Miami to Revisit Trade for Steve Blake?

I hadn't heard that Miami was interested in Blake, before. However, I'm not all that interested in trading him away. If this trade were to go down (maybe closer to the trade deadline when we know if Bayless can be the backup PG), what would you want in return from them?

2 months ago Gelvalst 41 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Huh

I just don’t see anything they could offer that’s of equal value to the Blazers, given Blake’s relative importance to Portland.

It would have to be a draft pick, I suppose; though since they’re probably picking late teens, it would take a little bit more than that.

by matthewcc on Sep 5, 2009 8:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

how bout Quentin Richardson?

lol

by In Walks Rudy on Sep 5, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Jermaine O'Neal?

but only if the Heat agreed to pay 20 mil of his ’09-10 contract!

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Sep 5, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

haslem for blake?

Trade for Luis Amundson!!Do it KP!!

by CroRupt on Sep 5, 2009 9:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Udonis makes over 7 mil

even if you add all the Euro-hold money (2.7mil) to Blake’s deal the salaries wouldn’t match

and I don’t think Steve is going anywhere, unless he asks to be traded

Blake is one of the best backup PGs in the NBA, we’re lucky to have him

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Sep 5, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree with

“I don’t think Steve is going anywhere, unless he asks to be traded

Blake is one of the best backup PGs in the NBA, we’re lucky to have him"

The Dude: Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!

by cavejunctionblazer on Sep 5, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blake is a pretty average backp PG in my opinion.

Kirk Hinrich 9.5 million
Jason Terry 9
Rafer Alston 5.2
Jarrett Jack 5
Lou Williams 4.9
Daniel Gibson 4.1
Steve Blake 4
Ramon Sessions 4
Nate Robinson 2.9
D.J. Augustin 2.3
Eddie House 2.8
Jordan Farmar 2
Ty Lawson 1.9
Jose Juan Barea 1.6
C.J. Watson 1
George Hill 1
Darren Collison 1

Without really digging into it I came up with 17 backup point guards and ranked them according to salary. Glancing over the list I just can’t believe that Blake is a substantially better backup PG than ANY of those guys.

The Blazers have gone so long with such a terrible PG situation that suddenly Blake feels like an amazing luxury coming off the bench. In reality I don’t think he gives us an advantage. At best he’s about average with the rest of the league as a whole. That doesn’t mean we should dump him obviously. He’s still better than what we’ve had in the past.

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 5, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just at a glance

with the exceptions of Hinrich and Terry, Blake is easily the most polished, skillful and professional PG on your list. Your point about reduced expectations is pretty interesting but it says something about the fans, not about Blake. How many Bedgers are actually claiming Blake is the best or among the best PG’s in the league? None, that I remember. We can still value what he brings to the team and to the games in terms of humanity, professionalism and error free basketball. He sets the bar high.

by oregonslee on Sep 5, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I started to write a rebuttal to NVE

but I couldnt have said it better my self. well done Oregonslee

C*mcast sucks!

by Blazermaniac77 on Sep 5, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I respectfully disagree.

Blake isn’t asked to do a lot in Portland’s offense. Roy basically hides his weaknesses and highlights Blake’s strengths by feeding him wide open three’s. He’s not asked to create off the dribble. He’s not expected to lock down the perimeter. He doesn’t draw fouls. He doesn’t generate steals. He doesn’t create mismatches. He doesn’t throw great lob passes. He doesn’t throw great entry passes. He just hits the 3 and doesn’t get into Roy’s way.

To call him the 3rd most “skillful” PG on that list is silly. He just isn’t asked to do the things that he can’t do. With the exception of Eddie House and Daniel Gibson I’m not sure there’s a guard on that list that Blake actually trumps in terms of his skill set.

I like Blake, I really do, but Blazer fans are crazy about overvaluing players. He’s probably a slightly above average backup point. Even the players that he’s clearly better than are so close in terms of production that you can’t really call Blake a huge asset. Ramon Sessions? D.J Augustine? Ty Lawson? Nate Robinson? Lou Williams? Blake is not a match-up advantage against any of those players.

He’s average and will look more so when he’s not playing the majority of his minutes next to Roy.

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 5, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i would disagree with these statements

If we gave half of those guys as many open threes as Blake shot, they wouldn’t shoot as high of a percentage. Half of those guys you mentioned are also scoring point guards, which we don’t ask Blake to do.
He takes shot’s he should take, makes a good amount of them, and handles our offense well. He is a pass-first point guard, and if we needed a scoring threat we would just put Bayless in, who is a slashing, scoring point who attacks the rim.
George Hill? Watson? J. Jack?
Blake is a huge improvement over Jack, Lou Williams now is the only point guard for the Sixers, which means he will start, and Eddie House is a punk who is a backup SG, rather then PG, because all he does is shoot. When we have the players to score like Brandon, LMA, Rudy, Greg, Martell (now), and even Outlaw (for as long as he is here), you don’t need a point guard who takes a lot of shots, just one who is smart and is a good floor general.
Oh yeah, and who can make open threes when the best player on the floor gets double teamed.

by clarkbar17 on Sep 5, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope.

If we gave half of those guys as many open threes as Blake shot, they wouldn’t shoot as high of a percentage.

Compairing Blake’s last season with what some of those guys have done in the past you can see that it’s not all that spectacular. Was Hinrich getting the same quality looks playing next to Ben Gordon? DJ Augustine playing next to Raymond Felton? Nate Robinson playing next to Quentin Richardson?

The fact that Blake can hit the open three is great, but that alone doesn’t make him one of the better backup point guards in the league. He barely beat Jack out for the staring spot and even then Jack got minutes in the fourth. Blake might be an above average backup, but calling him one of the best is hyperbole. It’s just not happening.

Eddie House: 45%
Jason Terry: 44%
Daniel Gibson: 44%
DJ Augustine: 44%
Steve Blake: 43%
Kirk Hinrich: 42%
CJ Watson: 40%
Nate Robinson: 40%
Rafer Alston: 39%
Jose Juan Barea: 39%

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 5, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK Nick, who exactly are you quoting or paraphrasing

that says Steve Blake is one of the best? Show the context please so your claim can be examined. Is he better, worse, or equal to the average league supply of PG’s or just compared to the guys on your list? Since he’s been a starter for several seasons now why not compare him to the other PG starters, why continue to compare him to that list compiled by salary? What makes a good PG in this league? Is it stats, is it wins, scoring versus assists; how about knowing the playbook and running the plays as designed, or maybe an indefinable quality like knowing the right thing to do at any moment. Maybe we are talking past each other and you are absolutely correct, but on an altogether different subject. I think we are talking past each has a valid but very different point to make.

by oregonslee on Sep 5, 2009 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's been stated a million time over...

that Blake is one of the “best backup point guards in the NBA”. A couple people said it above and I just don’t think it’s true. I’m comparing him to other backups because obviously comparing him to starters wouldn’t make sense in THAT context.

Blake is pretty average, slightly overpaid even, for his role as a backup point guard. I listed salary because that matters a ton when comparing player value.

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 6, 2009 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

where are you getting these stats from?

i am looking at NBA.com and all the 3-point stats are lower then those ones
plus, look at some of the teams you are mentioning, Boston, who had Rondo, Dallas, Kidd, Cleveland, Mo-will, CHicago, D-Rose, although not all of them are great teams, a lot of these back up PG’s could start elsewhere, but have great players in front of them.
and also, Rafer Alston was left open in the playoffs to fire up three’s and missed quite a bit, and if Blake was left open as many times as Alston, he would have made more, IMHO

by clarkbar17 on Sep 5, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m comparing Blake’s three point percentage last year to the highs some of those guys have shot in the past. It flies in the face of your assertion that “If we gave half of those guys as many open threes as Blake shot, they wouldn’t shoot as high of a percentage”.

Clearly a bunch of them have shot better than Blake in the past and a number of others are close without having the same quality looks as Blake. My numbers are accurate, I just rounded them, including Blake’s.

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 6, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Blake isn’t substantially better than any of those guys?

Some of those guys haven’t played a single game.

Nate Robinson is better than Steve at dunking.

Eddie House? Really?

CJ Watson?

George Hill?

Really?

Blake was better last year than the year before, and the year before he took the starting job from Jarrett. I didn’t notice that Jarrett particularly raised his game last year, so the gap between them increased.

Some of those guys have potential to become better than Steve, I’ll give you that much. Right now, there are only two that are clearly better. Steve is clearly in the top 7 or 8. Where he fits in that 7 or 8 depends on what attributes you value in a backup PG.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Sep 7, 2009 2:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

You actually think Steve Blake is SUBSTANTIALLY better than Nate Robinson? I have openly mocked Robinson for being a short little ball-hog. I don’t like his game, but yeah I think he’s probably better than Blake overall.

CJ Watson is pretty darn close, if not equal to Blake. He plays in a stupid system with a senile coach, but he does a lot of the same things Blake does at one quarter the price.

Eddie house is not better than Blake and probably the worst guard on that list, but he does a lot of the same things at a much cheaper price. Practically speaking, as guards off the bench, I don’t think there’s a notable difference in production from the two.

Jarrett Jack is better than Blake in a ton of ways, including defensively. Blake is a better fit for this system probably, but he is not SIGNIFICANTLY better than Jack.

The key word here is average. Blake is an average player who happens to fit pretty well into McMillan’s system. The question was, is Steve “one of the best backup point guards in the league”?

No. No he is not.

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 7, 2009 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you want a scoring PG

Nate Robinson is better at scoring. I’m not really sure I can think of anything else he does as well as Blake. Fewer assists, more turnovers, lower effective field goal percentage. Yeah, he can take a lot of shots and score more points accordingly.

If you took a poll of 30 NBA coaches and asked which player they would rather have, Robinson or Blake, at least 25 would take Blake. We’re talking point guards, the guys who run the offense.

Watson. Blake had almost twice as many assists in a much slower paced offense. Watson had lower eFG. Turnovers about equal. 2-1 vs. 3-1 assist ratio. Again, I would guess at least 25 of the 30 coaches would choose Blake.

Jarrett. I guess I’ll take Nate’s and KP’s evaluation over yours. Well, and most other people’s, as well. 82 games has Blake’s PG play at a net positive +1.2 PER for 48 minutes. Jarrett’s? -5.5. In far more minutes, Jarrett had fewer assists, but almost twice the turnovers (I don’t know how many were for stepping out of bounds). His eFG was significantly lower than Blake’s. Jarrett actually played pretty well as a SG, but as a PG he was well behind Blake.

House. 82 games gives Eddie a passing rating of 2.9. Blake gets 11.7. Steve’s assists per 48 are twice Eddie’s. Eddie gets a “Hands rating” of 17.2, Steve gets 28.6. We are talking about PGs, right? Bringing the ball up, passing, running the offense? Eddie can shoot the 3, which gives him a slight edge in eFG. But his assist to turnover ratio is less than 2 to 1, Blake’s is greater than 3 to 1.

Of course, stats don’t tell the whole story, and don’t tell the defensive story at all. But actually, Blake is not a horrible defender. He just can’t guard the really quick guys — and neither can just about any other backup PG in the league. Or, for that matter, any other starting PG in the league.

Average? Maybe. That means if you take the 30 starting PGs in the league, and the 30 backup PGs, he’ll be somewhere around the middle — maybe in the 25-35 range. I think Hollinger has him somewhere in the 20-25 range, but that may be too high.

If he’s the 30th best PG in the league, he’s one of the best backups.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Sep 7, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who does Blake play next to?

Is it Ben Gordon? Monta Ellis? Raymond Felton? Quentin RIchardson?

No. It’s Brandon Roy. Which makes all those statistics pretty useless. The year before he played with Roy he had a TS% below 50%, a PER below 10, and turnover % at a whopping 19.4.

Suddenly, stick him next to the second best SG in the West he has a TS% of 55.7%, a PER close to 15 (which is still average BTW), and a turnover % that has dropped to 13.6.

You can manipulate statistics anyway you want, but when it comes down to it, Blake is efficient because Roy does everything he can’t. He’s not one of the best backup point guards in the league. He just fits well next to the one of the best shooting guards in the league. It’s not the same thing.

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 7, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The year before is not a good measure

He played half the year with Milwaukee, and half with AI — one of the greatest killers of teammate PER of all time, perhaps. Denver wanted him back, but he wanted to come to Portland.

The year before that, he had a good PER.

The coach, the GM, the players, and most analysts see him as a great backup, at least, if not the starter.

He runs the offense. Go back and look at that post on the offense, and all those videos. He reads situations, and reacts accordingly. He’s got great instincts for what is happening. He’s obviously studied the game, and it shows.

I think you are lonely on this one.

Most teams would love to have backups with a 15 PER. Especially at the point, where 15 is typically better than average. A lot of teams don’t even have one backup with a 15 PER.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Sep 8, 2009 1:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He doesn't have a PER of 15.

Never has.

I don’t think Blake is bad, I really don’t. I just don’t think he’s one of the best. Top ten backup point guards in the league? Maybe, but not by a significant margin.

I don’t think it’s anything to be super pumped about. Now, Joel Przybilla is one of the best backup centers in the league. Same with Rudy at SG. That’s something to be excited about. Blake not so much.

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 8, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's obviously for Beasley.

He has real big man coach and not a fake one like Oden.

by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 5, 2009 9:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The author makes a mistake.

We’re still under the cap, we can not get trade exceptions until we go over it. And giving Blake away would drop us back away from that cap. I suppose it would free up $4 million in cap space, but I don’t know what that’ll get us right now.

μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.

Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by T Darkstar on Sep 5, 2009 10:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What doe this mean exactly?

“But also keep in mind that the trade exception the Heat holds from last February’s Jermaine O’Neal trade means Blake’s $4 million expiring contract can be had while sending less in return to Portland, which therefore could create a trade exception of its own.”

Would we get a 4million trade excep?

The Dude: Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!

by cavejunctionblazer on Sep 5, 2009 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

maybe what it means

is the Heat could deal a player like Daequan Cook (who’s only making 1.4 mil) for Blake and Portland would get “the difference” in the deal as a trade exception?

I’m not expert in these matters, we’ll have to see if storyteller (etc) wants to chime in on this

I still want Blake and Miller as the PG tandem, for at least this season and if it works out well, probably a few more years

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Sep 5, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Heat are over the cap, so they're the ones that could not receive more back.

And you cannot use a trade exception with a player to combine for a salary total.

by JordanLeDoux on Sep 5, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We are slightly under the cap (until we sign Pendergraph)

so right now if we traded Blake and got back only a draft pick, we would simply be $4M more under the cap. If we signed Pendergraph and went over the cap, and then traded Blake for a draft pick, we would have a $4M trade exception.

What the author seemed to imply was that Miami could use its trade exception from its O-Neal trade to send a player with less salary than Blake to Portland. They can’t do that. They can’t combine a trade exception with a player salary to take back a higher salaried player. They would have to send only a draft pick to use the trade exception, and the trade exception would have to be worth at least $4M (Blake’s salary).

Regardless, I don’t see us trading away Blake for anything that Miami would offer.

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 5, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It actually could work

The prohibition against ‘combining’ a trade exception with a salaried player is that you cannot add the two together to make possible a trade that is larger than the trade exception by itself. In this case, the trade exception by itself is large enough to make the trade work, so it’s fine.

For example, Portland could send Blake to Miami for a draft pick. From Miami’s perspective, they use their trade exception to take in Blake and send out the pick. From Portland’s perspective, they end up about $3.7 million under the cap after making the deal so it works from their side. TRADE ACCEPTED

Another example – Portland trades Blake for Cook. Again, from Miami’s perspective, they use the trade exception to bring in Blake. Sending out Cook generates a new trade exception for $1.36 million for the Heat. From the Blazer’s perspective, they end up about $2.3 million under the cap after making the deal, so it also works from their side. TRADE ACCEPTED.

Here’s an example of a trade that would not work: Portland trades Joel Przybilla for Dorrell Wright. In this case, the ‘theory’ is that Miami takes Wright’s salary ($2.89 million) and adds it to the trade exception ($4.26 million) to be able to match Przybilla’s salary ($6.86 million). However, this is the type of combining a trade exception with a player salary that is not allowable. TRADE NOT ACCEPTED

The basic rule is this – if the trade exception is larger than the incoming player salary, the trade works. The trade exception is larger than Blake’s salary, which is why the first two examples work. The trade exception is not larger than Przybilla’s salary, which is why the last example does not work.

by Storyteller on Sep 7, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blake for Cook example.

Right, but since the exception in that example is larger than Blake’s salary, it isn’t really combining the trade exception with Cook’s salary. It’s essentially two separate trades, right?

i.e. If Miami’s trade exception was $5M, then Miami has a remaining trade exception of $1M = $5M – Blake’s $4M salary and a new trade exception for Cook’s salary because that is essentially a separate trade. Miami does not end up with a single trade exception of $5M – (Blake’s salary – Cook’s salary)?

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 7, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

From Miami's perspective

it is two separate deals. From Portland’s perspective it is one. The league ‘breaks up’ trades from each team’s perspective, to give each team the most benefit possible from trade.

So, yes, Miami would have two trade exceptions after the deal. One for amount of Cook’s salary and one for the ‘remainder’ of the exception used to obtain Blake.

by Storyteller on Sep 7, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

^^^ Actually we are no longer under the salary cap.

I forgot that about a week ago it was revealed that we hadn’t renounced Shavlik Randolph (our FA) yet. Therefore, he is currently still counted in our team salary for about $825K, which makes us about $321K over the cap for the moment.

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 6, 2009 1:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

cavejunctionblazer -

No, Portland would not get a trade exception since trading away Blake for no salary coming back (a draft pick) or substantially less salary coming back would mean that the Blazers would go back under the salary cap.

by Storyteller on Sep 7, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but they go back under the cap by less than the value of the trade exception

since they started over the cap. So they retain the trade exception. Isn’t that correct?

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 7, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I put my long answer

into the other thread. I don’t believe that the Traded Player Exception would ever be utilized, so I don’t think a trade exception would be generated. But that’s just my understanding of the rules – I’m adding this to my list of questions to run by Tom Penn. Hopefully he’ll answer back and we can know for sure.

by Storyteller on Sep 7, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs