clvlndr

Dion Waiters: Questions, Concerns, and His Ideal Role Published: Friday, June 29, 2012, 5:44 PM Updated: Friday, June 29, 2012, 5:52 PM By Michael Curry cleveland.com So, the Cavs took Dion Waiters with the #4 overall pick in the 2012 NBA Draft, and they followed it up by trading for the #17 pick, Tyler Zeller. After thinking about both picks for a day, now is as good a time as any to talk about it. Why did the Cavs select Dion Waiters at #4? Because he was the highest player on their draft board. While we can - and will - argue about exactly how Waiters was able to climb up the Cavaliers' list of potential draft picks, Brian Windhorst's report from inside the Cavs war room shows that Waiters was right there with Michael Kidd-Gilchirst at the top of the team's wish list. There is no doubt that the Cavs really like Waiters as a player, and think that he can be a star in the NBA. What makes the Cavs think that Waiters can be that good? http://blog.cleveland.com/cavshq/2012/06/dion_waiters_questions_concern.html

All true, if by "irrefutable" you mean "totally refutable." Waiters shot better from 3 and from the field overall than Beal or Barnes. Also had a much higher PER than either player, and rated higher on Hollinger's draft rater. And while the Cavs took Waiters early, most mocks had him going 7-10. I've never heard that. All the scouting reports I've read says that Waiters is athletic and explosive to the hoop (which against the larger, faster NBA 2s, could cause him problems), but that he's an inconsistent outside shooter... Look, I know everybody wants to be optimistic; I do too (which is why I sincerely hope that I'm wrong), but most of the draft websites and pundits are saying we blew it. Not only did we gamble when we should have taken a solid pick like either Barnes (who I wanted) or even Thomas Robinson, we gave away our 2nd round picks to get Zeller who, though very good at UNC, has "... reached his ceiling" in the words of one... Had we stayed put, there were other athletic centers out there, then we could have drafted a couple shooting guards in the 2nd round and have them compete for a slot... Then you'd have had a promising, long, athletic shooting 3, in Barnes, a center, to spell/help Andy and Tristan, and perhaps a promising 2... This draft was not long on elite players, outside of Davis, and maybe Beal, but it was very long on quality, solid players to build around a star player.... a star like, say, a point guard named Kyrie.... ... I'm sorry, but all indications indicated that Chris Grant choked... I don't really care what Byron Scott or Boeheim or even Kyrie is saying about Waiters, of course their all being polite and diplomatic. But in reality, the indicators are not good. ... but if there's crow to eat, come next season, I'd be more than happy to dine on it.

You're dead on, Justine. Sadly, RTA's recent cuts take the "feeder" out of feeder bus routes, so bus routes serving Rapid stations through even dense areas, like the #32 along Cedar through Cleve Hts, are only half hourly. It really sucks.

... We don't know how good Waiters will be in the NBA, but these are the irrefutable facts: he's an undersized (6'4") shooting guard who can't shoot, who didn't start at Syracuse, whose pick, at #4, shocked the basketball world and whom the Cavs drafted sight unseen (no personal workout)... To be sure, these facts alone put Mr. Grant squarely on the defensive... ... and if the words "project", or "development" or "down the road" are uttered by him regarding Mr. Waiters, Grant should lose his job. Such terms are verboten when talking about a top 5 lottery pick... I would rejoice at being wrong about Watiers, but to say I'm bummed is an understatement.

^The trade for Zeller was pretty good; I like it. But it can't make up for my disappointment in what we did (and didn't do) at No. 4. I'm also waiting for Grant to pull off that really big deal that really helps us. Obviously, we caught a huge break with the Mo Wms deal that netted us the #1 lottery pick and Kyrie. But we keep hearing how Grant gets close but can't pull off that big deal, like moving up to grab Beal, or trading down to get the 6 and 11 which still would have gotten us Waiters (if that's what you want) and a better player than Zeller.

Chris Grant seems to like to show he's the smartest guy in the room picking the off pick higher than what most people would expect. We'll see how smart he really is. Kyrie was the "conventional" pick, and he's exceeded already high expectations. Tristan Thompson, the reach pick, showed some promise, but has a lot of ? marks. Personally, I was very disappointed in Waiters. He has athleticism, can get to the rim, but at 6'4" he's undersized compared to many 2s and is not known as an outside shooter... I would have taken Harrison Barnes, the safer pick; a long, athletic 3 who has an outside game.... Grant has a history of going after unpolished raw athletes: Christian Ayenga, Tristan and maybe Waiters... We see how Ayenga ended up... now a Laker bench rider.... Hopefully better for TT and Waiters. We'll see; but for now, my draft night excitement has been dashed.... As the departed LeBron enjoys his trophy, the journey to elite status for any of my Cleveland teams seems just as long as ever. ugh!!

I don't want MKG. Sorry, he may be a nice guy, have a good attitude and play nice D, but the consensus is (plus what I saw in last year's NCAAs) is that he can't shoot. We MUST draft a guy who can put the ball in the friggin hole esp with the No. 4 pick. We struggled to score last year. Think what it'll be like this year with Antawn J's 19 ppg gone. Give me Beal or Barnes -- not sure which one I like more... Even though I still hear some mixed stories about Barnes lack of ability (or desire) to drive in traffic, all agree he can stick a 15/18 ft jumper. Gotta have this. Some are comparing Beal to Ray Allen, but that may be a bit much -- Ray's one of the finest pure shooters (with stupid quick release) in the history of the game. I probably lean a little toward Barnes b/c of his size and the fact that he's a 3 (yeah, it's some LeBron envy, although he certainly ain't no LeBron), but I'd be happy with either him or Beal... We've got a premier point guard in Kyrie, so a mobile shooter can help him spread the floor. To me the worst would be if both are gone by the time we draft at 4, which could happen even though the Wiz are talking about Robinson (which may be a bluff). Because of this, I wouldn't hate on Grant for throwing in our 24 plus a 2nd rounder to move up; it's that important. We have no wiggle room, we can't blow this draft... And that means no Michael Kidd-Gilchrist!!

We've really got to light the fire under RTA for this. The fact that a key aspect of infrastructure is already, mostly built (stations) and that replacement costs for shorter-term buses is so much higher than trams, (along with the higher capacity and greater chance to draw more riders/create TOD) really makes this project a no-brainer.

This is not a dumb idea. I suspect politically, however, it's a non-starter. This is one of the poorest areas in NEO and, hence, probably most transit-dependent, so closing either one of these stations will raise the ire of the local city council-persons. Also, the configuration of the rail lines plus the recent RTA cuts also militates against it. The recent severe RTA cuts removed bus service on Woodland Ave (formerly served by the deleted No. 12 bus), so the Red Line Rapid stop at E. 79 is a life line for many in the area... The busy, 24/7 No. 14 Kinsman bus does run near the elevated Blue/Green stop at E. 79th. However, this area is a little more populated than immediately around the Red Line stop (and some new houses have even been built in recent years around Kinsman), with its crumbling, soon-to-be-razed factory ruins... Also, consider, that residents often ride from these stops outbound, to shopping and jobs, at/near the ends of all 3 routes... again, without cars, these rail lines are vital to residents, even in this lightly populated area.

Reducing Shaker Heights LRT stations? No way it'll happen. Shaker's promotional material has always touted that every resident is within 1/2 mile of a Rapid station. (btw, the stations are generally 1/3 mile apart, not 1/4 mile). Plus, this close station spacing is not uncommon to the outer/residential ends of urbanized/close-in suburban routes of traditional commuter railroads, of which the Shaker lines mimic, albeit with LRT equipment (compare commuter rail routes such as Philly's 2 Chestnut Hill lines, Chicago's South Chicago Metra Electric line, or several of New York's LIRR routes, such as Long Beach or Far Rockaway, ... to name a few). If Shaker Hts. was powerful enough to stare down powerful (and woefully misguided and mean) Albert S. Porter who wanted to shove a freeway down its gut, you think, today, they're going to allow Rapid stations to be closed purportedly for speed? .... The better proposal would be to get priority traffic lights to speed trains along Van Aken and Shaker Blvds.... I also think that something should be done with traffic lights to help along trains through Shaker Square. A few years ago when the traffic lights were rebuilt, they seriously slow trains which often must stop in the middle of the square waiting for traffic. Obviously, we never want trains to go any more than about 10-15 mph through this extremely pedestrian-friendly retail/residential area, but the traffic signals now make the trains tortoise-like.

^Nice job, Biker; very convincing. One tweak I might make, is looping the streetcars to the north of Mayfield to the to-be-extended Circle Drive back to Euclid at E. 118th. Otherwise, this proposal rocks. Given the cited short life of HL buses, RTA should seriously explore this tram proposal NOW. Imagine what it’s going to be like as growth continues downtown, University Circle and points in between. Not only are HL buses going to wear out quickly (some already are, according to the above poster), they are struggling to provide capacity from both anecdotal evidence as well as my own empirical evidence.

Yes, Joe Calabrese is conservative all right. Yeah, he's apparently kept RTA solvent in difficult times. But at what cost? And more importantly, where is the line of differentiation between RTA the public service vs. RTA the business. I strongly believe that it should much more be the former. As freethink noted, I would much prefer a GM like Ron Tober, and would love to know how he supposedly spent money like a drunken sailor so as to potentially lead RTA to economic disaster that required the conservative Calabrese. Charlotte, NC didn’t do to badly under Tober when they launched their new Linx LRT (their first rapid transit) a few years back. Then again, is mass transit a business or is it a service? Posters had a very educational discussion about the expenses of transit. But it was also disturbing. What's to encourage RTA to withhold better service, even with evidence of demand, if it's more cost-effective to maintain inadequate service ... or even cut service (after all, RTA knows it can ALWAYS claim financial difficulties, esp. against the background of a stingy, conservative state (and governor) like Ohio. Look even now and even in the face of sharply increased demand (esp with the casino on line), RTA had promised to return 15 minute Red Line service frequency but hasn't yet implemented it because, according to them, they are still 'fixing the signal tower after the nearly year-old lightning strike.' Where's the motivation to provide better rail service, esp given Calabrese's oft expressed distaste for rail service ? (NOTE: in another thread, a UOer recently quoted him as stating that rail expenses exceed bus expenses despite moving far less people. To me that's whining, esp when it's true of most rail cities -- Chicago being one of them, which has a much more extensive L rail network that, still, moves significantly less people than CTA buses with a significant feeder bus system along with many radial bus lines into the Loop). I'm sorry, but that's not how normal major transit cheif's talk. Normal transit cheifs are always advocating expansion even when the funds may not be there at the time. (again: business vs. service) And even if some or all of these expansions don't happen, at least the public gets the sense that their transit agency is trying to improve. Now quick: name one rail project Calabrese has vocally supported... (hint: it's a number less than one) And as was noted above, RTA under Calabrese has not taken the lead in non-farebox revenue generating or TOD development (which, if done right, could lead to more revenue generation). Theoretically then, for every dollar Calabrese has saved due to frugality, he has lost due to non-aggressiveness in revenue generating (and btw, TOD of course has ripple benefits for a more urbanized, smarter-growth Cleveland as well). It's good to see that TOD is happening without Calabrese (Flats East Bank), Univ. Circle Uptown/Intesa, in addition to smaller projects, like the Marous' row-house rehab at the West Blvd station – all happening despite Calabrese’ inaction. Finally, I’m sure folks will say I’m just a Calabrese basher. In fact, I’ve given him considerable credit for introducing POP to the Red Line, which has allowed for greatly improved service (although he gets a big minus for those awful farecard machines). I’ve also given him big probs for the excellent free trolley service downtown, which will soon be expanding in size and to weekends… all very good. (I might also note that the Trolleys are a textbook example of an RTA public-private service through Dollar Bank). I just don't think his positives outweigh his negatives; certainly not to the extent of extending his contract for another 8 years....

Except for your Public Sq comment, I share your sentiments. Calabrese is not the kind of transit leader a city like Cleveland needs. He's not only against extending RTA's existing rail, other than spending Federal monies for to replace transit stations, he's done little to enhance the existing rail system. For example, why hasn't RTA come up with a cogent TOD program to, at the very least, encourage TOD partnerships with the cities where rail stations exist, most notably Cleveland? And for those who want to attribute the rise in rail and bus patronage to him, I prefer to attribute it to rebounding city with an especially growing downtown. The rail system continues to flub at handling large crowds and events while refusing to be communicative with riders... And the salary? Higher than most local officials, including the mayor and county exec. with a contract through 2020? To me, this is rewarding mediocrity and an anti-progressive mindset.

Gotta love Detroiter, Dan Gilbert. Yeah, I know he can be heavy handed, tore down one Cleveland landmark (Columbia building) and is trying desperately to raze another (Stanley Block). But consider that this guy came in 7 years ago and bought the Cavs. Not only has he become the aggressive can-do rich owner that we’ve been pining for, for our pro teams. Consider that the best player in the game walked away from Cleveland and yet, 2 years later, we’re excited about the Cavs’ future – much of this because of the way Gilbert runs his business…. … and, oh yeah, Gilbert single-handedly got the casino measure passed in very conservative Ohio and, a month ago, turned our empty, main dept store in the center of town into a lively, people-generating casino that is having positive ripple effects to many aspects of downtown and, itself, has created thousands of jobs … Gilbert has also brought several hundred jobs from his Quicken Loans operations to downtown from Detroit. Can’t say enough about the positive effect and leadership role-model this guy has been. Wish we could clone him.

Well, for all the LeBron haters, it doesn't look good. Miami has just gone up 2-1. Worse yet is HOW they won tonight. OKC had the game going clearly their way with a 10 point lead in the 3rd, but clearly came unravled down the stretch. Durant esp fell apart -- missed FTs, turned the ball over and couldn't hit the big shot down the stretch. OKC totally lost their poise and turned the ball over. Miami looked like the experienced, settled team under pressure, esp. LeBron... OKC suddenly looks very green under pressure.... again, not good news for LeBron haters by the shores of Lake Erie.

^Very nice pictorial, OTR.... I love such history even though, in the context of how close Cincy came and still hasn't used these tunnels, it's exremely frustrating.

It's terribly disappointing to see RTA flub (again) during a large scale event downtown. They were great for us during the Rib Cook-off, but it sounds like they were back to their old tricks again on Friday... Probably the worst aspect of this story -- and what appears a maddeningly consistent failure of the agency -- is its failure to communicate with riders during a screw-up, or crisis delaying trains. RTA would be amazed at how much more empathetic riders would be if they just explained to people what the problem is, pledged to fix it ASAP and apologize for the delay. Instead, riders are often faced with silence and sometimes belligerence from personnel when they rightfully inquire as to the problem... ... this is consistent with the other nagging issue with the agency, and that is, its people on the ground often simply have no clue as to what's going on -- esp in Tower City, the commuter hub, where the most rail (and bus) riders need information about rider alerts, or other changes in schedule. Oftentimes personnel have no clue as to such things as when the last train is following special events -- It was mentioned that RTA runs trains until 90 mins after the conclusion of baseball games. I wasn't aware of that, but sensed that was the case. But after an Indians game last year, the RTA guy hadn't heard of it and after our extra-innings game, we ran for (what we thought was) the last train even though it was only a little over 30 mins after the last out of the game because the RTA guy warned that it was the last Green Line train on the schedule even though, turns out, it wasn't.... Stuff like that is inexcusable, but one of several instances I've run into where one RTA hand doesn't know what the other is doing.

I think RTA would be on board if planners came up with a plan to allow the smooth transfer of commuters from buses to trains. Just moving buses off the Square is not enough, and I'm in agreement with RTA on that point.

First, I'm all in favor of redeveloping the Square, I don't know where you got the idea I'm against it. Certainly the current cut up, wide-road, ped-unfriendly PS sucks. Secondly, and more importantly, I mean by "knee jerk" the sudden interest immediate redevelopment based on the Marine Week closure. That we need to carefully consider the alternatives and not just send in the dump trucks with soil and sod to dump. What kind of public activities do we want on the new square ? Again, Detroit's Campus Matrius has a nice program of public concerts, skating and a food vendor -- formerly Au Bon Pain until another vendor took over -- I think CM is a good model for us. The recent light-show for the casino as well as the upcoming Cleve Orchestra 4th/July fireworks laser show, demonstrates that people will flock to even the current flawed Square if there are interesting things for them, their families to do. Also, have we seriously thought about what to do/how to integrate the huge Soldiers & Sailors Monument ? (hello Postively Cleveland!!, like we've got this amazing, free Civil War museum on our front lawn and, yet, we barely hear/read anything about it -- END OF RANT). Do we keep S&SM and integrate it into the new PS/park (probably), or figure out how to dismantle and move it (unlikely, even though it would free up much space)? We have now, and have always had lots of plans (I'm unfortunately old enough to remember the rather bizarre Halperin plan of the late 1970s with its underground parking under the Square and ramps to reach it). I'm NOT in favor of one of those classic Cleveland decades-long paralysis-by-analysis studies we're so unfortunately good at (ie, how should we best extend the Rapid? What's the best usage for the lakefront? Where should we move he County Admin employees? What's the best building for the hole on Public Square?... for the sea/surface parking in the WHD? yadda, yadda, yadda!).... But I do think that we need to (expeditoiusly) consider various scenarios, pick the best, and get it done!

I think we should look at other cities' squares, and look at their contexts, before knee-jerk deciding that a big unbroken park is best for the center of Cleveland. It's a lot smaller, and lacking a natural water body, as say, Boston Commons/Public Gardens. It's similar in size to Philly's Rittenhouse Sq, and similar to what many people here desire: an unbroken park with park with perimeter roadways. BUT NOTE: Rittenhouse sq. is off to the side of Philly's CBD and is the center of an old, upscale high-rise residential district NOT the traffic center of that city's CBD like Public Sq. is here (actually Center Square, where Philly's old, gigantic City Hall, is more comparable to our Public Sq -- and it's rotary-style traffic pattern is a car-pedestrian nightmare). Perhaps the closest example – in size and context - to emulate is Detroit’s recently reestablished Campus Martius, which is considered by most planners as a major success story. But even there, CM was more seen as pumping life into a moribund downtown, one that was and is much weaker than Cleveland’s downtown (even before the Horseshoe Casino). We in Cleveland have the people, we just want to make the experience more pleasant for them. Yes, the Marine Week closure proved (as we’ve seen with similar special event closures in the past) that for a few days, we can get by traffic-wise, with a closed off Public Square. But does that mean that, long term, this situation is desirable? I’m not here to say yes or no, but I think we again need to carefully consider context before jumping headlong into a model that we feel would be nice for the center of our town…. Btw, I applaud RTA for fighting to assure that its riders don’t get pushed aside so that their bus-to-rail connections are hampered by any PS improvement. The good news is that Prospect Ave. provides excellent ingress/egress to RTA trains – in many better than Public Sq., which could make moving bus drop-off/terminal there an attractive alternative to allow the opening up of PS to reconfiguration.

Biker, you raise some cogent points about the Red Line’s configuration. It is far from the ideal transit line, but I think you have to consider it’s development viz Cleveland. You must look at Cleveland in the context its density and development in comparison to other big cities in the U.S. Very few of them chose or have chosen to tunnel subways down main streets: the most expensive type of mass transit to construct. On top of that, Cleveland has historically been a moderate-to-low density population city compared to the big-boys in terms of mass transit. Look at Cleveland, not just today, but in a historical context. Drive around some of the neighborhoods (or tour them via Google satellite and street views). Even old neighborhoods, dating back from the late 1800s to the WWI era, were filled with mostly wood-frame single family homes on substantial lots; some “Cleveland Doubles” were thrown in, with a few apt buildings, but this city has always had very few areas that you could come close to calling “apartment districts”. Shaker Square is one; Edgewater is kinda/sorta another. We lost quite a bit of brownstone walkups in the Hough area, esp after the 1960s riots, but even if you could magically rebuild them, Hough wouldn’t be anywhere near NYC’s upper east side, or even Baltimore’s Charles St. corridor, density-wise. Then take a look at the 1919 Parson’s study commissioned by the then Cleveland Rapid Transit Commission (which I posted in the “subways told in pictures” thread, which confirms this. (btw, rapid transit was studied by a lot of Cleveland’s sister cities around this time: Pittsburgh (which was and is better suited for rapid transit b/c of its topographical constraints and pockets of high-density pockets of population: lots of row homes, twins and small brick homes – like our Little Italy – on tiny lots), Detroit, St. Louis and Baltimore. None of these cities built subways following these early plans – Baltimore finally built its single line HRT/Metro in the early 1980s, and Baltimore, again, has a much denser housing stock than Cleveland – it’s a typical East Coast big city in that sense. Bottom Line: Cleveland developed rapid transit for the type of city Cleveland was/is: moderate/low density where a winding, high-speed, less expensive (to build) rail line would gather passengers at collection points, where they would arrive either by feeder bus or auto (this is why the CTS/Red Line was one of the 1st rapid transit systems to build extensive, free parking lots at outer rail stations). btw, the station-every-half-mile model has been abandoned by most modern transit planners in the post horse & buggy era when the Big 4 cities designed their systems that way... (and Chicago has, since, closed many of their close-spaced stations in the city, much to the anger of many Chicago African American leaders). In addition, note (as Parsons did) that because of Cleveland's fanning/splaying street grid, a projected subway up Euclid would not have the traffic impact it would have if the city were a traditional grid like Chicago... and Cleveland, of course, lacked the population density to justify subways or els out such streets as Superior, St. Clair, Lorain or W. 25th... even way back during World War I, when Parsons did their study, they only found a Euclid-Detroit Rd. corridor as being subway-elevated ready. Btw, I’d tend to disagree with you that the Red Line misses all neighborhoods. It currently stops a block away from the core of Ohio City, a sub-downtown-like area that, obviously, has exploded in popularity in recent years which, likewise I suspect, has seen growing rail usage at the W. 25 station. It also passes by the front door of Little Italy which will finally be corrected with a relocated station that will open a couple years from now. Also, it ends near the center of East Cleveland. Yes, EC is a seriously distressed urban-burb right now, but this wasn’t always the case and, hopefully, EC officials (notably Mayor Norton) will inject some life in the area. Also consider that stops like Superior, W. 117 and Puritas/W.150 stop near their core loci… yes, these are imperfect, car-oriented areas (less so Superior), but by CLEVELAND standards, they are pretty transit oriented. Also consider that the West Sine Red Line has always been more successful because it is a bit more direct than the East Side leg and cuts through neighborhoods (and edges of neighborhoods) that collect a lot more people. Note too that even the closest West Side stop (W. 25/OC) is a major departure/destination point, and that because of this (and contrary to the bulk of RTA’s rail lines), commuters often begin and end their trips on one side (the West Side) of town. NOTE ALSO: Washington D.C.’s Red Line (Silver Spring/Glenmont leg). The inner portion of this line is very similar to our Red Line, esp the arcing East Side Red Line leg (ie, stops spaced a mile apart, at neighborhood edges and in a freight RR ROW). Even before this DC Red Line was extended past Silver Spring, it was/has been traditionally DC’s heaviest used line. So if it’s so similar in configuration to our Red Line, why is it so successful? I think a lot has to do with the historical neighborhood character of Greater Washington vs. Greater Cleveland.

I agree; the banner is both vital but understated, ... unlike that ugly (thankfully gone) "FREE" placard (or placards) that defaced our beautiful Art Museum during/after it's renovation.... ... We passed through the WSM/Ohio City on Sat at around the peak period (11:30a-12:30p). It was a gorgeous day and WSM + the streets around it were jammed with beautiful cross-section of happy people. The Market Sq. bazaar and live band were jumping with activity as well (KJP's photos capture it pretty well, although it seemed considerably more crowded when we were there). Any tourist from anywhere in the world couldn't NOT be impressed with this uber special place.

^^^^ I don't totally disagree with you, MTS. Fact is though, there should never be anyone classified as a "loiterer" in a casino, esp such a unique one woven into the core city such as ours (if that were the case, security would have classified me/GF as such and thrown me/us out on more than one occassion -- I've only gambled once -- out of 3 visits -- and that was attempting to get free parking!).... btw, having stuck my head in a few days ago, whatever dress code they've enacted was hardly in evidence ... se la guerre.

^^$29.30!!?? ... get that high-roller into the VIP Lounge!! :-P

:-P :-P :whip: :whip: