Point-Counterpoint: Why I Wouldn't Trade Up and Draft a Point Guard
by Dave on May 26, 2009 12:39 AM PDT
167 comments
A couple posts below you'll find Ben's excellent and well-reasoned post arguing for the Blazers drafting a young point guard this year. If you haven't read it, you should.
As I marinated the issue in my head over the weekend, though, I found myself wanting an alternative. So in the spirit of fun and good debate, I'm going to present the argument that the Blazers shouldn't draft another point guard, let alone move up in the draft to get one. We don't do a ton of point-counterpoint on the main page. If it goes well, maybe we'll do some more. Let us know what you think.
Obviously if the Blazers think there's a franchise-altering player in this draft and they believe they can get him, they need to do it regardless of position. If Ricky Rubio is the point guard for the next decade for this team, by all means draft that boy! In fact if I see the Blazers move up to choose a point guard in this year's draft, I'm pretty much assuming either he's the absolute bomb or there's a trade in the works somewhere.
Short of that, though, I'd say the Blazers should stay away from point guards in this draft. In the short-term and long-term both, there are better ways to go.
Whatever you think of Steve Blake, he was not the problem at point guard for the Blazers this year. He may not be the solution, but that's a different post altogether. Portland's problem, which became readily apparent as the rotation tightened at the close of the year and on through the playoffs, was that nobody was able to spell Blake with any kind of reliability.
Even if you draft a point guard with talent and promise, he's not likely to be able to deliver the consistency needed for a playoff-bound team in his first year or two. It's not as easy as it looks on paper. We've spent first-round picks on Sebastian Telfair, Jarrett Jack, Sergio Rodriguez, Petteri Koponen, and Jerryd Bayless and have yet to find a player who can produce on that kind of timetable, forcing the current (perhaps over-) reliance on Blake. If you assume Jerryd Bayless being able to step up and fill the top reserve role he's basically learning on the job, having not seen significant minutes or meaningful situations last season. Your alternate plan, should he not be ready, is an untried rookie. It's the same, basic situation we have now. There's no short-term gain or relief, just the same promise and the same liabilities with new faces. In fact technically you have less experience behind Blake, as Sergio would presumably be dealt in this scenario.
Clearly if you go the draft route for a point guard you're banking on the future. I don't think anybody would have major issues with Steve Blake going to the bench someday or even being dealt or released if multiple point guards blossom in the next few years. But then you have to ask questions about those multiple point guards. Specifically, what of the relationship of the new draftee to Bayless? Both would be of the same vintage. Both would come up together. If you assume Jerryd is going to take over the lead role, what need for another pick used on a backup who will take just as many years to develop, especially if you have to trade up to get that pick? If the guy is great, how is he going to find his way with Bayless needing the exact same minutes for the exact same purpose? If the guy isn't great, why are you drafting him?
The way such a pick makes the most sense is as a vote of no-confidence in Bayless...assuming Jerryd is a no-go as our young, developing guard and this guy becomes his replacement. I don't think anyone is ready to make that kind of assessment at this point. We need to know more about Jerryd before we know if we need another point guard prospect.
From both short-term and long-term angles, you're spending assets to move up to get marginal gain. In the short-term you don't move ahead or put any new wrinkles in. In the long view you duplicate something you might already have.
For a much cheaper price you can go another route: a serviceable, minor veteran point guard drawing a modest salary. You could get a guy in his early-to-mid 30's: a Kevin Ollie, Chucky Atkins, Bobby Jackson-type. He's not Bibby, Nash, Kidd, or Andre Miller but he doesn't have to be. He has a role: work cheaply, fill in behind Blake, have a clue what he's doing, and provide a measuring stick for Bayless. If Jerryd beats him out for the second spot nobody minds a bit. If Jerryd wins the starting role and Blake moves down nobody minds a bit. But if Jerryd isn't ready you have somebody to play 15 minutes capably without the wind-tunnel-esque vacuum we experienced this year every time Steve sat in critical situations.
As far as the future goes, this guy doesn't have one with the team beyond the current contract. He's gracefully out of the way if and when Jerryd is ready to step up. No conflict, no wrangling over playing time and development, no hard feelings.
The move is not nearly as exciting as the draft route, but the value in it is significantly higher. You can make the move without losing anything you're not going to anyway. (Sergio? Frye? A minor contract offer?) You don't have to worry about trading major young players for an aging star who might or might not carry you to the Promised Land before his abilities wane. You can now use your 2009 draft pick, original or traded-up, to fill other needs. Most of all, you give your team a type of asset it lacks currently without taking away anything down the line. It's a subtle move, but it makes a lot of sense.
That's why I'd say the Blazers shouldn't draft a point guard at 24 or move up to get one unless they are fantastically positive that this is their dream player and fantastically positive that Jerryd Bayless isn't.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
P.S. I know I didn't talk about Sergio staying the same way I talked about Jerryd. At this point that looks unlikely, but if you'd prefer almost all of the same arguments hold if you substitute Sergio's name in there and assume Jerryd will be the one traded.
7 recs |
167 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
he's a 2 guard i think
but he rocks.
"The problem with tweeners is that sometimes they’re exactly what you need to plug the hole and sometimes they are the hole."
-LaughingJon
I like the point-counter point theme
I agree that we shouldn’t move up unless we are SURE that the guy we draft is the answer we’ve been looking for and Bayless isn’t. However, I am also willing to wait a season (maybe 2) for the right PG to develop. Bayless may become a solid PG soon, but maybe Rubio becomes a great PG in the same time frame. If we think a guy like Rubio could do that, but it would take a year, I would do the deal.
I don’t think that a serviceable veteran backup PG is the route to go in any circumstance. I’d rather just give Bayless the minutes directly rather than worry about his inconsistency, the more playing time he gets the better. I wonder if having a specific role ("You are the back up PG) will keep him from worrying about losing playing time. He played best when he was given consistent minutes and knew that his mistakes weren’t going to cost him court time. Bayless with a guaranteed 15 minutes and a chance earn more can only help in his development. Basically, I’m of the opinion that the surest way to develop a player is to give him consistent minutes.
This point is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but this is the last off season we have to make a move. It’s never a good idea to make a move for the sake of making one, but it’s also important to know that this might be the last chance to take a risk and not have it screw up the roster. I would also like to see the rotation get cleaned up a bit. What are we going to do with Martell, Outlaw and Batum at SF as well as Rudy/Roy needing to split minutes in a 3 guard lineup? We could make a move for a PG and kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
what is good or bad about Nate is that he does set
clear boundaries about PG PT.
Fact this year Bayless was behind Blake and Sergio and got 655 mins. 2 years ago, Sergio was stuck behind both Blake and Jack and got 628 mins, so there is a precedent with Nates sub patterns.
Good or bad he gives his PGs the rope to either succeed or hang themselves so bringing in a vet or rook PG would only be in case of an injury, much like Bayless last year and Sergio of 2 years ago and I would bet that they will only play 600-700mins.
I agree that the door is shutting as we speak and we need to pick who our players are and commit to them good or bad.
"Damn the Blazers. Damn them to hell. They are working the rest of the league like a speed bag." - Bill Simmons 6/26/08
Those are two completely different situations
Sergio saw 628 minutes as the 4th guard in the rotation, and Nate made repeated statements about how he was lucky to see that time. Jerryd saw 655 minutes as the 5th guard in the rotation, and that was almost entirely due to Blake’s injury. Comparing the two situations neglects to account for Rudy’s presence. Minus the Blake injury, Jerryd probably plays fewer than 400 minutes this year. It’s entirely coincidental that the two happened to play a similar number of minutes, rather than some specific boundary set by Nate.
The last oppurtunity is never the last oppurtunity
car salesmen would have you believe otherwise, but flexibility is a buyers second best weapon. Cash being the best.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
Well said Dave
As on exec said in his opinion this is the “worst draft ever” lots of role players but not much on the star quality. That being said it can line up for us OK but not for a PG2.
The only prospect I would flip over is Rubio and even then he has a lot of developing to do and may not be ready, not even getting into what it may take to get him. KP may have something up his sleeve but who knows, I would not bet the house and that is what it would probably take anyways.
To me it seems clear that we will either keep Blake or bring in a vet to bridge the next few years for Bayless to learn the system and how he can excel. Then draft Collison, who seems to be the perfect PG3: big program, big game, steady, defensive, heady player who would be able to step in if there was an injury and perform solidly or bring in a vet like Brevin Knight, Lindsay Hunter or Jaque Vaughn to stand in and help Bayless.
Everyone wants the big deal, like trading half our team to get Parker or CP3 but those big deals will not happen. Probably no trades at all as if KP would of wanted the players he would of had them by now.
Just like Travis, Sergio and Bayless, plus Raef were all supposed to be gone for Hinrich, Jefferson, Butler, or Wallace before February 18th, it didn’t happen, leading to the 2nd best record in the West. Do we need to improve? Yes. But if we were a team that got bounced in the first round with a mixture of aging vets and talented youth, or a vet laden team coming together for one purpose, we would need to make some changes, but we are the 2nd youngest team in the league and our two "vets" are not even 30 yet.
"Damn the Blazers. Damn them to hell. They are working the rest of the league like a speed bag." - Bill Simmons 6/26/08
Age is the thing so many people are forgetting lately
54 wins for is is killer. It’ll go up even if we make no changes. They’re still learning. Oden and LMA have HUGE jumps ahead of them in the coming season(s). That should make us forget all about the PG.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
Entry Passing
Oden and LMA need better entry passes though. they can’t reach their potential unless we have a gaurd that can get the ball in to them in a manner that allowxs them to play fluidly. Right now they have to work to hard to just gather the pass…
Goodbye Deke. The NBA will miss Mt. Mutombo
Support families in crisis in Portland www.give10tell10.org
Blake and Roy are already good at this
Criticize Blake for athleticism, if you must, but he can make entry passes. He is a totally solid point guard in terms of making the right pass at the right time.
Sticking up for Travis Outlaw since 2008 and Steve Blake since last week..
Roy is a good entry passer?
I think it’s one of the few things he’s NOT good at. So far, at least.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
they had a terrible time getting the ball to the post
did you watch the games this year?
Getting the ball down low is one thing, but when you got a 7’1" guy flashing to the basket you gotta get in chest high or higher so he can just roll to the basket. Everytime Oden would flash open for that play he NEVER got the ball, or if he did it was a bounce pass at about knee to midsection height…I think the only time I remember him getting a high pass on the roll was the Golden State game at the beginning of the year, the one where Fernandez came out of it with the angry red scratch marks across his chest after he was called for the foul…we lost…
Goodbye Deke. The NBA will miss Mt. Mutombo
Support families in crisis in Portland www.give10tell10.org
I disagree with the both of you
To me, Dave is wrong because he is putting all his eggs in the Bayless “basket” and he is getting restless with all the issues the “Young and Inexperienced” label provides.
First, the Blazers may be young but the team is becoming very veteran maturity wise. The thinking that the Blazers need a Vet is less an issue than getting the right players. The Blazers need help with perimeter defense specifically a skilled defensive PG that successfully contests shots.
Secondly Bayless is the wrong man for the Blazers. Bayelss not going to be a bad player. He may be very successful in the future. He won’t be successful in Portland though.
Bayless really doesn’t fit the team. Not even the second unit with Rudy, Outlaw, PrzOden. Both units are very good offensively with most of its success coming when a distributor is on the floor. Also, both units could easily be upgraded with a more defense (even at the expense of ball handling).
I know everyone will disagree with me but Bayless is the worst defender of all the guards (the only position that needs a vast upgrade) plus he doesn’t make teammates better on either side of the ball. Some of this will get better with maturity and experience but I don’t see it positively changing the way he plays the game. He will be best playing the kind of ball he already plays. Steve Francis like.
I really think Pritchard picked him up in a move to get Westbrook from the Thunder last year. His value for what the Blazers were giving up was a trade no smart GM would pass on. I think he is a chip to barter with.
I believe Nate didn’t play him because he constantly made the wrong decision on offense and played defense like a child learning to ride a bike while carrying a bowling ball. And when the training wheels came off (against starters) he landed on his chin.
Committing to this guy is not a good idea. As long as Nate is running a team full of developed scorers and capable defenders.
SpyderRyder is wrong because this is a very strong draft, full of players that would complement (possibly star) other players on this team. These players are attainable and the Blazers have more attractive chips than any other team.
I do not believe Rubio would be the best fit (better than Jerryd) but I do think Holiday, Collison, Maynor, Blair/five other PFs would help the team.
BTW, Ben is right in saying drafting or making a big trade is the best option. Talent, fit and attitude are the most important assets to acquire when looking for a player. The best way to do it is to consolidate players through a trade or pick the guy that fits no matter the age (if the price is within reason).
Everybody is wrong for saying that Bayless is a better option than Sergio or that Miller/Bibby would be better than Blake.
In order of who will help the team the most to least.
Holiday, Hinrich, Kidd, Collison, Conley, Maynor then Rubio.
Point - Counter-point is a nice idea
at least for some topics (“TO – stay or go” . . . then again, some things have already been endlessly debated).
Drafting a 2nd/3rd string PG or back-up PF seems like a good fall-back position, but I wouldn’t write off the idea of KP engineering a trade of FA signing for PG#1 this summer. Maybe Rubio (seems unlikely) but I would put greater than 50% odds on having a new PG1 by the time training camp opens. They need to go after their short-list of guys for that position and hopefully make something happen.
put a body on 'em
I disagree with both perspectives
With Ben – I don’t think Lawson would be an upgrade over Bayless, and thus we shouldn’t use assets to collect a guy that won’t play.
With Dave – I believe Steve Blake IS a problem for us starting at point guard.
At the end of this offseason it’d be great to know which young gun and which old vet we’re going to be going into battle with. I think I’m further away from accepting Blake as the starting point guard than I am with Bayless being the backup point guard.
On drafting a point guard… you can only do it if you think the kid will be better than you think Bayless will be. Maybe even think the kid is a couple notches better than Bayless can be. I think Rubio and Jennings are the only guys in this draft I feel that way about. Also, if you believe that, Bayless has to go in a trade. He still has plenty of value, and I think you could very easily find your backup power forward or possibly a starting small forward by trading him. If it’s Rubio that you’re able to get, Steve Blake either was traded or is now the teams backup point guard. If it’s Brandon Jennings the team found a way to get I believe Blake will be the teams all too often used comfort blanket that Nate relies, and gets burned with far too often. I’d like to see KP find a way to sign or trade for a better veteran point guard. Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Mike Bibby, Kirk Hinrich, Eddie House, Anthony Johnson, Derek Fisher (guys who can do 2 of these 3 things =shoot the 3 / run the offense / defend=)
The exception… Darren Collison is a guy I love as a fit piece on this team. He’s a great defender that excels in our slow offensive pace on top of being a legit rifleman from the 3 point line. He would probably only cost a really late 1st round pick or our #32 pick in the 2nd round. It’s a lot like Mario Chalmers last year. The things he does translate to winning basketball games in the NBA. I think a lot of people wish we had drafted him last year. Well… we’ll get a second chance this season. This of course would fall under the “if KP does nothing” tag, which means there is no chance of this. This move could come without trades and without giving assets up.
On acquiring the future piece through trade… I’ve been pretty outspoken on my preference to bring in Mike Conley Jr. When rumors of his being a Blazer 2 years ago through a potential trade that year surfaced I was against it. I didn’t think he’d be a good fit next to Brandon Roy. Well as it turns out, the reason he wouldn’t in my eyes have been a good fit (his lack of 3 point shooting) has actually become a strength (41% at 21 y/o). As it turns out, having Roy as our only player that can penetrate through a defense and get into the lane just isn’t enough. Whether it be Bayless or Conley Jr or some other player with this ability, we need it. It isn’t as important as that 3 point shot, but its a close second IMO. Conley would bring all these things plus the bonus factor of being good friends and even more importantly good teammates with Greg Oden. If he’s going to be implemented properly into the offense we need guys that can properly set him up, and play off of him. Conley can do both of these things as well as any point guard being mentioned. He also has proven a lot considering he’s just 21 years old. He’ll fit perfectly into our winning window, both at the beginning and at the end, it could be 10-12 strong years with him being at point.
If you’re able to make a deal for Conley Jr and Blake went out with the bathwater I think there are two potential free agent point guards that aren’t often discussed but might be good fits out there on the open market. Both Eddie House and Anthony Johnson are great defenders and great 3 point threats that could come on the cheap 2-3 million per year. If you’re able to use that 32nd pick on Darren Collison that might be my perfect PG offseason (Rubio aside).
You’d be looking at:
Mike Conley Jr / Eddie House / Darren Collison
If you’re on the Hinrich tree things are a bit easier, but less promising long term. You can either keep Bayless as the #2 and just be happy with that or throw in Jennings to take his place. We don’t have the assets to get HInrich and Rubio, which might be the prettiest, but also the most absurdly expensive combo to contemplate (it’d cost LMA).
Players I’m not discussing as much as others are Ramon Sessions and Andre Miller. I just don’t think they fit on this team. Andre Miller’s offensive personality doesn’t mesh with Roy’s, and he also can’t hit the 3 point shot. He would however be our best post up player, but that’s not really saying much at this point. Ramon Sessions like Miller can’t hit the 3 pointer and isn’t a very capable defender. Andre Miller’s age also might be a concern if you’re counting on him continuing to be a solid defensive player.
I am a Conley fan as well
he can get the ball to Oden in a way he can use it to score…entry passing has been a problem for our gaurds…plus he can drive the ball straight down the middle almost at will…
I also like the Miller kid from philly, clutch decision making and the ability to drive almost at will as well…
Goodbye Deke. The NBA will miss Mt. Mutombo
Support families in crisis in Portland www.give10tell10.org
i never said lawson was an upgrade over bayless
by Ben Golliver on May 26, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
No.... the reason I wouldn't do the move you suggest is because
I don’t view Lawson as an upgrade over Bayless. That would be the reason I don’t give up extra assets chasing a 3rd string point guard.
ben was just correcting your mistake
in which you made it sound like you were paraphrasing him
"The problem with tweeners is that sometimes they’re exactly what you need to plug the hole and sometimes they are the hole."
-LaughingJon
Brandon Jennings is not a possibilty
…that is, if you are looking for consistent productivity from a PG right away. Jennings is an all-world athlete and has great court vision to be sure, but I guarantee you that if he gets 20-25 mpg he will average at least 3-4 turnovers (makes poor decisions more often than not) and won’t shoot better than .400 from the field (poor shot selection over his entire playing career).
If somebody reigns him in and gets in his ear then he has All-Star, if not All-NBA talent. The real question is his head and his commitment to making smarter decisions and making his teammates better. If jumping to Europe for the cash rather than heading to college is any indication of where his head is at, I personally don’t see him ever living up to the hype. I hope he proves me wrong because I am a big fan of his game, but he has a long way to go before he is a productive PG in this league. A LONG way to go.
Well reasoned apporach
I do wonder if Collison can have the success of Chalmers though. There are several factors that give me pause:
Chalmers shot 46.8% from 3 his last year at Kansas while Collison shot 39.4%. That translated to 36.7% for Chalmers his rookie year. Not bad but marginal for a championship contender. In the playoffs Chalmers shot 6 for 21 (28.6%). If Collison declines a comparable degree his rookie year he could not shoot well enough to get any room to drive. So Dave’s point is still valid – probably an emergency only PG the first year or two.
Not sure why House leaves Boston?
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
Collison had to throw up crazy three after crazy three
you have to compare like teams. The year before this when UCLA had Love and Westbrook is most like that Kansas team when they won the Championship. Collison that year shot 53% from the 3 point line. Simply put, give him open 3’s and he’ll hit open 3’s. And on this team if you’re the point guard you’ll get a lot of them.
Good points but interesting that Collison’s Offensive Rating was better this last year than the year before (119.5 to 118.6) and still behind Chalmers with 124.5. It does help to have talented teammates draw defense to shoot open 3’s. I am still not sure how Collison will do. (I am using Kenpom.com numbers)
Also note Chalmers has exceptional wingspan and look forward to getting this year’s measurements.
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
I have to disagree with you Dave
I think we have too much talent and not enough room for that talent. It makes sense to move up in the draft because A) We have the resources and B) It’s extremely cheap this year.
Why not move up at the cost of Sergio, #24, Money (Norsk said Knicks fans were down with this) to get into the #8 spot and see if a Stephen Curry, Eric Maynor, or Ty Lawson pan out?
Best of Senator Clay Davis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI4-QyAzY64&feature=related
The problem is none of those is an upgrade from Bayless
and honestly, as far as right now goes, sitting at #24 or #32 and taking Collison would have just as much impact on next season as any of those three you’re talking about would.
If you’re trading into a position to upgrade your long term point guard from Bayless to (Rubio, Conley Jr, Jennings etc) that’s one thing. But don’t use up assets going after an upgrade of your 3rd string point guard. ESPECIALLY if you still have Bayless sitting on the bench.
The kind of assets that could be used moving into a position to draft one of those guys (Lawson, Maynor, Curry) would be better spent on a guy that may actually see the court (DeJuan Blair). They’d be even better spent getting one of the aforementioned upgrades to Bayless (Rubio, Conley, Jennings), but if you’re not going to do that, settle on Bayless as the heir apparent and go get that backup PF.
Rubio, Conley and Jennings
all have a lot more value than Lawson et al. Trading into the top 5 is a lot different than trading into the early teens (or top 10 for Curry); it depends on the deal who we should go after. For that matter, I like Lawson better than Jennings, anyway; Lawson had a TS% of 66, Jennings 48. Even account for the tougher league, most guys only drop about 8 % points from college to the nba; Lawson is a better shooter by such a large margin, while Jennings really isn’t that much of an athletic upgrade over him. Lawson has a better ast/to ratio as well. Jennings is only 26 months younger—do you really think he can get to Lawson’s level in two seasons. Also, Collison has a beastly high TS% of 62; while being only 23 months older than Jennings. Jennings is a huge risk. Is he even significantly more athletic than Lawson/Collison?
But yeah, if we can get Rubio or Conley (for a reasonable price), then they’re the logical pick.
In any case, the biggest omission from discussion, as I see it, is the idea that we need to pick one PG of the future. Not one available PG is going to be anywhere near as sure of thing as Roy, Aldridge, Joel or even Nic or Travis. Keeping Bayless and letting whomever we may acquire
by wepto on May 26, 2009 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly.
You can’t draft a backup PG who isn’t as good as the backup PG we already have. What would be the point?Is Lawson a better prospect than Bayless? Heck no, not even close.
Still… the starting PG spot needs to get upgraded. He plays too many minutes to be that mediocre. However they decide to address that is fine by me. Hinrich, Miler, Conley, Sessions, whatever. As long as Blake isn’t playing the third most minutes during the playoffs next year I will be happy.
Roy is the best player in the world with the exception of Incarcerated Mike from Queensbridge .
by Nick Van Excellent on May 26, 2009 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Oops.
I got distracted and didn’t finish my thought. I do agree with you though we can’t draft what (at this point) I would consider a better prospect than Bayless.
What I was going to say is that because both Bayless and any PG we acquire won’t be a sure thing and that having two PGs with potential increases the chances that we’ll have one starting caliber PG down the road. This is especially true since I have to assume that Sergio’s speech ended his Blazers career and that 3 deep competition at PG wouldn’t be a bad thing.
I’m not really sure what to think about Sessions and Miller though. On one hand, they could make our offense less reliant on isos (they’re both upgrades in pick ‘n roll and drive ’n kick). But, on the other hand, I don’t like the prospect of opposing PGs sagging off of them and clogging the paint/passing lanes. I could see them being better than a rookie, and I could see a rookie being better than one of them.
In general, ranking my PG desires:
For non-rookies:
Conley – because he can shoot and is younger than Hinrich, bonus for being pals with Greg)
Hinrich – becuase he can shoot better than Sessions/Miller
Sessions – younger
Miller – older, probably more expensive as well
Rookies
Rubio – not that we have a shot
Lawson
Collison
In general, the three rooks have higher defensive potential (more athletic) than Blake and the 4 non-rooks are already better defenders.
In any case, these are just my random musings—I’ll be quite happy as long as the PG roster doesn’t stay the same.
Batum as a point forward would really interest me as well. He can already guard PGs better than anyone on our roster. Probably a pipe dream though—he’d need to add a lot of skills to his game.
Who knows if they are an upgrade from Bayless
We haven’t seen Bayless make the transition to PG at all. He might become a good scoring/defensive PG, which would be great, but it is highly unlikely that he’ll ever become a pass-first facilitator.
Guards out of small schools (Hill, Lee, Stuckey) have done pretty well the last few years. I didn’t see Maynor play, but the descriptions all sound a lot like Bayless, but with more assists. Curry went through a pretty impressive transformation to looking like a very good PG last year. He’s shown he can make his team better. However, he isn’t as quick as Bayless and probably won’t be the defender we need.
Lawson is too small, but I can see him having a career as a sometimes excellent back-up and sometimes capable stop-gap starter.
Maynor is like a combo of Roy and Sergio.
great pull up jumper, and he can get the rim at will (only difference is he can actually finish lol)
Best of Senator Clay Davis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI4-QyAzY64&feature=related
Lawson is too small
I think height and weight stats should be listed with all of these PG suggestions
Why? Because we already know that Nate likes his PGs to be big/tall and be able to fight through P&R screens (Sergio was tall, but not stong enough, etc)
Conley is 6’1" and 180lbs—sorry, that’s too small
I’m not sure on Rubio’s h&w, but IIRC from the Olympics he has some beefing up to do
If you’re suggesting that Portland acquire anyone shorter than 6’3" who isn’t “built” like Bayless then you might want to think again. It’s OK to like a certain kind of player, but (to steal a descriptor form Dave) you still have to come up with a “fantasically” convincing argument why Nate will want to change his mind about giving PT to undersized PGs
who cares about next season?
no matter who we draft, they are more than likely to end up on the end of the bench or the D Leage next year.
but maybe in a couple years down the line they end up panning out and KP looks like a genius yet again. If not, I bet Maynor/Curry/Lawson would end up being excellent backup PGs for Bayless
Best of Senator Clay Davis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI4-QyAzY64&feature=related
Simply put
Bayless is not a point guard. At least not yet, but we need somebody NOW who can share time with Steve.
It's pretty much what Hoopsworld suggested in a recent article
Only their author wanted to move Bayless to the backup spot immediately to learn, then bring in a veteran point guard who had seen his best years to fill the third position (similar type Dave mentioned), and spend the draft picks on a player to stash in Europe (e.g. Omri Casspi, but could be Claver or another position) and a third center and/or a tall guard (no names mentioned, but there could be a few candidates).
http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/5/24/885152/hoopsworld-with-a-somewhat-unusual
However it’s not necessarily my favorite way to let the opportunity this summer pass
Next year the contracts of Blake, Sergio (could be extended now, but that would be the surprise of the summer) and Travis run out, and while I don’t think it would cost the Blazers a fortune to retain any one of them they wouldn’t have the cap space then to acquire the kind of upgrade they could now, at least not without giving up even more assets to match salaries or dispose of to teams that does to create it.
I too don’t think moving up to draft a point guard is the way to go unless you are absolutely blown away by a player. I have yet to hear even a rumor the Blazers are apart from maybe Rubio – and that is more because every writer worth his salt includes the Blazers in the list of teams potentially in the market for a better point guard. Every young point guard still needs at least a season, likely two to have a real impact (remember when the hot topic was if Rondo could lead the Celtics in the playoffs when he had KG, Pierce, Allen to work with?). Going with a young yet somewhat proven player (say Conley, Sessions, Felton) is still a bit risky but far less risky since those have played at least one season against NBA competition and shown that they are good. However it would also show to Bayless/Sergio that they are not completely trusted anymore to be the heir apparent as Dave said, which might have a good (heightened competition, best man wins) or negative effect (nothing kills a young PG faster than constantly looking over his shoulder to the coach, see Sergio).
Rumors that are flying regardless: The Blazers tried to trade for a veteran, with Jason Kidd whispered (hate that option), Andre Miller mentioned (wouldn’t help the defense a lot, but provide a new offensive weapon), and Kirk Hinrich even mentioned by Quick (the notorious “trade for a PG + SF” before the deadline).
As outlined a few times, I think Hinrich would be available almost as easily as acquiring one of the free agents, with the price being Blake, cash and likely two picks (one giving Chicago back their 2010 second rounder). That would enable a clear scenario for all parties involved going forward with Kirk absolutely able to lead a team in the playoffs every year until 2012 (when he will be 31) and Bayless/Sergio developing further as the backup. If the replacement is ready before that, all the better, you have one of the best backups imaginable albeit pricey as the Bulls now had to find out. Almost the same could be said for Miller on a 2-3 year deal.
If the Blazers believe their “PG of the future” is already on the roster, this is the way to go. If they don’t, happy trading / drafting for every point guard prospect under 24 out there.
Would the price really be Blake?
No one seems to mention it, but wouldn’t KP have a hard time trading Blake…. again. He mentioned a while ago that he hated trading Blake away and felt remorseful. Would he sign the guy back only to ship him out the same way two years later?
I’d hate to include Blake in any trade if for no other reason than he’s a good person and it’s lame to jerk good people around.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
Good analysis
KP will not trade Blake unless he absolutely has to.
He’ll move him to the back-up PG spot if we get someone better. I think Steve would like to retire a Blazer and I fully expect KP to be on board with that.
I agree
I don’t see Blake going anywhere in a trade, but I hope like heck he’s not the starting PG next year
Hinrich was the flavor of the month back in Feb, but since then he’s played great for the Bulls in the playoffs. They may have decided they have to keep Gordon and deal Hinrich, but I don’t think it will be easy to get Kirk now that RLEC has expired.
If KP really wanted Hinrich, why didn’t he pull the trigger back in Feb when Blake was hurt and he still had RLEC to offer?
Final point, Hinrich fulfills 2 of the 3 criteria of the ideal starting PG to play alongside Roy (spot-up shooter and perimeter defender) He also will draw more fouls and shoot more FTs than Blake. But is Cap’n Kirk a penetrating PG who can dish the ball to open teammates? Is he worth giving up assets and paying 9 mil/year to if he can’t create for himself and others?
Blake is part of the good chemistry the Blazers have..
Trading him would be a huge gamble. Blazers locker room has “good vibrations”. Broy and Blake play well together. The discussion about picking up another rookie or so so veteran point guard is a waste of time. If you can’t get the best veteran PG out there, and we all know who they are so I won’t mention names, don’t break what doesn’t need fixing.
If you have Hinrich, keeping Blake is unnecessary (at least after next year)
It’s similar with LMA and Frye. Nate also reportedly wants his backups to have different skills according to a piece in the Oregonian that I can’t find at the moment, not be the same type only worse. And in terms of finding time to develop a younger player, it would be a disaster.
In fact, I think it’s more likely KP trades Blake again than demotes him to be the backup.
The problem is
that we were actually getting good back up PG play at the end of the season, this just completely disappeared in the playoffs as we all just naturally assumed it was a natural given that the rotation gets shortened, despite the fact that no objective observer would look at Steve Blake and see a guy that should be playing 40+ mpg in a playoff series (no offense to the guy). This is an area where Nate is going to need to make a change in his own ability to trust guys whether it’s Sergio, Jerryd, or some other PG yet to be developed. A point that never really gets mentioned about Blake’s awful decision making at the end of those Houston games is that he played 22 and 21 minutes in the second half respectively of games 3 and 4, including the entire 4th quarter both times, something Blake (or any player) basically never does.
To think fatigue didn’t play a factor in some of our collapses would be naive. I’m getting tired of this getting thrown at the feet of Sergio or Jerryd with the argument being that they’re “forcing” Nate to play Blake so many minutes. He never even really gave them a chance in that series. The fact is, even if their play isn’t quite up to Steve’s for that first 2 minutes of the 4th, it’s more valuable in that we’ll have a more rested Blake at the end of the game, who hopefully would be able to recognize that throwing up a wild three pointer with 8 seconds left on the clock is a bad idea.
Which is why, despite not really being in love with some of Ben’s rhetoric, I agree with his position. Blake is too much of a safety blanket for Nate, and he’s not quite good enough to really deserve to be leaned on that much.
by Royster on May 26, 2009 5:56 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs
I Agree...
I don’t understand how everyone casually assuems that back-up PG play was poor. It wasn’t. Royster’s exactly right that we were getting very good back-up PG play at the end of the season. We even had good back-up PG play in Game 2 of the playoffs (I think it was 2).
The fact is, Portland avoided back-up PG play in the playoffs; they weren’t forced away.
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
It was only good compared to what we had right before it
which was disgusting. Maybe we were getting adequate back up PG play, but can we really call it good? I liked what Sergio was doing toward the end of the season, and was surprised he didn’t get a little more burn V Houston, but he did play poorly when he got on the court (aside from a little burst in Game 5 I think).
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
In 8 games in April
he was averaging 5.4 points, 4.1 assists, and 1.5 turnovers on 58% shooting in 14 mpg and we were all gushing about how we needed to find his girlfriend a place in Portland. I’d call that good for a backup PG, even without the putrid play that immediately preceded it with that ill-fated Sergio-Bayless platoon.
He played bad you say...
But he never had a – the entire series. Granted he didn’t get that many minutes, but if we went 2-3 minute stints without losing ground or actually gaining a little ground, why didn’t we try it a little more?
The playoffs are much more about how a team matches up with the other team...
Regardless of how well Sergio played in April prior to the playoffs, he doesn’t match up well against Houston. He’s not quicker than either Brooks or Lowry, and Houston defends the pick & roll pretty well, so he likely wouldn’t have been able to do much offensively. He was also inconsistent from long range all season. Needless to say, he would have gotten killed trying to defend either of them, so it’s not hard to see how he didn’t play.
You can further look at the minutes he played against Houston during the regular season. He only averaged about 8 mpg against the Rockets, which was his lowest against any team other than Indiana (who also plays a quick PG in Ford and a bigger PG in Jack). I think he just doesn’t match up well against them.
I’m not saying the Blazers coudn’t have used another PG in this series, I just don’t think Sergio (or Bayless, for that matter) would have had much success against them. In the end, I think Blake’s shooting and care with the ball was the difference, especially against a good defensive team like Houston. Against a different team, Sergio (or Bayless) may have gotten more minutes.
by MDBlazerfan on May 26, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed - only problem is, Sergio appears to want out
I’d love to see Sergio making another step up and getting another year of playing with Rudy. There is a decent chance he goes somewhere else and excels.
To me, we need to be considering other options because Bayless hasn’t shown he can be a PG yet and Sergio wants to be in a situation that fits him better. And who can blame him after the play-offs.
I think Nate does believe that he needs another PG, as evidenced by the opportunity he gave to Jack. He’d probably be fine with Sergio as a back-up, but Sergio wants a bigger role, and probably needs it to play at his best.
Bayless wasn’t ready to play more, but he might be this year.
While I agree that we should not trade up
for a PG, I whole heartedly believe that Blake has to go. Nate will never start Bayless or Sergio ahead of Steve. Even if we trade for Conley or Hinrich and keep Blake I believe that Nate would be too tempted to start Blake if our new PG starts the season below expectations. Trading up for a PG does not make any sense because I think that it would limit the amount of quailty we would then have to trade for a starting PG. Let’s face the facts, there are no starting PG in this draft. If we are able to buy a 1st draft pick and package it with our own and move up, I ’d be O.K with that but on the other hand I might want KP to use one of those picks on Austin Daye. Jrue Holiday would also be nice to take at 24 but not to trade up for. His ability to defend both PGs and SGs could be useful in the playoffs. But he is a project and we have enough of those. Perhaps we could trade Outlaw, Blake and Sergio and bring in Hinrich and Atkins/A.Carter/Duhon/B.Jackson to be the backup and continue to let Bayless develop behind them. Then we could draft Holiday to play in the development league and in a year or two we would have a really good guard rotation. Bayless and Roy to start and Holiday and Rudy as backups.
Dave just copied my idea
If the Blazers draft another point guard, it probably won’t be Rubio, and he probably won’t be that good, so he’ll spend his rookie season just like Bayless spent his. Makes no sense to me.
The team needs to either commit to Bayless or Sergio, and I think the choice is Bayless. I said before last season that Sergio’s role was to help Rudy get acclimated. He did his job and he deserves to go to a team that has more playing time for him.
If the Blazers can’t get a mid-twenties aged future of the organization point guard, then they need to get a crutch or patch point guard, who can fill in until Bayless is ready. It is a burden always being right, but it is a burden I can carry.
Te corto tu cara!
by tominhawaii on May 26, 2009 6:45 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
You weren't right about Rudy
Playing more minutes alongside Roy than Blake, this past year
(I think your real “burden” is a selective memory)
I think it's safe to say
you are officially on his list.
Certified blazer.fangirl
by Roybot on May 26, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't know if I ever said "more" minutes
Just that Roy and Rudy would play together. Everyone else said I said they would “start” together.
Te corto tu cara!
It'd be more fun if they moved up in the draft and got someone super-exciting
but it’s probably not the smartest move.
Point, Counter is a great format. I’d love to see more of it.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
If Nate is your coach, you can forget about Rubio.
I’m convinced that Bayless is will be their point for the future. Now, how soon that future happens depends on Bayless showing improvement on two fronts. First, a reliable jump shot and second a clear understanding of what Nate wants from a point guard.
Bayless can get his own, which I think the team needs bad, but can he get others involved is the question.
Of the four teams left in the playoffs, which one wouldn’t want a player with his skill set?
2-4 the who
Here's hoping Jerryd makes a quantum leap
But it’s difficult to imagine Bayless beating out Blake for the starting PG spot next year, when he couldn’t even get on the court ahead of Sergio, this year
Maybe Nate just has a “thing” about playing rookie PGs? But if that’s true, why would KP keep drafting them in the 1st round?
Spot on, Dave
The Blazers were good last year with Blake and they may get significantly better by making few roster changes. You don’t have to have a great point guard to go deep into the playoffs and a great one doesn’t assure you you will. Compare L*kers, Cleveland, and Orlando to Boston and New Orleans.
We know we have a solid and durable PG in Blake, but we don’t know yet how good Bayless will be. We know he’s smart and that his freshman year his weaknesses were exposed. We know he’s a workaholic and that the summer is three months long. We know that he has confidence, an NBA body, can drive and can make it to the line. His next hundred days in the gym and one million jump shots will improve his handle, his passing, his outside shot. His sophomore progress will elevate to even more terrifying heights KP’s reputation as a titan diviner of talent. Thus, next year will also be Blake’s last as a Blazer starter.
What Portland most needs now is veteran backups at two positions: pg and pf. Webster and Bayless will show in the fall whether the Blazer’s should upgrade at their positions. This means that besides Blake, Outlaw will also be a Blazer at the beginning of the season. Unlike Blake, he may not finish the season as one.
And that’s the truth.
Outlaw will also be a Blazer at the beginning of the season
If the Blazers are going to upgrade the backup PF postition (and adding “toughness and physicality” is KP’s #1 goal this offseason) the time to do it is before Roy and Aldridge sign their extensions (July) And if the backup PF position is upgraded, there will not be enough minutes available for Outlaw to have a significant role
I disagree with you Dave
Point-Counter Point is a terrible name…doesn’t have punch. You need something flashier. Like “deathmatch roundtable” or “Chainsaw Fight to the Death.” Something with death.
All the argument stuff is fine though and you both have excellent points. Wear hats and no one will notice.
I have my P.h.D in unreliable hyperbole.
by Eat Politicians on May 26, 2009 7:55 AM PDT reply actions
I love the non-sensational name
I know you’re joking, but it’s such a good name in a academic “I don’t care about sensationalism” sort of way.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
I'm just helping
I want BEdge to succeed, so I can continue to read it. Therefore it is in my interest to help Dave with his branding.
And if he could wear something sexy around the office. I’m not saying it’s MANDATORY, I’m just saying show a little thigh Dave…Give you co-workers the occasional pat on the hiney….you know, giggle and throw back your hair in a kind of spontaneous whiplash effect in slow motion kind of thing…you might need a wig for that last one…
I have my P.h.D in unreliable hyperbole.
by Eat Politicians on May 26, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Long term solution
The Blazer fan dilemma: Craving a long term point guard solution in the short term.
Half the teams in the NBA can say this
Blake is easily one of the 30 best PG in the NBA, which makes him a starting PG. We are just greedy and want top 10 of everything, not that this is a bad thing.
by Zaig on May 26, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The obvious choice is Sessions
1) Milwaukee can’t match any offer over the midlevel and we’re a more attractive location than the other teams with salary cap room- so we can get him without sacrificing a key player
2) He is an assist machine- got 24 in one game last year as a young player
3) He has a good assist to turnover ratio
4) He shot 45% from the field and can create his own shot- something we need.
by Anonymous Gambler on May 26, 2009 8:49 AM PDT reply actions
I like Sessions
but it seems like if we take him or trade for him or whatever it is we do to acquire him, we’re done with Bayless.
I think the point guard discussion on the whole points to a larger, glaring issue with this thread and the fan base. That being “What are next years expectations?”
Is this time really capable of now sustaining 50+ wins every season? Do we really think we’re as good as the top four teams in the west, LA, Denver, Houston, and San Antonio? I mean you could even call New Orleans in orbit (With a healthy Tyson Chandler) of that group as well. We still can’t beat Dallas. Hell we can’t beat Golden State.
I think its unsure. I think the reason that is because time and time again we depend on players who are not consistent. Take away Roy, Pryz, and the version of LMA we saw the last two months of the year, and we start touting players like Travis Outlaw, Steve Blake, Sergio, etc as good role players. I just don’t think they are.
I start thinking about players in comprable roles for their teams and the blazers just don’t stack up. I mean hell, Von Wafer kicked Travis Outlaw in the collective junk in the playoffs. Von Wafer.
I think it comes down to setting expectations for this time that are appropriate. Let them continue to grow, let them continue to play together, find the pieces that will help you win in 2-3 years, not overspending on a Kirk Henrich who isn’t that great anyway.
I’ll be happy if this team can prove they are capable of beating the TOP teams in the west on the road. Thats a realistic goal to shot for.
I like Sessions too. One small problem: Due to CBA restriction teams can't make him an offer with a larger starting salary than the MLE
Second round pick coming off rookie contract, the so called Gilbert Arenas Provision..
I would be comfortable going into next season with just two point guards. Bayless would get the experience he needs. In case of injury to either of the two Brandon could play backup point guard for a limited amount of time.
Not for long
Let’s say Blake had that shoulder injury and there was no Sergio. KP would’ve had to go out and find a PG out of the D league (or make a “desperation” trade) to play behind Bayless. Roy-Rudy-Bayless (or Blake) are not going to cover all 96 guard minutes for a 2-3 week stretch of the regular season. Either you swing Brandon to PG and Batum to SG (not great) or you need 1 more guard as a contingency plan.
And I agree with Dave, another rookie PG is probably not the best choice. I’d like to see the PG problem “solved” by upgrading the starting PG position and pushing Blake and Bayless “down” to the bench, even if it costs Jerryd developmental time.
In the end
I would like an upgrade at point gaurd, but the real weakness on this team is no backup for LeMarcus. outlaw does OK, but he is not really a power forward. We need a little muscle to wear down Lemarcus’ defender’’s a bit.
LeMarcus has shown the ability to play monstrous minutes in clutch situations, but if he gets muscled he gets taken out of the game as has a hard time getting back into it, his guy has the advantage. If someone can can off the bench and provide some rebounding and work on the other opposing teams power forward physically we will be far better off..
Goodbye Deke. The NBA will miss Mt. Mutombo
Support families in crisis in Portland www.give10tell10.org
We need The Birdman to smooth his feathers for the Blazers.
by MiledAnimal on May 26, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
bleah!
Right kind of player. Wrong kind of personality
He has the right kind of tats.
You sound a bit cantankerous today. You smacked Tom above like a Whack-a-Mole.
This is a problem that's going to get solved
There seem to be a lot of decent options through free agency or the draft. (Yes, including the Birdman. I like that idea.) Not as hard as the point guard dilemma.
Sticking up for Travis Outlaw since 2008 and Steve Blake since last week..
Not as hard as the point guard dilemma
Finding a better option than Frye, Shav, Diogu or Ruffin to play 10-12 mpg behind LMA may sound easy, but if the player is “that good” he’ll want more minutes. And if he’s not much better than those guys then where’s the toughness upgrade?
What about Nene?
Love that guy.
"...we have so many experts who think that you have to play defense, you have to rebound, you have to be a possession coach, you have to execute. I just laugh. Explosive offense is not as intimidating as dominant defense. But it is scary when you don't know how to stop someone." - George Karl, Nuggets coach
Dave is wrong about this
Here’s why:
1. Steve Blake is a steady, reliable back-up point guard getting starter’s minutes. While he’s not completely slow-footed, his inability to guard quicker, penetrating point guards (and there are many) cost the Blazers several games last season, and will again next year. His inability to penetrate and put pressure on the defense himself while on offense limits the number of easy baskets the Blazers get after defensive rebounds. Even with the 20 second rule, the Blazers rarely get fast break opportunities in part because Steve’s instincts are not to push the ball hard every possession (and Brandon is much, much worse in this respect). Plus, because Nate likes Blake’s low-risk, low reward style of offense, he doesn’t play quicker, more talented but less developed and skilled point guards in his place.
2. Sergio Rodriguez is not happy with his minutes, tired of playing for a coach that obviously doesn’t trust him to run the offense, and does not want to be here. Also, he is a poor shooter and plays awful defense, even when he’s really trying. There’s no way he’s still a Blazer after this off-season’s trades are done.
3. Jerryd Bayless does not have point guard skills. He is a middling dribbler and has very limited court vision. You can count the number of nice passes he made this past season on one hand. Blake and Rodriguez may be limited, but they are at least point guards. Each of them has had more creative assists in a couple of good games than Bayless had this past season. This isn’t a knock on Bayless – dishing dimes is not his game. He is a penetrating scorer, and would be most comfortable in an offense where he is called upon to do just that. His shot will come around at some point and he’ll offer some team the same skill set as… Jarrett Jack. Who the Blazers traded, because given the team’s make up, there are not really minutes for that kind of player. I’m not certain Bayless will be traded this off-season, but I think it would be the right move. Nate doesn’t trust him to run the offense, so he’s better off playing for someone else.
That leaves us with one back up point guard, and two guys who should play for another team where they can develop their abilities by getting minutes in actual games.
The clear problem is if we draft a point guard, Nate won’t play them. He’ll play Blake, because he trusts Blake, and the draftee will get reserve minutes, if that (because the team will also need a third string reserve, and as they’ll likely be a sunset veteran Nate will trust them more than the rookie and may play them instead). Nate is a meritocrat: those who play best play most. It’s not realistic to expect any rookie to come into the NBA and immediately play better than a veteran, especially a quality back up point guard like Blake.
So we have a conundrum. The best we can hope for is that the team is able to draft someone who is better than the veteran third string point guard the team can hopefully sign, so they get back up minutes until they prove to Nate they are his best option to start at point guard. I like Lawson best for this (as opposed to Jennings or even Rubio) because he’s both got years of experience against high level competition and is also more solid than Sergio (this is unclear with Jennings and Rubio).
Sure, Rubio is much better than Sergio (though they have some eerily similar traits), but Nate is not the right kind of coach to let a flashy, young, promising but turnover prone point guard develop. We know this for a fact. If the Blazers can’t get a veteran Nate can trust to run the team, they need to at least get an older rookie with the seasoning to earn back up minutes initially and the talent to run the team when he comes up to speed. It’s no certainty that any of the point guards in this year’s draft meet that criterion, but I trust that KP will be able to ferret them out if there is one, and hopefully get them.
Care to elaborate
“his inability to guard quicker, penetrating point guards (and there are many) cost the Blazers several games last season”
Specifically which games?
Dave,
Do you know of any statistic to measure how well a player keeps his man in front of him? I’m sure the Team keeps track of this but I don’t know if these stats are available to the general public. I have the feeling that this criticism of Blake is wildly exaggerated. When ever I watch other teams play, I see PGs getting around other PGs quite often (Rose killed Rando in game 1 of their series, it happens), certainly no more than I see guys getting around Blake. Most opposing guards do their damage off the pick and roll against the Blazers anyway, something the whole Blazers team needs to improve on.
by RABID_RABBIT on May 26, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Specifically
He is exposed against Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, and New Orleans, and surprisingly Philadelphia (Miller gives him fits). He’s wasn’t a main cause in the Utah, Dallas and Denver losses or the L*kers losses. His play against Cleveland and Boston isn’t what cost us in those games. But he was such a liability in the Golden State loss he played in that Sergio actually got more minutes.
The Clippers home loss wasn’t about not being able to defend, so that one doesn’t count.
I really remember the Philly game in the garden
Blake got owned by Miller, it was ugly and it is where philly won the game…
I like that Miller fella’ he could be the answer here…I loved what I saw of him in the playoffs and against us this year anyway…
Goodbye Deke. The NBA will miss Mt. Mutombo
Support families in crisis in Portland www.give10tell10.org
The best we can hope for is that the team is able to draft someone who is better than the veteran third string point guard
Geez, I can sure “hope” for a better PG solution than that.
KP needs to reconfirm his greatness this offseason. L*A made the deal for Gasol and has been in the WCF the past 2 years. Denver made the Billups deal and is smokin’ in the WCF
What have you done for us lately, Kevin Pritchard? (other than get a trade exception for Ike Diogu)
Looks at Roy, looks at LMA, looks at Rudy, looks at Batum
KP has done as well as could possibly have been hoped for in his stint here.
Differant Perspective
Keep Bayless, Blake – Remember that Bayless was a rookie last year let him have a solid year under his belt without having to adjust to the NBA from college to see how he does before we judge, we got plenty of time to be patient our guys are pretty young.
Trade Outlaw and Sergio plus a few picks – Trade these guys to get a solid back up PF a third string PG, and as many picks in 2010 as you can, this way we can take a year off of rookies just focus on the guys we have and plan to answer some needs in 2010 when the draft will be much stronger and all of the other teams will be focusing on FA.
It seems that everyone's real problem is they just don't drink enough coffee. They lose their edge, lose track of their priorities, and end up sleeping a third of their life away.
unfortunately
I’m starting to think this is really the only viable option…maybe it’s not a horrible one. I just can’t really come up with a Vet point guard that we could conceivably get without getting rid of someone we don’t want to get rid of..so….screw it.
Use sergio and our picks to get a decent 3rd PG and/or PF. Keep Blake, develop Bayless (by actually giving him some time….I’m looking at you Nate) and keep rolling. Let Frye fall off the books and pick Bass or someone for garbage/injury Forward minutes. Done.
Come on Martell, I hope that foot actually heals….
I have my P.h.D in unreliable hyperbole.
by Eat Politicians on May 26, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Blake may be slow laterally compared to almost every other starting point gaurd, but Steve Kerr did pretty well in this league.
Kerr started a total of 30 games in his 17 year career
and never played more than 20 mpg in the playoffs. Ehlo started fewer than half his games in the league and made it out of the first round as a starter twice in his career. Using them as examples hardly supports the thesis that Blake is a championship caliber starting point.
As far as Stockton, comparing Blake to him beyond the fact that they’re both white PGs is laughable. Stockton was all-defense five times in his career and is probably one of the best 5 PGs ever. I’d have no problem with Blake’s lack of mobility if he could do everything else remotely as well as Stockton.
Also Ehlo was a SG/SF not a PG.
Steve Kerr did get some rings though. Good plan, let’s get the greatest player of all time as a 2 guard and the man for whom the term “point forward” was created, and then having a guy as slow and uncreative as Blake off the bench won’t prevent us from winning!
by howlingfantods on May 26, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Turkoglu
could help with Nicolas becoming a point forward in a few years like Pippen.
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
by TheGreatDane17 on May 26, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
My Cavs fan nephew
would love it if we did that, Turkoglu is driving him nuts right now…
Goodbye Deke. The NBA will miss Mt. Mutombo
Support families in crisis in Portland www.give10tell10.org
yes
but he could poke people in the ribs laterally…
I have my P.h.D in unreliable hyperbole.
by Eat Politicians on May 26, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Rec thanks for the laugh.
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
by TheGreatDane17 on May 26, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I should have turned the sarcasm meter on before I posted the Stockton comparison, but it was too funny to pass up since the obvious comparisons were two other white point gaurd. The point being that both Kerr and Ehlo played a valuable roll on some very good teams at a cheap price. Keep Steve!
Steve by himself isn't the problem
it’s Nate’s unwillingness to play anyone BUT Steve at the point. He could be a valuable role player on a title-winning team, but he’s not going to be a guy playing 40 mpg on a title winning team.
For example, these are guys that played/are playing fewer mpg than Blake did in the playoffs: Melo, Josh Smith, Battier, Turkoglu, Mo Wlliams, Dwight Howard, Ron Artest, Tony Parker, Aaron Brooks, Mike Bibby, Rafer Alston, Nene, Scola, and Terry.
I don’t blame Blake at all, but either our front office is one of the worst evaluators of PG talent in the league, or Nate simply can’t allow a young PG enough leash to develop as long as Steve is around.
That to me is one reason I would consider declining the team option on Blake
If we traded for Conley or signed Sessions.
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
by TheGreatDane17 on May 26, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I was saying the same thing last spring
re: Nate’s man-love for Jack. KP has “got” to deal Jarrett to take the “play-JJ” option away from Nate
So I understand your discontent. But I think the solution this time around is to improve the starting PG position to the extent that Nate “has” to relegate Steve to the bench, where Blake would be one of the best backup PGs in the league
that’s why KP gets the big bucks. We don’t want to hear about the growing pains anymore, we just want to see “the baby”
The problem is, even when guys win the job
Nate goes back to Blake at the first sign of trouble. The much ballyhooed Blake-Jack battle during training camp ended with Jack winning the PG spot, and then after losing three road games against three of the top 5 teams in the west to start the season, guess who was starting? I’m not a big Jack fan or anything, but surely the guy deserved a chance to play a couple games at home or against slightly less daunting opponents before deciding to bench him.
The fact is, unless we go the Miller/Kidd/Hinrich route, I don’t think any of the younger guys being discussed (Conley/Sessions) will necessarily be seen in Nate’s eyes as upgrades over Blake based on what he’s looking for, and the fact is, if we get one of those guys, we need to start them, and let them play through any early struggles to benefit in the long run. It’s very rare for winning teams to switch up their starters mid-season (especially at PG), because there’s the sense of “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”, so unless they win the job in training camp, I don’t see Nate making a major rotation change like that midseason, in which case, we’re basically stuck with the same situation we have now.
I actually agreed with the decision to start Blake over Jack
Because Steve is a better complimentary PG to Roy than Jarrett
Nate tended to play Jack down the stretch of games when the team was behind. That was a Jekyll-Hyde situation if there ever was one. Jarrett won some games with his swash-buckling ways, but those ill-timed turnovers were his demise. (Nate gave JJ a lot more leash than he ever gave Sergio, that’s for sure. Probably because of the defensive end of the floor?) Don’t know, you’d have to try to drag that explanation out of McMillian. I’m just glad JJ eventually got the boot
Regardless
if Jack goes out and “wins” the job in training camp, I’d expect him to get more than three of the hardest games on our schedule to prove it’s his job. I certainly didn’t shed any tears about Jack leaving, but I think he deserved a little more of a shot to start after playing well the previous year as a starter, and apparently outplaying Blake in training camp. Obviously there were some other issues with his fit next to Brandon and our lack of bench scoring outside of Outlaw at the time, but those issues should have been apparent all throughout the preseason.
I’m just not confident that, no matter who we get, that Nate will be able to tear himself away from the short-term benefits of playing Blake huge minutes to the detriment of Bayless/Sergio/TBD.
Well, I'm sure Jarrett felt the same way re: the loss of his starting job
And I’m sure he told Nate about it, behind closed doors (not like Sergio)
It’s up to KP to improve the PG position this offseason. If he can go out and get a PG that is good enough to beat out Blake in the pre-season, Nate will play the new guy.
and if he doesn’t? There will be more people than as11osu calling for McMillian’s head
I'm not calling for his head just yet
I just need to see improvement and it needs to be this year. You can’t get destroyed in the playoffs again by an opposing coach two years in a row with this team and keep your job. Especially when there are glaring deficiencies in your coaching profile.
Maybe there's a Plan C
Ben’s Plan A and Dave’s Plan B both have their drawbacks. Neither gets the Blazers a truly solid starting/backup point guard postion for this coming season. (Ben’s plan leaves the team with Blake as starter and Bayless + a raw rookie behind him; Dave’s plan leaves the team with Blake as starter and a Bayless + a 2nd-rate vet behind him.)
But due to the reportedly growing financial desperation of some franchises, the Blazers really should be able to use their assets (players, draft picks, and—most of all—cash) to trade for a ready-made starting point guard. Not CP-3 or Deron Williams (I’m not even sure those guys would be compatible with Roy), but someone close to that level.
Then you have the new guy as your starter and Blake as your back-up and you’re set at the point guard position—both now and into the future. (If the new guy is still very young—e.g., Conley—then he might play behind Blake for all or part of next season.)
The cost of Plan C might be very high. But it would be worth it, because shoring up the point guard position is by far the Blazers’ greatest need going forward. I often harp on the team’s lack of a couple of big, physical “Maxsaps” off of the bench, but those guys tend to come cheap. Look around the league: Maxiell, Millsap, Bass, Boozer, Big Baby, Landry, Scola, Turiaf, etc: none of those guys were high draft picks. Most were second-round picks, viewed as “tweeners.”
So the Blazers will always be able to fill the “banger off the bench” role. NOW is the time to do something about the point guard position.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on May 26, 2009 10:46 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I like your assesment, particularly plan C
Well though out & good examples. REC IT GREEN.
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
by TheGreatDane17 on May 26, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
The Problem with "Plan C"
is that these “second tier PGs” are almost exclusively not located on teams in any kind of financial difficulties or are seen as future building blocks. Rondo’s untouchable, Kroenke can afford to pay Billups (and would definitely not move him, anyways), Conley and Sessions have been discussed and probably wouldn’t be considered close to that level, Parker is on a fiscally responsible team, Nets have no tax issues with Harris, Raptors are busy desperately trying to convince Bosh to stay, not dump Calderon. Beyond that, the guys you’re looking at are the ones that have been discussed ad nauseum here: Kidd, Miller, Bibby, Hinrich.
The only major PG who could potentially be available due to economic issues is probably Steve Nash, and even that is up in the air with how much Phoenix is attached to him.
Of course, there’s always Arenas if you’re talking about high costs.
You may well be right
Certainly Nash isn’t the answer—at this stage of his career, his defense is just too much of a liability. Imagine the Blazers finding themselves even WEAKER defensively at the point guard position. Nate would have to be institutionalized.
Having said that, I wouldn’t be too quick to assume that other NBA teams aren’t “in any kind of financial difficulty.” I don’t have any inside knowledge. But I DO know that this recession is hitting a lot of people that, only a few months ago, thought they were immune to it.
I believe this was KP’s thinking in electing to stand pat at the trading deadline. Given the ongoing international financial meltdown, he may have felt time was on his side. There are advantages to having the richest owner…
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
I agree that many NBA teams are in financial difficulties
just not the few ones with those “second tier PGs”. I think guys like Conley/Sessions/Ford/Hinrich will probably be available for a lot cheaper than they would have been before the recession, but those guys have been discussed a fair amount here, and I wouldn’t classify picking up them as making a huge splash.
When I think of the second tier of NBA points right now, I’m thinking of Rondo, Harris, Calderon, Billups, Nash and Nelson, and I wouldn’t classify any of those guys’ teams in serious cost-cutting mode, at least to the point of needing to give away one of those guys.
The only team in a serious financial crunch with a top PG is New Orleans, and that’s probably just shooting too high.
All we can do is wait & hope, I guess
Like vultures circling a seemingly healthy cow. Maybe one of those teams is in worse shape than they’re letting on.
BTW, I wouldn’t touch Steve Nash. In his prime, he was one of my favorite players, but his defense was always suspect. Now it’s just plain bad, and one thing the Blazers don’t want is to get WORSE at perimeter defense.
This goes double for Jason Kidd (who you didn’t list). At least Steve Blake can hit open shots with consistency.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Here is my pipe dream proposal
Trade drawer 5-25-09…assuming CP3 is no “untouchable” and NOLA needs salary-cap relief
Blazers get CP3 and David West
Hornets get LMA, Rudy, Outlaw, Sergio, 3 mil$ of Paul Allen’s money and draft choices
(feel free to drool)
I dream that I have X-Men-like powers.
I use ’em to get chicks, which I then raise and sell to Foster Farms.
Even if that were realistic, it's no dream scenario in my opinion
CP3 and Roy would not have good chemistry. Roy himself has said that playing with CP3 reduces him to a catch & shoot guard. That undermines everything special about Roy’s game—in particular his ability to control tempo.
Beyond that, West appears to me to be a head case, with much less upside than LMA. Granted, he IS more physical. But I think LMA is physical enough—as long as he has a brute playing alongside him at center (GO/Przy) and a Maxsap backing him off the bench (not beanpoles like Frye & Trout). Remember that LMA is younger and less-experienced than West. In the end, I expect him to be a much better player. I’d like that to happen on the Blazers, not the Hornets.
As for Rudy: keep in mind that he was an NBA rookie last season, playing a new game with new teammates—most of whom don’t understand and see the game like he does. In time, Rudy will not only learn the league, but his teammates will learn him. That’ll make all the difference.
So do I drool at your “dream trade?” Not really. Basketball is a team game; it’s all about how the pieces fit together. Is CP3 a great player? Sure. But I’m not at all convinced that Roy/ Oden/ CP3/ West is better than Roy/ Oden/ Blake/ LMA/ Rudy /Trout. Certainly not going forward.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Mike Conley
He knows where Greg likes the ball on the pick and roll, on the post or the lob. Not only that, but a happy Oden, is an improving Oden. What better way to make him happy in Portland-long term then to trade for his best friend? Oh by the way, who also fills a huge need ! Look what Olajuwon/Drexler did when they were reunited in Houston, back to back championships & that was when they were both in their prime. Conley/Oden would be allowed to grow together with Roy, Aldridge & Batum. I see great things.
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
by TheGreatDane17 on May 26, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions
MCJ = too small
please give the reason why you’re “fantastically positive” that Nate will be onboard with adding a 6’1" 180lb PG to the roster, much less starting him
Because he's leaps and bounds better than anyone we have on the roster
if Nate can’t play a clearly better player because of 2 inches he should be fired. Simple as that.
simple for you, maybe
but you’re not KP or Paul Allen, the last time I checked
I try to deal in what is, not the way I wish it was
(except when proposing CP3 deals…)
Right...
and KP overcame Nate’s mental burden in Jack’s case by letting him go. Hopefully in a similar move we’ll end up with a better long term point guard than Steve Blake in the not so distant future. KP will and should go after the better player not the bigger player, and that’s the way it should be.
"Too Small"
Isiah Thomas
Chris Paul
Rajon Rondo
Tony Parker
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
by TheGreatDane17 on May 26, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I once would have agreed with you
But the league has changed. Midget point guards are now able to penetrate at will, and that completely distorts the defense of opposing teams. How big is CP3? He’s as short as they come, yet he’s dominant.
I suspect that after watching Aaron Brooks shred his team in the playoffs, Nate is ready to rethink his anti-midget point guard bias. I certain am.
I’d still like Blake as my starter. But I’d love to get a Mike Conley to back him up—especially given his on & off-court relationship with Greg Oden. Conley is a born point guard, and Bayless is not. Bayless may learn to be a better distributor and defender, but I hate to be in the position of betting on it.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
I should have specified that Conley would start eventually--possibly immediately
But Conley behind Blake as “comedy gold”? I don’t see that, sorry. Steve Blake isn’t a terrible point guard.
Or do you feel you know the game better than George Karl, who regrets losing Blake?
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
I'm sure even George Karl woudl laugh at what you just said
he has Chauncey Billups and they’re very close to the NBA finals.
Steve Blake isn’t terrible. But he isn’t good either. Mike Conley Jr, especially towards the end of the year was good… very good in fact.
Karl wasn't suggesting he'd start Blake
But he said he’d been upset that the Nuggets let him go. Further, he said he’s all the more upset because Blake has corrected his only serious weakness—his 3-point shooting.
I think that (should our Conley fantasy pan out), Conley might beat out Blake in training camp. But more likely, he’d play behind Blake initially. Mike Conley is just 21, with limited NBA experience, and Nate isn’t the most patient guy around with point guard blunders. Or hadn’t you noticed?
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Did you just say that Steve Blake's only weakness was his 3 pointer?
If George Karl truly believeed that he’s not a very good judge of talent.
Steve Blake will be our starting point guard going forward.
Here’s why:
- He has significant weaknesses, sure, but so does every point guard in the league not named Chris Paul or Deron Williams.
- He’s a consistent, solid, veteran player who seldom makes bad decisions.
- He’s in his prime and will be able to play at a high level for several more years.
- He’s played with the Blazers two out of the last four seasons. He’s comfortable with the coach and players and they’re comfortable with him.
- There’s no one out there we could realistically get who is better and won’t cost a lot more.
- Whoever we decide to bring-in will cost players that could be used to meet other needs.
- The Blazers are entering their playoff contender phase and can no longer afford to develop rookies at any position. The only exception would be if Chris Paul were in this year’s draft and we held the #1 pick. Ricky Rubio is no Chris Paul.
Kirk Hinrich is the closest thing to an available, cost-effective upgrade out there, and his contract is twice that of Blake’s. Can KP fit Hinrich’s salary into a team salary package that includes big contracts for Roy, Aldridge, and Oden? If so, maybe a deal for Hinrich gets done, but that seems iffy.
Jerryd Bayless is the wild card. No one knows what kind of player he will become. He has the potential to supplant Blake as the starter and deserves a chance to prove he can do it, but that will only happen with minutes. All he has to do this season to earn 16 minutes per game is improve his jumper and his team defense. Those are doable goals. I’m against bringing-in a veteran backup point because Nate will go with that guy instead of Jerryd and the team needs to know what Jerryd can do before they can nail-down the point guard rotation for the next few years. If he shows no improvement next season, KP will Jarrett Jack him. That seems like the right course of action to me.
Assuming that Sergio does leave the team, I’m fine with replacing him with a D-leaguer to fill-in the practice team, learn the team’s offensive and defensive sets, and be ready to assume backup minutes if Steve or Jerryd are injured. He’d be cheap insurance and would be fine playing behind Jerryd.
If for some reason Jerryd not only shows no improvement at backup point this season but actually is costing us games, KP can swing a trade for a veteran PG by the trade deadline.
by MiledAnimal on May 26, 2009 11:08 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Ricky Rubio is not Chris Paul
More like Pistol Pete Maravich
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
by TheGreatDane17 on May 26, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
That's who he reminds me of too
Although probably without the shooting ability. They called him “Pistol Pete” for a reason.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Kirk Hinrich is the closest thing to an available, cost-effective upgrade out there, and his contract is twice that of Blake’s. Can KP fit Hinrich’s salary into a team salary package that includes big contracts for Roy, Aldridge, and Oden? If so, maybe a deal for Hinrich gets done, but that seems iffy.
Greg, LaMarcus, and Brandon will make a lot of money, but Batum, Rudy, and Bayless are rookies who will be very cheap for the next three years. By the time they are up for extension and more money, Hinrich will be off the books. His contract length is optimal.
Also, Travis and Steve will both demand more money in the summer of 2010. They won’t always be quite as cheap as they are now, so trading them for Hinrich would probably help us in the long-run, cap-wise.
Fearthesword.com: "There is no doubt that the long layoff, combined with the ease of the first two rounds had the Cavaliers a bit tired in the 4th quarter."
KP will be up against or over the cap
this coming Feb at the deadline, after extending Brandon and LMA
And at this point he has no “2010 RLECs” in his hip pocket
Don’t put off for tomorrow what needs to be corrected this summer. KP has yet to make a deadline deal of any significance
Something that no one has really talked about, or that I've heard anyone discuss
is the difference in value of trading guys like Outlaw and Blake today versus waiting until the deadline to do it. People at the deadline will be flocking to expiring contracts like we’ve never seen before, and how much is the difference in value of 8 million in expiring’s now versus in February.
Can't count on it
All I heard last fall was that other GMs would be flocking to acquire RLEC at teh deadline
Maybe they were, but it didn’t mean a deal got done
Now, I realize the 2010 offseason is a FA wonderland compared to 2009. But Outlaw and Blake’s contracts aren’t the golden ticket that RLEC was (with the insurance money paying Raef’s 2009 salary, etc) even if you combine ’em
If we would have traded RLEC to Memphis
Think they would not have signed Miles? hmmmm
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
by TheGreatDane17 on May 26, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
It wouldn't take much money to sign a backup PG before the deadline
and KP could always plan to have the cap space available for that. But I agree that he doesn’t like to make midseason trades.
Well if it came to that
They could always sign someone to a 10-day contract
But if they want someone good, who can actually compete for a job during training camp, the offseason is the time to get a move on
Blake cannot move his feet as quickly as the people he defends. He knows this. You know this. Everybody know this. The positive is that he is willing to work hard on defense to make up for it. He will play very far off the quicker PGs and dare them to shoot. He is active on the ball against people who cannot drive and finish well. Like anyone who has watched a game this last year, I felt like throwing my remote through the TV after watching Steve get burned, but it actually doesn’t happen as often as it seems. The PG getting scorched for a lay-up makes a bigger impression than when a wing defender gets lost and leaves a wide open 12 footer. Blake has glaring weaknesses, but he is not a detriment to this team. The only two things stopping this team from becoming a dynasty for the next decade is a point gaurd who can get GO the ball in situations that are perfect for GO, and Brandon Roy becoming a better interior passer. These things come with time. I’m willing to wait another year before making any changes at PG, but I also saw too many times when Greg had a man leaning over his hip and nobody passed the ball inside. Not Brandon, not blake, not Sergio. To take the next step, IMO, the Blazers need to address interior passing. I don’t think they need to start knee-jerking just to get one perimeter defender in the off season. The bigger questions are wing defense and back up PF.
by TPforprez on May 26, 2009 11:27 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree that the Blazers came nowhere near optimizing Greg Oden
He has good hands, and SO often he was open down low or, especially, cutting to the hoop. I assume that most of the Blazers have never played with someone like GO before, so there’s a learning curve.
Sure, GO was out of shape and rusty last season. But the team could have gotten so much more out of him at the offensive end. Instead, they tried to use him as a backdown post player, and that part of his game isn’t ready for prime time yet.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
While I disagree with those who drool over CP3 as a Blazer (see above)
…he WOULD make Greg Oden look like a #1 pick overnight. (The problem is that he’d also make Brandon Roy look like a run-of-the-mill spot up shooting guard.)
The challenge is for the Blazers to identify & acquire a quick, penetrate & dish-or-finish point guard who doesn’t need to dominate the ball like a Chris Paul does. That’s where someone like Mike Conley becomes interesting—particularly considering his already-established chemistry with Greg Oden.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Great, unselfish players find the best way to play together.
Paul wants to win. Roy wants to win. They would maximize each other’s talents. They would possibly become the greatest backcourt duo in league history.
by MiledAnimal on May 27, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Could be, but I doubt it
Great duos are ones whose natural tendencies complement one another. Roy confessed he wouldn’t be happy being reduced to a spot up shooter—something he’s not particularly good at.
The key to assembling a winning team isn’t accumulating a bunch of talented players. It’s getting players whose talents COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER’S. This is why all-star teams—e.g., US national squads—struggle to beat teams with far less individual talent. It isn’t necessarily that the all-stars are selfish. It’s more that they’re unfamiliar and unsuited to playing any role that doesn’t involve dominating the ball.
There IS only one ball, you know…
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Who says Paul would be the only one with the ball in his hands?
Or that Roy would only be a spot-up shooter? Which I don’t believe he said. Either way, I think he was just being respectful to Steve Blake. You do Paul and Roy a disservice by stating that they could not play well together. My point stands. You sit. And hurryup about it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one
Certainly, Roy’s statement served to support his point guard. But watching Roy play with Paul in the all-star game, you could see that he was uncomfortable. Paul is a VERY dominant personality. He would not surrender control of the ball to Roy or anyone else, in my opinion.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
"Statistic to measure how well a player keeps his man in front of him?"
Inside shot % allowed at 82 games in the counterpart section
Blake’s opponents got an estimate of 32% of their shots inside against him. Same for Bayless though. Sergio a bit better, allowing only 27%, probably better than league average.
“You could get a guy in his early-to-mid 30’s: a Kevin Ollie, Chucky Atkins, Bobby Jackson-type.”
These specific names are terrible, at this stage. and should not be considered. House was mentioned in the Point thread and he is one example of who you should consider.
I dont know
I have this gut feeling that Bayless will be coupled with another player and the point of the future will be a proven vet. I keep thinking about how the spurs owner was talking about Batum. I wonder if there is any possibility of a Bayless, Batum combo for Parker. The Spurs are done they need to start the rebuild now that would be a good deal for both teams involved, shoot Portland could even throw in a couple draft picks to sweeten the deal.
I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.
""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."
His stare became blank. It was apparent he was back in that place, on the Rose Garden's logo, picking up Aaron Brooks as the crowd nervously roared.
I don't think the Blazers would part with Batum. He's a big piece of their future now.
But the Spurs have shown succeptibility to cash inducements before. Sergio, Trout, draft picks, and a truck load of cash might pry Parker loose. But it’s not bloody likely. The Spurs would have to be facing bankruptcy.
I think that the Blazers will set their sights on vet point guards who are a rung below Parker/CP3/Williams. Those guys are franchise players, and realistically the Blazers would have to give up one of their Big Three to get another team’s star. Remember, Parker ain’t over the hill by any means.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
If it meant parker
Batum can pack his bags NOW….but frankly I don’t see it happening…
I have my P.h.D in unreliable hyperbole.
by Eat Politicians on May 26, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
It would be funny to see
Outlaw playing for coach Pop
Let's just say
that opposites don’t always “attract”
Pop would fit Trout with a shock collar
Everytime Trout made a bonehead play, he’d receive a shock. Sound inhumane? Personally, I’d take that over being screamed at by Pop any day.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Blazers won't do much of anything in the draft and here is the reason why:
Look at the big picture, the economy sucks and Portland can pick up decent veteran players on the cheap from teams, and the draft sucks and Portland doesn’t need to get any younger.
I think this is the reason KP didn’t make any major moves at the trade deadline. He knew that having cap space in the off season was going to be much more valuable than the already stockpiled draft assets he has. He can now trade or get rid of those draft assets to acquire the veterans needed at the positions.
I foresee moves by KP to give teams youth and picks to aquire veterans (i.e. PG, Outlaw and pick(s) for Hinrich/ Exception for higher pick then traded with Outlaw for PG or PF).
I don’t think the picks we make will stay or even land on this team. The real value for this team and for this economy exist in the veteran open market. I think there will be 2-3 players on this team moved and 2 new veteran pieces added. I don’t see a situation where draft picks replace or add much value given the weak draft.
Trade or sign a starting PG
Draft a banger PF...that's your job KP, now get it done!
Hope you're right
KP needs to make a screaming deal this offseason in the Gasol/Billups category. Something that will vault the Blazers into the WCF for years to come. The “slow growth” philosophy sounds nice and all, but Portland is at least one major piece away from taking that final step
My thoughts exactly.
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
by TheGreatDane17 on May 26, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Gasol/ Billups category?
Sorry, but the Lakers & Nuggets hit the jackpot with those deals. That kind of thing doesn’t happen every day. If KP pulls off something like that, we need to go ahead and erect a statue of him immediately.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Trade this years #24 and #32
to a team destined to be in the lottery (they wont know for sure) for next years #1.
Trade Outlaw, Blake and another #2 for Hinrich
Let Frye walk
Resign Shavlik
Sign Brandon Bass, Ron Artest, Brevin Knight.
by GreatOden'sRaven on May 26, 2009 1:53 PM PDT reply actions
Mike Conley Notes:
Look at where Aaron Brooks is at 24 years old, compared to Conley at 21. Very impressive for his age.
Offseason:
Trade For Mike Conley Jr
Sign Antonio McDyess & Othello Hunter
Draft Kevin Seraphin/Rodrigue Beaubois(Eurostash)
Another angle not discussed is Martell coming back
and how it could affect the second unit. Assuming Batum starts and Martell is healthy, the second team powered by Sergio or Bayless could be a fast breaking unit which would play to the strengths of both. The only worry would be if Coach Nate would let go of the reins and let them run.
The Point (Ben) wins!
I think you have to say that Ben made the more compelling argument. Even if only because he didn’t include the names Keven Ollie or Chucky Atkins in his post.
Plus I think his point is closer to what KP will do
KP loves to maneuver on draft day. Because of the perceived weakness of this draft, and as teams try to save money, it seems many teams may be willing to move down for a reasonable asking price. While this draft is weak, the one position that has depth is pg. If the pg that KP likes is projected to be available at #24 he may stand pat. Guys like Collison and Mills are currently projected to be there at #24. If the guy KP likes is Lawson, Teague, Holliday, Flynn, Maynor ect… he is going to have to move up. If KP finds the right piece, I don’t care if it will take a few years before he is ready. Let’s make a move to get the player.
I don’t buy that that means the Blazers aren’t committed to Bayless. KP’s job is to put the best talent and individuals that complement each other on the roster. If Bayless fails to perform that’s on him, not Nate. All this talk that Nate didn’t give Bayless a chance is disputed by the total number of turnovers and +/- stats. Bayless was given a chance and failed to show he was ready. I see a lot of potential and think Bayless will become a solid player while still a Blazer, but if he has to earn his way while another young pg is on the roster… GREAT!!!
I think we first try to package our pick with some players to land a veteran pg, I like Conley as option a and Hinrich as option b. If we can’t make that happen, then we try to move up and grab the young pg that KP likes best. Then maybe pick up Heytvelt (sp?) in the 2nd round. When the free agency period starts, if we didn’t land the veteran pg by trade, we sign Sessions to a max MLE deal. If the Bucks match the deal for Sessions (which the latest reports suggest they might not) then we decide to go out and be more aggressive on the trade market (willing to consider deals we would have nixed on draft day) or go to war with Blake again next season. If we get Sessions, we still have enough money to get a veteran pf to bang a bit. Sergio would be gone, likely Blake too if we have made a trade. We need Bayless or the rookie to step into the backup minutes at pg. Looks a lot like a team that is ready for WCF in a year and title run in 2-3 years.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
