To me veteran is an over-used term.  

What we are usually talking about is that someone has learned to not make mistakes in ways that inexperienced players often do, so although it's being referred to what people are after are not age or years in the league in reality.  They have become "smarter, more seasoned" players.  

Some players season fast, some slow.  I think we could all say that Roy for example... not a veteran, plays like a veteran.  He just gets it, college did very good things for him, and you rarely see him getting schooled because he has the traits of what we'd refer to as a veteran at this early age.  I think we could also say that Outlaw has taken huge strides towards that understanding this season, but he's not there yet.  

I'd say that Blake, Jones, Przybilla, and LaFrentz are all veteran players using this terminology.  To me this leads to a really substantial question is are they veteran starters on a good team?  To each of these players I'd say no (sorry Steve, Joel, and James in particular... Raef, I think you understand through your veteran wisdom).  So, are they veteran backups on a good team?  Yes, across the board. (I'd even say Raef is capable of playing back-up or 3rd string minutes on a good team now that he's been consistently healthy... he's not worth the money mind you, but limited off the bench minutes on a good team, sure he'd warrant it.)  

I'll also say that on many good teams if the other 4 were very good you could certainly afford to have the veteran Jones as a starter, but if you were weak in another area it might be a problem, I'd almost say the same for Blake, but not quite, I think it would be the difference of being able to contend and struggling to do so on most good teams.

Outlaw has been in development mode during his entire career-- still is, really.  He hasn't reached a point where he has experience or experiences he can share and teach other younger players about.  Blake and Jones have played for a few years (not in a development sense), been on playoff teams and had key roles in the actual playoffs (both starters at times).  They are vets, but still young; on most other teams they wouldn't be considered a veteran presence but on our team they are.  They fit the criteria though.

A "veteran presence" is just a vague term for someone who isn't a mystery and has established what they do in the NBA through several years of playing and likely having key roles on their team.  Outlaw, for example, is still a damn mystery.  Jones and Blake are Jones and Blake.  Same with Pryz.  They are who we know they are.

I don't think veterans = leadership, but it is often shorthand for that.  You just don't have to hold vets hands as much as our young guys; they know how to deal with the fatigue and keep their diet right and how to play their best for 82 games (for the most part).  But that doesn't make them as good of a leader as Brandon Roy.  It just means they have gone through stuff you have to experience before you know how to deal with it.

Another thing vets supposedly provide is stability, which Jones and Blakesie do as well.  Again, Outlaw falls short of this.  

I say a veteran presence is some combo of age, experience (both in regular and playoff basketball), and stability.  With our young and sometimes erratic players, it's not hard to be a stabilizing force, but our vets ARE vets.

I hope that helps and doesn't confuse more.  There isn't exactly a hard set definition.

Mortimer

between Travis and Steve is that Travis came straight out of high school while Steve gained a lot of experience at Maryland, a national championship if i remember rightlu

only in comparison to the rest of the Blazers.  On most teams he'd be...well...not exactly one of your youngsters but still kind of a young-ish fellow.

James Jones is a veteran in years but again that is mostly in comparison to the rest of this squad.  He hasn't played enough minutes to be on the top 100 list of people you'd consider "veterans".

When NBA guys talk about veterans they don't just mean years in the league but playing important roles in meaningful situations...guys who have been through the wars, have survived them, and have scars and accomplishments to show for it.  George Karl, for instance, described Blake as "not a 'veteran' veteran but a guy who can play and lead a little, especially on that [Portland] squad".  This is exactly what he meant:  some mileage, decent talent, has game, but not what you'd consider bankable experience.

Another factor is how big of a role they play now.  A 37-year-old guy is certainly a veteran in terms of years and minutes, but if he never sees action what good is he doing?  I know there's the work ethic in practice and the airplane wisdom but to be considered a meaningful contributor you still have to play.

I would be hard-pressed to put my finger on a player Portland has that would be considered league-wide as a significant, bona-fide veteran.  Maybe Joel or Darius (if he comes back).  

We lack them for sure.

--Dave