which is highly likely, that he's going to be one if not the only one with star potential. So take him and just work with his red flags to keep him check.

I don't think I've seen a recent mock draft where Looney wasn't available at #16.  Lyles mostly played out of position at SF for Kentucky.  In the tournament, Lyles, in contrast to WCS, showed a pretty good post offense when Towns was on the bench.  Booker is the youngest player in the draft.  He's a great shooter, has good size for his position and is a better athlete than I initially thought.  With the (over)emphasis on 3pt shooting, I expect him to have a long NBA career.

Looney and Lyles are PF's. We have plenty of PF's and that's not including the free agents. We have our own Devin Booker in James Young. We draft him, we might as well give up on Young.

Upshaw has upside, and fills a desperate need. You can't say that with Looney, Lyles or Booker.

Looney is seen as a guy who might be a small forward in the NBA, with some potential as a point forward.  How desperate are the Celtics to find an upgrade for Evan Turner who can duplicate some of Turner's playmaking ability? 

[tarheelsxxiii]

No at 16, without question at 28. As others have mentioned, we have way too many future draft picks to opt not to gamble at that position. I'd personally provide him with weed, if I could, to keep him happy (and maybe a little relaxed?) in Boston. What I am concerned about are the knocks on his defensive technique and footwork, but I'd take a flyer regardless. Those things can be taught, but his athleticism and size cannot.

If it's something more serious, like yayo? Super. Let's pass drug tests, then put him on the 2nd line with Crowder and enjoy the mayhem they create.

[Beat LA]

Here's a good article on Upshaw's issues.  Another article I read mentioned that he'd gone into rehab after his Fresno State dismissal.  Alcohol and drug addiction is serious and recovering from it is difficult and often temporary.  I would not touch Upshaw at #16.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/5/21/8627453/nba-draft-2015-robert-upshaw-washington-sleeper

So get a player with very little upside instead, right?

I'd prefer to trade up with Charlotte or Miami.  However who says there won't be other players available at #16 that have upside?  I'd probably choose from Oubre, Booker, Lyles, Looney, Turner.  One or two of them should be available at #16. 

As for Upshaw, his upside is probably DeAndre Jordan.  However it is far from certain that he'd reach that level even without his addiction problems.  To be dismissed by two college coaches, should tell you how serious Upshaw's issues are.

Well, of course, if those names (sans Booker and Lyles, we disagree on that) are available, we take them. I'm working on the assumption that those names would be taken, which is highly likely, that he's going to be one if not the only one with star potential. So take him and just work with his red flags to keep him check.

Like the Rockets did with Royce White?  It doesn't always work.  We need to get more of a guarantee at #16.  We can't risk ending up with nothing.

The difference is we have a ton more assets than Houston, so we can afford to swing for the fences here.

I'm not denying the risk, all I'm saying is he could probably be the best prospect by the time we need to pick at #16. At the end of the day, you still need talent to win basketball games. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't. But if it does, we may end up having a Center for the foreseeable future. With a lot of picks in the next 5 years coming in, we could afford to gamble this one.

If this is a top 5 pick, I get it. But at #16, I'd gamble on a star potential player with problems than a guaranteed future role player.

He could be the player with the highest upside at #16.  That doesn't mean that it is a good gamble.

I'm not a fan of treating picks like the draft is a crapshoot so you might well go with the player who will pay off the most if you get lucky.

If you want to gamble on Upshaw, I think I'd rather gamble that his problems cause him to slip far enough that you can get him with a lower pick, but it mostly depends on assessing the sort of information that the team should know about but which we don't.

Obviously, it depends on who's there for us at 16 when it's our turn to pick, but are you really willing to let teams like the Spurs, Bulls, and Cavs have a shot at drafting him before our next selection?  The worst case scenario, imo, is for the Timberwolves to take Okafor, leaving Towns to the Lakers *facepalm*, followed by our selection of some crap player at 16, gambling that Upshaw will still be there at 28, only to have the Lakers take him right out from under us at 27, after which the Upshaw-Towns duo dominates for the better part of the next 15 years while we ponder what might have been.  Even if they wind up with Okafor, putting Upshaw next to him is a very frightening proposition.  I know that I'm going to the extreme, here, but I can also see such  nightmare(s) developing, unfortunately.  Sigh.

[Beat LA]

Upshaw wants to put the bad things behind him.  But Chad Ford won't let him

Welcome to the cruel sports media world Robert Upshaw.  Blakely will probably spell your last

name Upshow next

So true - TP, lol .  Ugh.

[Beat LA]

I hope that Danny is the one spreading this rumor.

TP.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that, if this is indeed a rumor, Chad Ford has planted this as a means for the Lakers to wind up with Upshaw.  He (Ford) might even be on their payroll.  Prior to the lottery, his A+ mock for the Lakers had them taking Okafor at 4 and Harvey at 27, which isn't all that different from this mock I listed yesterday in the thread about a draft nightmare - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2470350-2015-nba-draft-prospects-guaranteed-to-interest-the-los-angeles-lakers.  Hmm...



Ahaha .

[MBunge]

Here's a good article on Upshaw's issues.  Another article I read mentioned that he'd gone into rehab after his Fresno State dismissal.  Alcohol and drug addiction is serious and recovering from it is difficult and often temporary.  I would not touch Upshaw at #16.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/5/21/8627453/nba-draft-2015-robert-upshaw-washington-sleeper

So get a player with very little upside instead, right?

I'd prefer to trade up with Charlotte or Miami.  However who says there won't be other players available at #16 that have upside?  I'd probably choose from Oubre, Booker, Lyles, Looney, Turner.  One or two of them should be available at #16. 

As for Upshaw, his upside is probably DeAndre Jordan.  However it is far from certain that he'd reach that level even without his addiction problems.  To be dismissed by two college coaches, should tell you how serious Upshaw's issues are.

Well, of course, if those names (sans Booker and Lyles, we disagree on that) are available, we take them. I'm working on the assumption that those names would be taken, which is highly likely, that he's going to be one if not the only one with star potential. So take him and just work with his red flags to keep him check.

Like the Rockets did with Royce White?  It doesn't always work.  We need to get more of a guarantee at #16.  We can't risk ending up with nothing.

The difference is we have a ton more assets than Houston, so we can afford to swing for the fences here.

I'm not denying the risk, all I'm saying is he could probably be the best prospect by the time we need to pick at #16. At the end of the day, you still need talent to win basketball games. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't. But if it does, we may end up having a Center for the foreseeable future. With a lot of picks in the next 5 years coming in, we could afford to gamble this one.

If this is a top 5 pick, I get it. But at #16, I'd gamble on a star potential player with problems than a guaranteed future role player.

He could be the player with the highest upside at #16.  That doesn't mean that it is a good gamble.

I'm not a fan of treating picks like the draft is a crapshoot so you might well go with the player who will pay off the most if you get lucky.

If you want to gamble on Upshaw, I think I'd rather gamble that his problems cause him to slip far enough that you can get him with a lower pick, but it mostly depends on assessing the sort of information that the team should know about but which we don't.

Obviously, it depends on who's there for us at 16 when it's our turn to pick, but are you really willing to let teams like the Spurs, Bulls, and Cavs have a shot at drafting him before our next selection?  The worst case scenario, imo, is for the Timberwolves to take Okafor, leaving Towns to the Lakers *facepalm*, followed by our selection of some crap player at 16, gambling that Upshaw will still be there at 28, only to have the Lakers take him right out from under us at 27, after which the Upshaw-Towns duo dominates for the better part of the next 15 years while we ponder what might have been.  Even if they wind up with Okafor, putting Upshaw next to him is a very frightening proposition.  I know that I'm going to the extreme, here, but I can also see such  nightmare(s) developing, unfortunately.  Sigh.

You rarely make good decisions out of fear.

Mike

[Beat LA]

Here's a good article on Upshaw's issues.  Another article I read mentioned that he'd gone into rehab after his Fresno State dismissal.  Alcohol and drug addiction is serious and recovering from it is difficult and often temporary.  I would not touch Upshaw at #16.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/5/21/8627453/nba-draft-2015-robert-upshaw-washington-sleeper

So get a player with very little upside instead, right?

I'd prefer to trade up with Charlotte or Miami.  However who says there won't be other players available at #16 that have upside?  I'd probably choose from Oubre, Booker, Lyles, Looney, Turner.  One or two of them should be available at #16. 

As for Upshaw, his upside is probably DeAndre Jordan.  However it is far from certain that he'd reach that level even without his addiction problems.  To be dismissed by two college coaches, should tell you how serious Upshaw's issues are.

Well, of course, if those names (sans Booker and Lyles, we disagree on that) are available, we take them. I'm working on the assumption that those names would be taken, which is highly likely, that he's going to be one if not the only one with star potential. So take him and just work with his red flags to keep him check.

Like the Rockets did with Royce White?  It doesn't always work.  We need to get more of a guarantee at #16.  We can't risk ending up with nothing.

The difference is we have a ton more assets than Houston, so we can afford to swing for the fences here.

I'm not denying the risk, all I'm saying is he could probably be the best prospect by the time we need to pick at #16. At the end of the day, you still need talent to win basketball games. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't. But if it does, we may end up having a Center for the foreseeable future. With a lot of picks in the next 5 years coming in, we could afford to gamble this one.

If this is a top 5 pick, I get it. But at #16, I'd gamble on a star potential player with problems than a guaranteed future role player.

He could be the player with the highest upside at #16.  That doesn't mean that it is a good gamble.

I'm not a fan of treating picks like the draft is a crapshoot so you might well go with the player who will pay off the most if you get lucky.

If you want to gamble on Upshaw, I think I'd rather gamble that his problems cause him to slip far enough that you can get him with a lower pick, but it mostly depends on assessing the sort of information that the team should know about but which we don't.

Obviously, it depends on who's there for us at 16 when it's our turn to pick, but are you really willing to let teams like the Spurs, Bulls, and Cavs have a shot at drafting him before our next selection?  The worst case scenario, imo, is for the Timberwolves to take Okafor, leaving Towns to the Lakers *facepalm*, followed by our selection of some crap player at 16, gambling that Upshaw will still be there at 28, only to have the Lakers take him right out from under us at 27, after which the Upshaw-Towns duo dominates for the better part of the next 15 years while we ponder what might have been.  Even if they wind up with Okafor, putting Upshaw next to him is a very frightening proposition.  I know that I'm going to the extreme, here, but I can also see such  nightmare(s) developing, unfortunately.  Sigh.

You rarely make good decisions out of fear.

Mike

I told you it was an extreme scenario, lol .