Trade speculation is fun in the off season, but the reality is. We don’t need to take risks. We have enough pieces to make changes in the future . Don’t trade anybody until we see how they do with Oden.

If something catches KP’s eye, definitely look into it. No sense in rushing to push us to the ‘next level’ if we have to give up part of our core to get hopeful short-term success. Next summer, after a year with the big 3, we can definitely be more aggressive. With people coming off the books, the cap-space clears and that’s when things can really get interesting.

I don’t think Steve Blake starts on a championship-quality playoff team, as much as I appreciate what he brings. I love him but when I look four years down the road we probably need another player. However there’s no rush to get that player THIS year. If the right guy comes along, sure, we’d take him. But no need to make a move for next season.

—Dave

...to communicate in my post the idea that I’m never opposed to an upgrade. I don’t mean to sell anyone short and actually I’m not using Blazers Edge as my only source. I understand it’s the off-season and people like to speculate, I think that’s fine and part of being a fan. I’m not singling anyone one person out or any one single Blazer fan site, but in general I’ve been suprised at how focused the idea that we must upgrade at PG and must upgrade this summer seems to be.

When you have Aldridge, Brandon and Oden that leaves PG and SF as the two positions people are probably going to scrutinize the most, I just wanted to forward the idea that I think it is possible for us to advance as a team without making a PG move and also present my personal opinion that we do not need to panic.

Just a few short seasons ago I thought we were in a position as a team and franchise where moves absolutely HAD to be made at the change the core level. It’s a nice place we arrived where we are debating the hows and whys of refinement not the ground up rebuilding that was needed.

I guess I’m just in the camp right now of approaching this off-season with a little reserve, we will be adding Oden and Fernandez on opening night and that will make us the team in the N.B.A. adding maybe the most firepower to the roster of anyone. I’m leaning to saving our big trade or free agent move for the future.

I hear this one a lot—that Nate gives Jack slack that he doesn’t give other players.

And it may be true—but it may be for a good reason.

Jack and Blake get similar “slack” and play similar minutes. Blake starts, Jack usually finishes games. So to me, it isn’t a Jack-vs-Blake situation.

The guys who haven’t gotten sufficient “slack” from Nate, are two: Telfair two years ago, and Sergio this year. Both of them are widely reputed to be better playmakers than Jack or Blake (especially Jack), and both occasionally do things that are spectacular. And both share two key deficiencies with Jack—poor defense, and lots of turnovers.

So why does Jack get more playing time? I’ve heard lots of things suggested; some of which seem ridiculous, some of which make lits of sense.

1) Response to coaghing. Jack has a good rapport with Nate, and responds to coaching well. Both Sergio and Telfair before him have, at times, publicly resisted Nate’s attempts at coaching-in both cases viewing his conservative approach to the PG position to be a damper on their creativity and artistry. To which one might respond you have to learn to play before you can jam.
2) Similarity to Nate the player. Jack seems to be the most similar to Nate-a ball-control guard who plays a slower-paced, physical game.
3) Dislike of “streetball” styles and showboating. Some have suggested that Nate dislikes any form of showboating, and that Telfair/Sergio both have a tendency to be cute. Nate hates cute, and reins it in at every opportunity. Jack’s frequent turnovers, OTOH, are more often mistakes in execution, and don’t result from showboating, so Nate tolerates them more.
4) Practice. We don’t get invited to practice, so we don’t know what goes on there, but many times a coach’s decisions are not based on what happens during games, but what happens during practice. If Jack takes practice more seriously than do the other guys, this could explain quite a bit.
5) Defense. None of the three is a good defender, but it says here that JJ is the lest bad of the three. Jack tries, but isn’t quick enough to guard most NBA points. Telfair never bothered to try. Sergio tries, but frequently remains clueless, and is often overpowered by his man even when he does stay in front of him.
6) Playmaking. Despite all the reputed creative flair of Telfair and Sergio—the team’s offense often would sputter with them at the point. Jack has the same issue, espcially without a Z-bo to dump it into, but he was able to make a living playing 2. The smaller Sergio and Telfair both have to justify their salary at the point guard spot.
7) Scoring. Jack, for all his other faults, can light up the other team on a regular basis. Both Telfair and Sergio have shown a vast inability to finish at the rim in the NBA, and all three are streaky outside shooters.
8) Off-court issues. Telfair had plenty. Don’t know about Sergio, but he does reportedly smoke. :) Jack, by all accounts, is a Boy Scout.

Duhon is a sub-par NBA player, and I don’t hear many people using the “potential” word around him.

probobly more than Blazers fans hate Jack.

Roy is th PG of our future. Nate will teach him well, and let him lead the way.