# Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal (merged)



## QRICH

Link]



> Steve Blake is heading to Portland, meaning he won't have to travel far to join his new team.
> 
> The free-agent point guard said today he has agreed to a three-year deal with the Trail Blazers. Though a Florida native, Blake and his family make their offseason home in Portland.
> 
> Blake averaged 8.3 points and 6.6 assists in 49 games with the Nuggets last season. He was willing to return to Denver but opted for Portland as the Nuggets were on the verge of finalizing a contract with guard Chucky Atkins.
> 
> "That's OK, if that's the direction they want to go," Blake said in a brief phone interview. "I just decided to go back to Portland.


----------



## blakeback

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*


----------



## HKF

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

Watch him get traded again. It's gonna be sad when they move Jarrett Jack and he blossoms somewhere else. Of his peers from the '05 draft he plays with the most versatile SG that kills his efficiency and numbers (although it's good to play with Roy). Hopefully he goes somewhere he's appreciated.


----------



## blue32

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

Nice!


----------



## Anonymous Gambler

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

Can someone say playoffs??


----------



## yuyuza1

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

Yea!!!


----------



## dudleysghost

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

This means Jack is probably gone. I like him as a player, but hopefully we can get another good player in return for him that helps us at SG or SF.

It also means Ime is gone. There is not enough MLE money remaining to pay him, unless he wants to take the bi-annual exception, which he won't.


----------



## Sambonius

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

I'm certain Pritchard already has a deal in place to send Jack elsewhere, that is why it took so long to acquire Blake.


----------



## hasoos

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

That deal blows. A step backwards.


----------



## stupendous

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

what was his contract size? ... so is Jack going to be shipped out now?


----------



## drexlersdad

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

I really consider Jack far superior to Blake. I guess I am the only one?


----------



## hasoos

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



drexlersdad said:


> I really consider Jack far superior to Blake. I guess I am the only one?



Noper your not the only one:biggrin:


----------



## GOD

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

Well color me shocked. I never posted this, but I have a semi-source who told me that Blake was not going to be a Blazer. I believed him completely. 

It looks like Jack is on his way out.


----------



## andalusian

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

I have nothing against Blake - but losing Jack will hurt...


----------



## hasoos

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

I am not so sure Jack is going anywhere. I thought Sergio would come in and show something this year, and while his play has improved in summer league as time went on, he did not do the things necessary to step up another level of NBA play. So that being said, and seeing as how Roy can only play one position on the court at once, they could be bringing him in for them to split time again. Maybe this time though, Jack will be the starter and Blake the bench boy.


----------



## dudleysghost

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



hasoos said:


> That deal blows. A step backwards.


How do you figure that? All we did in the deal was use our MLE to add a player.


----------



## Trader Ed

*Blake to sign with Portland*

Can not believe its not posted yet

if it is please merge

http://www.hoopshype.com/


with 15 contracts now someone will be traded very soon


Jack or Sergio or Martell or Joel or combinations? or ?


----------



## Spoolie Gee

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

I really dont like the idea of replacing Jack with Blake.


----------



## e_blazer1

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

I think it's a riot that whatever the Blazers do, half the board is thrilled and the other half is moaning and groaning.

Basic human nature, I guess.


----------



## Spoolie Gee

*Re: Blake to sign with Portland*

http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/368511-blake-back-agrees-3-year-deal.html


----------



## Damian Necronamous

*Re: Blake to sign with Portland*

How many damn PGs do the Blazers need?

Jarrett Jack
Sergio Rodriguez
Petteri Koponen
Taurean Green
...now Steve Blake?


----------



## SodaPopinski

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

Please don't tell me this is where we decided to blow our mid-level exception.

I like Blake, but dude is worth about $3 million per, and that's about as high as I'd go for him.

Still don't see any confirmation on OregonLive or any other Blazers source.

-Pop


----------



## sa1177

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



hasoos said:


> I am not so sure Jack is going anywhere. I thought Sergio would come in and show something this year, and while his play has improved in summer league as time went on, he did not do the things necessary to step up another level of NBA play. So that being said, and seeing as how Roy can only play one position on the court at once, they could be bringing him in for them to split time again. Maybe this time though, Jack will be the starter and Blake the bench boy.


Blake will be the starter and Jack the "bench boy." 

Jack has never shown the ability to be able to consistently feed the ball into the post. If you recall it was Brandon who had to feed Zbo in the post all last year. Blake has proven quite adept at feeding the post and thus will be more effective than Jack playing with Lamarcus and Oden.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

Cool.

Go Terps!


----------



## Damian Necronamous

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



drexlersdad said:


> I really consider Jack far superior to Blake. I guess I am the only one?


Steve Blake has suddenly become extremely overrated in the past few months. You are absolutely correct in saying that Jack is a far superior player.


----------



## hasoos

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



dudleysghost said:


> How do you figure that? All we did in the deal was use our MLE to add a player.


Because Blake is not a very good player. Any time a player who is not very good is eating up minutes that a more talented play could be in the game for, you are downgrading your team. I cannot think of any point of Steve Blakes career where he was actually a good player. Hell most of the best moments of Steve Blakes career are in a Denver Nugget uniform while playing against the Blazers.


----------



## sa1177

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



SodaPopinski said:


> Please don't tell me this is where we decided to blow our mid-level exception.
> 
> I like Blake, but dude is worth about $3 million per, and that's about as high as I'd go for him.
> 
> Still don't see any confirmation on OregonLive or any other Blazers source.
> 
> -Pop


not a Blazers source but a second source...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nba/article/0,2777,DRMN_23922_5628146,00.html


----------



## blue32

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Spoolie Gee said:


> I really dont like the idea of replacing Jack with Blake.



The issue with Jack being on the floor is leadership and general offensive flow.

Blake has it, Jack i dont believe does. I loved how the Blazers performed under Blake, not so much under jack. In fact i love sergio over jack...


----------



## andalusian

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



hasoos said:


> I am not so sure Jack is going anywhere. I thought Sergio would come in and show something this year, and while his play has improved in summer league as time went on, he did not do the things necessary to step up another level of NBA play. So that being said, and seeing as how Roy can only play one position on the court at once, they could be bringing him in for them to split time again. Maybe this time though, Jack will be the starter and Blake the bench boy.



I doubt this is going to happen with Green getting a contract for the year, the team carrying 4 PGs with another one on boil in Europe is a bit much. In theory Jack could be Roy's backup at the 2 - but I am afraid we will have to witness Jack getting a ring somewhere else.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

*Re: Blake to sign with Portland*



Damian Necronamous said:


> How many damn PGs do the Blazers need?
> 
> Jarrett Jack
> Sergio Rodriguez
> Petteri Koponen
> Taurean Green
> ...now Steve Blake?


Green may not make it, Koponen might stay overseas, Jack or Rodriguez might get traded. I realize it's a lot of "mights", so I would think that one or a few of those must come to fruition.


----------



## SodaPopinski

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

One thing I will say is that Steve Blake is an upgrade over any of the other players we currently have at his position on the defensive end of the floor, but that's not saying much.

I hope KP knows what he's doing here. I have no reason to doubt him yet. But this move just smacks a little of trying too hard to bring in a Wally Cleaver to appease the "we only want good guys" crowd, rather than looking for talent.

-Pop


----------



## Fork

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

Meh...he's okay.

I'm hoping that they structured his contract to decline in pay each of the three years, so we're not eating up extra cap room for after the '09 season. Utah does that fairly often with shorter contracts. Jarron Collins for example will make $2.35 million next season, $2.07 million the year after.


----------



## Spoolie Gee

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



blue32 said:


> The issue with Jack being on the floor is leadership and general offensive flow.
> 
> Blake has it, Jack i dont believe does. I loved how the Blazers performed under Blake, not so much under jack. In fact i love sergio over jack...


Jack and still very young and I dont understand how anyone can love how the blazers performed under Blake considering we were the worst team in the league that year.


----------



## Tortimer

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

I think Blake and Jack are about equal. I actually think Blake might be a little better with LMA/Oden but wouldn't have minded seeing Jack get one more chance this year to develop. I still wouldn't mind trading Jack and something for a better vet SF that can shoot from outside. Even if we keep both I think it could work with Jack being more of a PG/SG. We will have to see what happens now. I also think Blake is KP's and Nate's guy more then Jack.


----------



## sa1177

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Fork said:


> Meh...he's okay.
> 
> I'm hoping that they structured his contract to decline in pay each of the three years, so we're not eating up extra cap room for after the '09 season. Utah does that fairly often with shorter contracts. Jarron Collins for example will make $2.35 million next season, $2.07 million the year after.


I bet it's highly likely that the 3rd year will be a team option year.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



drexlersdad said:


> I really consider Jack far superior to Blake. I guess I am the only one?


I also like Jack. However, if he could net us something nice in a trade, it might be worth it. If it's a Jack for Hedo type of deal, then heck no.

Out of Telfair, Blake, and Jack, I was very happy that we stuck with Jarret. I just hope he's not on his way out because of this.

One other thing to think about is that if we're serious about competing this year (which I would think that we are), a duo of Jack and Blake would probably be better than Jack and Rodriguez. As much as I like Sergio and hope that he becomes what he's hyped up to be around here, he's just not ready for a major role quite yet.


----------



## Oldmangrouch

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

I must say I am surprised.

I can see 2 possible scenarios here.

First, the team has concluded that Jack is better suited to being a swing guard. Since Dickau and Freddie are gone, and there is no indication Rudy and/or Playboy Pete will be on the team this season, Jack will still get his minutes. If anyone is hurt by the move, it is Segio. My gut reaction is that this is what happens.

Second, the team has a deal on the table for Jack. The name that springs to mind is the Bucks. It appears Mo Williams is disgusted enough to take less money just to get out of town. The Cavs need an upgrade at PG.....but the only thing I really want from them is Varejao (which would require a S&T).

Anybody have any thoughts about what other team(s) might be after Jack?


----------



## dudleysghost

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



hasoos said:


> Because Blake is not a very good player. Any time a player who is not very good is eating up minutes that a more talented play could be in the game for, you are downgrading your team. I cannot think of any point of Steve Blakes career where he was actually a good player. Hell most of the best moments of Steve Blakes career are in a Denver Nugget uniform while playing against the Blazers.


So you're saying that Jack (or Sergio?) is a more talented player than Blake, but Nate will play Blake instead for no apparent reason? And we won't be able to add an equivalent amount of talent at another position by trading Jack?

I think the Blake haters are totally wrong about him, but even if they weren't, it seems like this is only the first part of a multi-part strategy. Even if Blake was a downgrade from Jack, if we get something for Jack that helps us more, it's an upgrade for the team.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



e_blazer1 said:


> I think it's a riot that whatever the Blazers do, half the board is thrilled and the other half is moaning and groaning.
> 
> Basic human nature, I guess.


Like you said, it's human nature and everyone has a different perspective on everything... Some people can't live without chocolate, some people hate it.


----------



## blue32

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



SheedSoNasty said:


> Like you said, it's human nature and everyone has a different perspective on everything... Some people can't live without chocolate, some people hate it.


I like white chocolate, does that count?


----------



## Fork

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



sa1177 said:


> I bet it's highly likely that the 3rd year will be a team option year.


Yeah, could be. But if he does break out and we exercise that option, it'd be a lot more palatable to me if it was for less money than the previous 2 years.

The MLE is at, what, $5.25 million? 

If, for the sake of argument, we gave him a 3 year, $14.25 million dollar contract, it's be better if it were $5.25 in year one, then $4.75 and $4.25 for the option year rather than $4.25, $4.75 and $5.25 for the option year. That extra $1 million in cap room might make all the difference after the '09 season.


----------



## WhoDaBest23

Meh. I felt Blake was always a little overrated. If this means, Jack is gone, then hopefully he can land the Blazers a nice swingman. I propose a trade to the Hawks for Josh Childress.


----------



## hasoos

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



sa1177 said:


> Blake will be the starter and Jack the "bench boy."
> 
> Jack has never shown the ability to be able to consistently feed the ball into the post. If you recall it was Brandon who had to feed Zbo in the post all last year. Blake has proven quite adept at feeding the post and thus will be more effective than Jack playing with Lamarcus and Oden.



We will have to agree to disagree. First of all, Zbo was a very hard player to feed in the post because of his height. Aldridge and Oden are both easier to pass to because of their size and reach. Secondly, I remember Steve Blake being better on the pick and roll with Joel, but as a post entry passer, he left much to be desired. 

Steve Blake to me, is one of those guys that will go out and play 36 minutes in a game, and they might as well have been sitting in the stands for all the impact they have on the game. Most games he scores under a handful of points. Most game his assist number is countable on one hand. His shooting percentage definitly lacks behind Jack's. His consistency blows. 

Both Jack and Blake suck and running fast breaks. With either one of them on the floor we might as well take fast breaking out of the offense, because if they run it, you will be the one offended for having to watch that crap. 

Jack tends to actually be a pretty consistent player. He averaged almost "Steve Blakes average" higher then what Steve Blake averaged in scoring per game. Other then that, statistically they are close. But Jack has upside, where I do not believe Blake has any.


----------



## mediocre man

LOL, wow I'm so shocked. I didn't see this coming at all. Next thing you know Jack will be traded or something


----------



## Sambonius

I didn't like Blake during the Telfair era, not because he wasn't good but he just wasn't a good fit to this team. As it is now, I think Blake will be a much better fit with our current starting lineup than Jack. He will play better defense, shoot better from the perimeter, and be able to push the tempo far better than Jack does. Blake may be a bit better now but I think Jack will at least be equal to Blake later in his career, but again, Blake will be a better fit in our starting lineup. Jack will likely fetch a good return when packaged with Przybilla. Good move.


----------



## BlazerCaravan

Blake/Sergio/Jack
Roy/Jack/Webster
Jones/Webster/Outlaw
LMA/Outlaw/Frye
Oden/Frye/McRoberts

Notice the nice gradation here, how we effectively have a three-player rotation at any two positions? Only Przybilla is the odd man out, and the rumors have been heavy on his door lately.


----------



## Fork

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Tortimer said:


> I think Blake and Jack are about equal. I actually think Blake might be a little better with LMA/Oden but wouldn't have minded seeing Jack get one more chance this year to develop. I still wouldn't mind trading Jack and something for a better vet SF that can shoot from outside. Even if we keep both I think it could work with Jack being more of a PG/SG. We will have to see what happens now. I also think Blake is KP's and Nate's guy more then Jack.


It would probably be a smart thing for them to do, clearing out a SF for a PG who could play for 2 years until Acie Law is ready. But this is Atlanta we're talking about....that's why it probably won't happen.


----------



## blue32

you sly devil


----------



## Spoolie Gee

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Fork said:


> Yeah, could be. But if he does break out and we exercise that option, it'd be a lot more palatable to me if it was for less money than the previous 2 years.
> 
> The MLE is at, what, $5.25 million?
> 
> If, for the sake of argument, we gave him a 3 year, $14.25 million dollar contract, it's be better if it were $5.25 in year one, then $4.75 and $4.25 for the option year rather than $4.25, $4.75 and $5.25 for the option year. That extra $1 million in cap room might make all the difference after the '09 season.


I dont think the CBA allows for player salaries to go down from one year to the next.


----------



## SheedSoNasty

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



blue32 said:


> I like white chocolate, does that count?


Only if you're willing to trade 2 chocolate bars for 1 and a chocolate bar to be named later.


----------



## Schilly

Blake + SF return for Jack/Webster/Joel > Jack at PG and ??? at SF.


----------



## Spud147

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



drexlersdad said:


> I really consider Jack far superior to Blake. I guess I am the only one?


Nope, you're not the only one. I love Jack and will be really disappointed if he gets traded. Sometimes I feel like I'm not watching the same players as everyone else. I don't think Jack has been given enough of a chance to learn the point guard position and cringe when people talking about Sergio starting!

I love Jack's size, his defense, his high basketball IQ, and know he is going to work hard enough to reach all of his potential. He's a winner, I want him to stay for a long time.


----------



## Fork

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Spoolie Gee said:


> I dont think the CBA allows for player salaries to go down from one year to the next.


Utah has done it on several occasions. Jarron Collins was one example. Marcus Camby for Denver is another. His salary declines by a half million in the last year of his contract.


----------



## sanfranduck

I'll be very curious to see what the numbers are on this deal. Because the rumor early in free agency was that Blake wanted $6M per year, or at least the full MLE. We've been hearing in the last few days that he had backed off of that demand. If we gave him the full MLE, then Udoka is gone - but could Portland possibly have signed him to a deal in the $3.5 - $4M per year range, with an eye towards leaving a bit of space for Ime? 

All signs continue to point towards Udoka being a very low priority for the Blazers, but who knows.


----------



## Fork

Schilly said:


> Blake + SF return for Jack/Webster/Joel > Jack at PG and ??? at SF.


I think that would depend on the ??? wouldn't it?


----------



## Tortimer

I was just reading Quick's blog and he said Blake's 3rd year is probably a team option. So, if it is I think that is a lot better. If we don't need him we can let him go for cap space in two years.


----------



## Tince

I hear its a 3rd year option...

The decline contract would be ideal for both parties actually in this case. Especially if the 3rd year was a team option.


----------



## Schilly

Fork said:


> I think that would depend on the ??? wouldn't it?


Of course...and the Return for the 3 listed would also be a factor.


----------



## Samuel

Perhaps this move is less a sign that Jack is gone and more a sign that the team is taking a long-term approach with Sergio.


----------



## Schilly

Tortimer said:


> I was just reading Quick's blog and he said Blake's 3rd year is probably a team option. So, if it is I think that is a lot better. If we don't need him we can let him go for cap space in two years.


Didn't Quick just announce that Blake was signing in Denver?>


----------



## Draco

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*

My initial thoughts on the signing:

1. I hope the 3rd year is a team option. If the deal declined in value that would be a positive as well but the main thing I want is the ability to cut Blake in the summer of '09 if that is to the teams advantage.

2. Sergio is the clear man out from this trade, at least in the short term. He struggled last year and appears to have similar problems this year from practice and summer league. A 3 guard rotation of Blake, Roy, Jack is much improved. In 2-3 years if Sergio has improved his game then we can get rid of Blake and give Sergio those minutes.

3. The team now has the option to shop Jack if a beneficial trade presents itself. There is no need to dump him, but before the team would have had Sergio and Green at PG, now if Jack is traded Blake and Sergio would be a much better tandem. I do hope Jack is NOT traded unless it is a very nice offer, as I think he would be a great combo guard off the bench on a title contender.


----------



## Foulzilla

Others have said it, so I'm just agreeing, but I like Jack a little better then Blake. However, if we can get a good prospect by trading Jack, then I'm ok with this move. Basically, is Blake + traded player better then Jack + available signed player? Hopefully we'll know soon if this is the case.


----------



## Kmurph

Quick just reported the 3rd year was a team option


----------



## Samuel

I'm really interested in seeing how much the contract is worth. I have a feeling that teams were offering him around 4m for 3 years and Portland offered the full MLE with a team option for the 3rd year. I suppose they figure that they don't need to worry about the cap until 09-10 anyway.


----------



## Spoolie Gee

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Fork said:


> Utah has done it on several occasions. Jarron Collins was one example. Marcus Camby for Denver is another. His salary declines by a half million in the last year of his contract.


I think your right. I was thinking about the rookie scale.


----------



## dudleysghost

One other possibility is that we have a deal in place to move Sergio. It doesn't seem likely, but if some other team wants to overpay, then we should let them.


----------



## Spoolie Gee

Kmurph said:


> Quick just reported the 3rd year was a team option


That makes me feel a lot better about this.


----------



## talman

Schilly said:


> Didn't Quick just announce that Blake was signing in Denver?>


:lol: 

Good point!


----------



## Kmurph

> I'm really interested in seeing how much the contract is worth. I have a feeling that teams were offering him around 4m for 3 years and Portland offered the full MLE with a team option for the 3rd year.


I am fine with that, as long as the team has an option to let Blake walk in 09...

but I'd like to see what the 2nd step in this process will be...b\c POR is overloaded at PG and PF...and really could use a SF and in particular...an outside shooter....


----------



## sa1177

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Spud147 said:


> I love Jack's size, *his defense*, his high basketball IQ, and know he is going to work hard enough to reach all of his potential. He's a winner, I want him to stay for a long time.



??? Jack's defense is mediocre at best....the Blazers were consistently burned at the PG position last year on the defensive end. Blake is a significant upgrade on the defensive end IMO.


----------



## crowTrobot

jack was no worse at feeding the post than anyone else, and he was never ALLOWED to push tempo, so wasn't able to develop that skill like he might have if we ran more. surprisingly for all the flack he took jack had one of the lowest turnovers/48 of any starting PG in the league, he was in the top 30% for PG and still improving from 3pt, and was obviously one of the best in the league from the line. he also showed excelent defensive ability at times, just not always the effort needed which i think was more a confidence issue than due to attitude.

wherever he ends up he will be a FAR superior player to blake in a year or two, if not this coming season. if he is gone we damn well better get something good in return.


----------



## Samuel

Kmurph said:


> but I'd like to see what the 2nd step in this process will be...b\c POR is overloaded at PG and PF...and really could use a SF and in particular...an outside shooter....


I'm kinda scared Portland is going to package Przybilla AND Jack for a guy like Turk, which is overpaying IMO.

I'd want a guy in Maggette's class if we were trading the two of them together.


----------



## Samuel

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



sa1177 said:


> ??? Jack's defense is mediocre at best....the Blazers were consistently burned at the PG position last year on the defensive end. Blake is a significant upgrade on the defensive end IMO.


Agreed. I'll always remember that Blake marked Kobe when we played them.


----------



## crowTrobot

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



sa1177 said:


> ??? Jack's defense is mediocre at best....the Blazers were consistently burned at the PG position last year on the defensive end. Blake is a significant upgrade on the defensive end IMO.



no he's not lol. neither is great right now, but jack has the potential to become a much better defender. blake does not.


----------



## Schilly

IMO the team thinks Sergio is going to be a better PG than Jack. They also thing Blake is better for the team right now. In the next 2 seasons if Sergio passes Blake then Blake can step back into the reserve role, if not, we pick up the option in the 3rd year and keep Sergio at the backup.

Jack is going to expect to start.


----------



## crandc

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



SheedSoNasty said:


> Like you said, it's human nature and everyone has a different perspective on everything... Some people can't live without chocolate, some people hate it.


People who don't like chocolate are seriously perverted.

I do think nearly everyone liked the Oden pick.


----------



## sa1177

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



crowTrobot said:


> no he's not lol. neither is great right now, but jack has the potential to become a much better defender. blake does not.


yes he is...take a look at the scoring output from our opponents PG's last year and it's easy to see. Do you not recall Blake playing very nice defense on Kobe when he was here. He shadowed Kobe all over the court very very effectively as I recall, did a great job of simply denying Kobe the ball. 

Care to explain why Jack has greater potential then Blake to be a good defender?


----------



## Samuel

Schilly said:


> Jack is going to expect to start.


So do you think Przybilla _and_ Jack are gone? I figure that if Jack is leaving he's probably going to be paired with another player, as his deal won't allow us to go out and get a proven SF with a MLE-type contract.


----------



## Sambonius

Samuel said:


> So do you think Przybilla _and_ Jack are gone? I figure that if Jack is leaving he's probably going to be paired with another player, as his deal won't allow us to go out and get a proven SF with a MLE-type contract.


I think in the end it will be Jack and Przybilla as the principles in any deal. Jack is a nice young point guard and Joel can contribute right away as a solid center. I however don't think Martell Webster will be spared if the return is something exquisite.


----------



## crowTrobot

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



sa1177 said:


> yes he is...take a look at the scoring output from our opponents PG's last year and it's easy to see. Do you not recall Blake playing very nice defense on Kobe when he was here. He shadowed Kobe all over the court very very effectively as I recall, did a great job of simply denying Kobe the ball.


i'd actually challenge that if i had the time to check it. the only opposing PG i recall being a problem was parker. i recall nash's and deron's scoring actually being below their avg against us. anyway i agree jack wasn't always great, but i watched a lot of blake in denver including the playoffs and he showed nothing special on D. parker killed him just as bad as he killed jack.



> Care to explain why Jack has greater potential then Blake to be a good defender?


athletic ability, youth.


----------



## andalusian

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



crandc said:


> I do think nearly everyone liked the Oden pick.


There are about 29 teams in the NBA that were very much upset about it.


----------



## Kmurph

> Jack is going to expect to start


I agree with this point...this is his 3rd year, I doubt he would be thrilled with coming off the bench...and McMillan's Jeckyl & Hyde approach to Jack seems to indicate to me that he is not sold on Jack as the starter either....

ATL allegedly offered Childress for Jack...I agree a 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 deal needs to happen...

Marvin Williams
Mike Miller
Tayshaun Prince
Corey Maggette

I'd be very happy to see any of these guys coming in for a JJ, Joel, Webster? package....

Shane Battier
Josh Childress

would be ok...but not overly thrilled

Other possible options?
Caron Butler
Danny Granger
Boris Diaw
Lamar Odom
Hakim Warrick
Antawn Jamison
Al Harrington
Josh Smith 
Hedo turkoglu
Adam Morrison
Mike Dunleavy
Kyle Korver
Quentin Richardson
Mickael Pietrus

Fat chance...but would be awesome (particularly 1st 2)
Michael Redd
Joe Johnson
Josh Howard
Richard Hamilton
Kevin Martin
Shawn Marion


----------



## hasoos

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



sa1177 said:


> yes he is...take a look at the scoring output from our opponents PG's last year and it's easy to see. Do you not recall Blake playing very nice defense on Kobe when he was here. He shadowed Kobe all over the court very very effectively as I recall, did a great job of simply denying Kobe the ball.
> 
> Care to explain why Jack has greater potential then Blake to be a good defender?


One game does not make a career. If I remember right, that was one game where Blake had one of his best games as a Blazer. He typically had one good game every 3 or 4 games. That one happened to be one of his best. Yet when it comes to mentioning how many times Blake played significant minutes and put up 0 or 2 points on the scoring board, nobody is quick to bring up that as one of his qualities. Go take a look at the game logs. It is flat out scary how many times he basically has no impact on the game.


----------



## Kmurph

Allegedy 2 yrs @ $5.5 mil per...with 3rd year Team option

This makes sense to me...

Steve gets $11 million in 2 years...and then will likely his team option will not be picked up in 09'...but he still gets very good money IMO...and it doesn't really hurt the team capwise....


----------



## jwhoops11

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Oldmangrouch said:


> Anybody have any thoughts about what other team(s) might be after Jack?


Maybe the first shoe has dropped in a Blazers/Clippers trade...

Blake re-signs making Jack tradeable.

Pryzbillas BYC changes in a few days.

Then a trade involving Martel/Jack and Pryz

for Magette and Aaron Williams

Sounds reasonable enough to me.


----------



## southnc

WoW! - This is a shocker! :eek8: 

I really expected Blake to head to either Miami, Cleveland, or stay put in Denver. I think the Nuggets are nuts to have AI and Atkins in the same back-court. :krazy: 

Man, this must be Friday the 13th. The Mo Williams situation with the Bucks in Miami supposedly had Blake handcuffed until Mo made up his mind. It looks like Denver moved first with Atkins and Blake apparently had seen enough and went with Portland.

Regardless, I think this will be a good marriage. Does anyone know Blake's contract amount?

Also, I here Dixon might be available...


----------



## Samuel

Kmurph said:


> Allegedy 2 yrs @ $5.5 mil per...with 3rd year Team option
> 
> This makes sense to me...
> 
> Steve gets $11 million in 2 years...and then will likely his team option will not be picked up in 09'...but he still gets very good money IMO...and it doesn't really hurt the team capwise....


Link?


----------



## dudleysghost

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



hasoos said:


> One game does not make a career. If I remember right, that was one game where Blake had one of his best games as a Blazer. He typically had one good game every 3 or 4 games. That one happened to be one of his best. Yet when it comes to mentioning how many times Blake played significant minutes and put up 0 or 2 points on the scoring board, nobody is quick to bring up that as one of his qualities. Go take a look at the game logs. It is flat out scary how many times he basically has no impact on the game.


Blake doesn't have a big impact on the stat sheet, but he has a nice impact on the scoreboard, which is more important.

http://www.82games.com/0607/0607DEN.HTM


----------



## Samuel

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



jwhoops11 said:


> Aaron Williams


:sour:


----------



## jwhoops11

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Samuel said:


> :sour:


Aaron Williams is another expiring deal...

The Blazers would rid themselves of Joels contract, and the need to re-sign Jarret and Martel.

Plus, I think the Clips would want another youngster in return for Maggette.


----------



## sa1177

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



crowTrobot said:


> athletic ability, youth.


IMO Blake is more athletic then Jarret. Certainly quicker. I could argue that expierience trumps youth. 

All and all it's a matter of oppinion that has and will be decided by those more knowledgeable then us. I trust in Nate and KP to make the right decision.


----------



## Masbee

Whoa. I was wrong about Blake.

The early signs were that Portland wasn't that interested in pursuing him, that Denver wanted him back, that several other teams had interest, and that Blake wanted too much in terms of $$ (full MLE) and years.

I was sure he would sign with another team.

I know Denver has big lux tax issues looming, so they probably had a big cap on what they were willing to spend on Blake. I suppose the other teams didn't pony up for a too-good-to-pass-up type contract. I suppose Portland DID have interest in Blake as long as they only guaranteed 2 years.

Most surprising is that Blake would ink a deal only guaranteed for 2 seasons. You would think it fairly likely he could have got more years from another team.

Steve must have REALLY wanted to be able to spend extra time with his family during the season. Family values pay off for the Blazers. Wonder how much ceddar Steve left on the table?

By the way - the team now has 3 combo guards - Roy, Jack and Blake. It could work for one season I suppose. Though a trade seems obvious.


----------



## Samuel

Apparent In/Out: *(starters in Bold)*

IN:
*Blake*, PG
Green, PG
J. Jones, SF
McRoberts, PF
*Oden*, C
Frye, PF/C

OUT:
Dickau, PG
F. Jones, SG
*Udoka*, SF
*Randolph*, PF
Magloire, C

That's a decent amount of turnover.


----------



## Samuel

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



jwhoops11 said:


> the need to re-sign Jarret and Martel.


I don't think Martell is playing well enough that he'd demand serious money on the open market. So basically we'd move a scrub in Williams for a scrub w/ upside in Martell? No thanks.


----------



## zagsfan20

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



SodaPopinski said:


> One thing I will say is that Steve Blake is an upgrade over any of the other players we currently have at his position on the defensive end of the floor, but that's not saying much.
> 
> I hope KP knows what he's doing here. I have no reason to doubt him yet. *But this move just smacks a little of trying too hard to bring in a Wally Cleaver to appease the "we only want good guys" crowd, rather than looking for talent.*
> 
> -Pop


What does that say about getting rid of Jones, Dickau and possibly Udoka?


----------



## Ed O

I like it. I'm not a HUGE Blake fan, but I put him on about the same level as Jack, and this seems to clear up an opportunity to trade JJ.

Between Sergio, Koponen, and the remarkable draft class of PGs in 2008, we should be able to replace Jack's long-term potential... and Blake replaces his near-term value.

Good job by the Blazers to add another asset just by writing a check!

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Spud147 said:


> Nope, you're not the only one. I love Jack and will be really disappointed if he gets traded. Sometimes I feel like I'm not watching the same players as everyone else. I don't think Jack has been given enough of a chance to learn the point guard position and cringe when people talking about Sergio starting!
> 
> I love Jack's size, his defense, his high basketball IQ, and know he is going to work hard enough to reach all of his potential. He's a winner, I want him to stay for a long time.


You forgot to mention his inability to hit a jumpshot, his ineptness at running a fast break and his absolute horrible ability to get big men the ball downlow.


----------



## Dan

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



zagsfan20 said:


> What does that say about getting rid of Jones, Dickau and possibly Udoka?


I know what it says.

It says they hate 2 black guys from Portland, and the white guy from Vancouver (hate him twice actually).

And it seems funny that we keep getting guys from Seattle too...and Joel is a white guy..and so is Blake..

oh my god! we're..um..

upgrading in talent. 


just so we're clear, I'm not trying to suggest anything about what you said Zagsfan..but it's no coincidence you're a white dude in Vancouver.


----------



## southnc

The Denver situation was more desperate than you realize. They are so far over the cap that they literally have to pay a luxury tax on every dollar spent on Blake. In other words, if Blake cost them 4M / year, the actual amount with the Luxury Tax included would be double or 8M / year! :eek8:


----------



## hasoos

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



dudleysghost said:


> Blake doesn't have a big impact on the stat sheet, but he has a nice impact on the scoreboard, which is more important.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0607/0607DEN.HTM



1. So does Luke Schencher and Juan Dixon according to that system.
2. Nice impact? They were nearly the same as on court as without him. All of these stats are a per 48 minute basis:

http://www.82games.com/0607/06DEN3D.HTM

Look down the line in stats. Almost every single one of them is almost zero effect for him being on or off the court. A point positive here. A point negative there. Virtually no difference.

These statistics really are more of an indicator of how a team he was playing on did, then what his his impact to the game was.


----------



## crowTrobot

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



zagsfan20 said:


> You forgot to mention his inability to hit a jumpshot,



lol what stats are you looking at? last year jack was above avg. for starting PG's in pretty much all aspects of shooting. shooting was not the problem.


----------



## barfo

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



zagsfan20 said:


> You forgot to mention his inability to hit a jumpshot, his ineptness at running a fast break and his absolute horrible ability to get big men the ball downlow.


And his facial expression (singular). Every photo of Jack could be captioned "Somebody just killed my puppy.". 

I'd prefer to trade Jack for someone with a range of expressions. Even Zach, with Bell's palsy, had better expressiveness. 

If Jack's sole expression was world-class, you could imagine keeping him as a role player. But it isn't; he's gotta go.

barfo


----------



## soonerterp

I was wrong.

Blake seemed more "appreciated" in Denver than in Portland -- George Karl loved him just as much as McMillan does. Not to mention in Denver he got to wear his REAL jersey number, which is #25, which belongs to Travis Outlaw ... but thats neither here nor there.

But I was very surprised when Denver made a move for Chucky Atkins.
_[REMAINDER REDACTED BECAUSE I SOMEHOW MANAGED TO GET CHUCKY MIXED UP WITH BREVIN KNIGHT. THANKS SOUTHNC FOR STRAIGHTENING ME OUT!]_

I like the idea of Blake back in Portland, which should NEVER have traded him to begin with (although that was Patterson and NOT Pritchard's idea) ... but I don't like what it means for Jarrett Jack ... although there are teams out there (Cleveland, Atlanta) that could use an upgrade at PG and Jack could be it and maybe perhaps send back a small forward in return?

In defence of Blake's performance THEN versus what might be next season, consider that there has been a significant amount of roster turnover between 2005-2005 and now, and I'd venture to say that players like Roy, Aldridge, et cetera are SIGNIFICANTLY more talented than what was there before, and what's more THEY ARE MORE DEDICATED. Blake's never played alongside those guys. Fans could be in for a surprise.


----------



## el_Diablo

> Most surprising is that Blake would ink a deal only guaranteed for 2 seasons. You would think it fairly likely he could have got more years from another team.
> 
> Steve must have REALLY wanted to be able to spend extra time with his family during the season. Family values pay off for the Blazers. Wonder how much ceddar Steve left on the table?


I don't think anyone was willing to pay him full MLE for three years.. guaranteed two years at $5,5M a year is a lot better than guaranteed 3 years at, for example $4M per year.

I mean surely he can get a $1M deal for a year in 2009 from somewhere.

edit: of course, I didn't think of even longer contracts at all, though..


----------



## southnc

soonerterp said:


> I was wrong.
> 
> Blake seemed more "appreciated" in Denver than in Portland -- George Karl loved him just as much as McMillan does. Not to mention in Denver he got to wear his REAL jersey number, which is #25, which belongs to Travis Outlaw ... but thats neither here nor there.
> 
> But I was very surprised when Denver made a move for Chucky Atkins. When Blake and Atkins were on the Wizards together, Blake pretty much outplayed him and wound up becoming Gilbert Arenas' primary backup (IIRC this was before Blake got hurt and missed something like 25-30 games during the 2004-2005 season).
> 
> I like the idea of Blake back in Portland, which should NEVER have traded him to begin with (although that was Patterson and NOT Pritchard's idea) ... but I don't like what it means for Jarrett Jack ... although there are teams out there (Cleveland, Atlanta) that could use an upgrade at PG and Jack could be it and maybe perhaps send back a small forward in return?


Actually, Atkins was acquired when Kwame was traded, which was the reason Blake left. They never really played together.

Are you actually referring to Bevin Knight? - Blake did beat him out for the 2nd PG position behind Arenas.


----------



## Draco

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



barfo said:


> And his facial expression (singular). Every photo of Jack could be captioned "Somebody just killed my puppy.".
> 
> I'd prefer to trade Jack for someone with a range of expressions. Even Zach, with Bell's palsy, had better expressiveness.
> 
> If Jack's sole expression was world-class, you could imagine keeping him as a role player. But it isn't; he's gotta go.
> 
> barfo


Dale Davis taught him well.


----------



## soonerterp

southnc said:


> Actually, Atkins was acquired when Kwame was traded, which was the reason Blake left. They never really played together.
> 
> Are you actually referring to Bevin Knight? - Blake did beat him out for the 2nd PG position behind Arenas.


Yes I do mean Brevin Knight. My bad, and bad memory. I have gone back and corrected ... and gave you credit.

How the hell is Brevin Knight still in the L? He's approaching Grandpa status.


----------



## Samuel

Masbee said:


> Most surprising is that Blake would ink a deal only guaranteed for 2 seasons. You would think it fairly likely he could have got more years from another team.


It's hard to say what is in his best interest.

He only has two years of starting credentials and after two years (probably starting for Portland), he'll have enough clout to sign a 3-5 year deal. Even if Portland doesn't re-up, Blake will only be 28, young enough to warrent decent dollars.


----------



## NateBishop3

I like Jack, but he's simply not a point guard. He's a combo guard, with mediocre passing and terrible decision making. I can't count how many times I'd see JJ on a fast break with two other guys and he'd force up a bad shot. What kind of point guard doesn't look for the open man on a fast break? 

Jack is a superior athlete to Blake, he's probably a better all-around scorer too, but Jack's basketball IQ is actually very low for a point guard. He doesn't make good decisions, he doesn't know when to take a shot and when to pass, and I always thought his defense was sub-par for a guy his size. I never once saw Jack take his man into the post, which was a huge advantage against some point guards in this league. 

Overall, as a POINT GUARD, I think Steve Blake is a better player than Jarrett Jack. JJ might be the better prospect, but if Blake is the guy who can run our offense, I'd take him over Jack in a heartbeat. We need a pure point guard who can distribute the ball and hit the open man. He needs to be able to feed the post and take the shot when necessary. I think Blake could be that guy. We'll have to see. Either way, Jack wasn't getting the job done.


----------



## andalusian

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



barfo said:


> If Jack's sole expression was world-class, you could imagine keeping him as a role player. But it isn't; he's gotta go.


Blue Steel. Magnum.


----------



## Samuel

I'm somewhat intrigued at the thought of Blake and Roy on the floor together. Two pretty good passers, two decent outside shooters, two decent defenders, two above-average decision-makers.

Time to figure out that SF position and really kick this mother into gear!


----------



## southnc

soonerterp said:


> Yes I do mean Brevin Knight. My bad, and bad memory.
> 
> How the hell is Brevin Knight still in the L? He's approaching Grandpa status.


 Word out is that Brevin could end up in Denver as a backup. They'll certainly need him with a tiny back-court of AI and Atkins - neither of whom knows what the word "Defense" is! :biggrin: But, I do not believe he will help. They needed a defensive-minded SG to compliment AI - they got the opposite.

What is interesting for Blake, though, is he should finally be able to play with a normal sized SG!! :worthy:


----------



## Rip City Reign

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Oldmangrouch said:


> I must say I am surprised.
> 
> I can see 2 possible scenarios here.
> 
> First, the team has concluded that Jack is better suited to being a swing guard. Since Dickau and Freddie are gone, and there is no indication Rudy and/or Playboy Pete will be on the team this season, Jack will still get his minutes. If anyone is hurt by the move, it is Segio. My gut reaction is that this is what happens.
> 
> Second, the team has a deal on the table for Jack. The name that springs to mind is the Bucks. It appears Mo Williams is disgusted enough to take less money just to get out of town. The Cavs need an upgrade at PG.....but the only thing I really want from them is Varejao (which would require a S&T).
> 
> Anybody have any thoughts about what other team(s) might be after Jack?


Sergio has proven NOTHING in the SL. He still can't defend and Nate craves defense at the point. Blake is not a starter. Jack stays.


----------



## ProudBFan

QRICH said:


> Link]


I read Blake's quote something like this:

"Hah! In your FACE, Denver! I'M going to PORTLAND! Nyah-nyah!"

Maybe I'm wrong, but he did seem to be rubbing it in Denver's face a little the way he said it (or, at least, the way it was printed).

Boy, the writing sure seems to be on the wall for Jack's departure, donnit? If that is what ends up happening, I think there will come a time when we regret letting Jack go. I won't complain or rub it in people's faces if/when it happens, because I like Blake, too. Just saying that I think Jack will develop nicely over his career. Best wishes to him (premature though they may be).

PBF


----------



## Blazer Freak

God dammit. I really don't like Blake. He's a pretty good player, but I hate him.

Just thought I'd put that out there.


----------



## crowTrobot

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Rip City Reign said:


> Sergio has proven NOTHING in the SL. He still can't defend and Nate craves defense at the point. Blake is not a starter. Jack stays.



we wouldn't pay the MLE to a backup PG when we have sergio. blake is obviously coming in to start. a deal is probably coming if not already in place for jack, since multiple teams have shown interest.


----------



## Masbee

Ed O said:


> I like it. I'm not a HUGE Blake fan, but I put him on about the same level as Jack, and this seems to clear up an opportunity to trade JJ.
> 
> Between Sergio, Koponen, and the remarkable draft class of PGs in 2008, we should be able to replace Jack's long-term potential... and Blake replaces his near-term value.
> 
> Good job by the Blazers to add another asset just by writing a check!
> 
> Ed O.


So are you a little more calm about all the "cap space in 09" stuff.

Don't you think it was a good move to sign a sought after free agent and still keep the option for big cap room going?


----------



## Blazer Freak

Any one know the $$ amount?


----------



## gatorpops

I think that Marvin Williams is their target. Probably Priz and Jack for him.

gatorpops


----------



## Rip City Reign

Samuel said:


> Perhaps this move is less a sign that Jack is gone and more a sign that the team is taking a long-term approach with Sergio.


Exactly.


----------



## Tortimer

Blazer Freak said:


> Any one know the $$ amount?


I think it was $5.5 million for each of the first 2 years with a team option for year 3.


----------



## SodaPopinski

Blazer Freak said:


> God dammit...
> 
> *I hate him.*





Blazer Freak said:


> God dammit...
> 
> *I hate him.*





Blazer Freak said:


> God dammit...
> 
> *I hate him.*





Blazer Freak said:


> God dammit...
> 
> *I hate him.*


Don't mince words, Blazer Freak. Tell us how you really feel.:biggrin: 










-Pop


----------



## Masbee

el_Diablo said:


> I don't think anyone was willing to pay him full MLE for three years.. guaranteed two years at $5,5M a year is a lot better than guaranteed 3 years at, for example $4M per year.
> 
> I mean surely he can get a $1M deal for a year in 2009 from somewhere.
> 
> edit: of course, I didn't think of even longer contracts at all, though..


Who took the H out of my Cheddar cheese?

Yeah, it is possible that Denver wouldn't pay him much at all due to the lux tax problem, and the other teams were either willing to pay bigger money short years, like Portland, or less money, long years. A full MLE contract is over $30 million for 5 years. I assume he didn't get one of those offers. If he got an offer for $20 million over 5 years, does he really prefer that to $11 mil over 2 years? Is it really "more" money? Depends how you look at it.


----------



## sanfranduck

I for one hope that Pryzbilla does not get dealt this offseason. I can't wait for Oden to dominate ... but do we really want to count on a rookie to play 35 minutes per game, every game? No WAY. especially a rookie who has only had one season of post-high school ball; and it was a short season at that due to injury.

I think we'll need Pryzbilla next year. Channing Frye is a PF, not a C, and we're going to need Pryz to A. spell Oden, and B. eat up some minutes at center.


----------



## crowTrobot

Rip City Reign said:


> Exactly.


exactly not. 

this signing is about jack, not sergio. sergio isn't ready to start, but he still needs minutes as a backup to improve. with blake starting jack wouldn't get many minutes in a 4 man guard rotation unless somebody gets hurt. he is likely gonzo.


----------



## Blazer Freak

SodaPopinski said:


> Don't mince words, Blazer Freak. Tell us how you really feel.:biggrin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Pop


:laugh: That was good.

$5.5 is a pretty big amount, but it's really only 2 years. I think it will work out fine, we might have a chance to grab a PG prospect in this next draft. It's pretty deep there.

Jack/Joel trade on the way, IMO.


----------



## mook

> Good job by the Blazers to add another asset just by writing a check!


exactly. after the value dump we did in unloading Randolph, I'm glad to see us adding value back. with his skills and his contract length I think he'll be pretty easy for us to trade next summer, should we want to. 

is he a better point guard than Jack? yes. is he a better basketball player? no. 

Jack has to be on his way out now. I can't wait to see what we get for him.


----------



## blazermaniaisback

sanfranduck said:


> I for one hope that Pryzbilla does not get dealt this offseason.





sanfranduck said:


> I think we'll need Pryzbilla next year.


Plus who is going to prove that he can't act along with coach Nate in those great GI Joe's (yes it will always be GI Joe's to me) commercials? I do like Joel don't get me wrong but come on... stick to basketball.


----------



## Samuel

crowTrobot said:


> exactly not.
> 
> this signing is about jack, not sergio. sergio isn't ready to start, but he still needs minutes as a backup to improve.


Sergio is still D-League eligable, though. I know he'd hate it, and it might not make him any better, but an unlikely scenario might be Jack and Blake splitting time at the 1/2 and Sergio heading to the Stampede for most of the season.


----------



## Five5even

Who said Jack is being traded? By all means none of our PG's are safe.

Depending on what team we are dealing with it sure looks like either Jack, Sergio, Kopponen or Green could be included together in a deal.

Obviously it appears as if Jack or Sergio is gone.

Personally i think its very possible that Sergio could be traded if a certain team wants to trade.

With our concerns at SF still i think that we still need to address that position. Sergio COULD be dealt if it involves a team that is attracted to his style of play.

Phoenix comes to mind. That would obviously involve Shawn Marion. And probably the only way this trade would work is if it involved a 3rd team...Minnesota comes to mind involving Garnett...

If its Jack i tend to think New Jersey (Jefferson), Clippers (Maggette) and Atlanta (Smith, Williams, Childress.

I dont think Houston(Battier) can be included because their depth at PG. However it it was Houston i would think they would be willing to include Aaron Brooks in a deal because he would never get any PT behind Jack/Sergio, James, Alston

IMO the most likely is Maggette or Atlanta.

I pray for Shawn Marion every night, so we will see if GOD really is on our side. ;P


----------



## crowTrobot

Samuel said:


> Sergio is still D-League eligable, though. I know he'd hate it, and it might not make him any better, but an unlikely scenario might be Jack and Blake splitting time at the 1/2 and Sergio heading to the Stampede for most of the season.



i hope we aren't thinking D league for sergio. as long as we aren't looking to win it all he might as well get his minutes in the NBA.

also if jack stays and doesn't start his future trade value may decrease significantly from what it is right now.


----------



## Five5even

Blazer Freak said:


> Jack/Joel trade on the way, IMO.


I'd be willing to bet Martell Webster is also included. And probably one or more of our draft picks this year. And potentially a future pick.


----------



## sanfranduck

Tortimer said:


> I think it was $5.5 million for each of the first 2 years with a team option for year 3.



Where are you getting this?

I thought the mid-level was set at $5.35 million - so that is the absolute most per-year that this deal could be. And I'm not sure it's fair to assume that Blake got the entire MLE, either.


----------



## ProZach

Color me disappointed. I think Jack will be good, and he obviously isn't going to be here. It better be for a better SF than that mouth-breather Turk, that's all I can say.


----------



## Draco

sanfranduck said:


> Where are you getting this?
> 
> I thought the mid-level was set at $5.35 million - so that is the absolute most per-year that this deal could be. And I'm not sure it's fair to assume that Blake got the entire MLE, either.


The mid-level exception for over-the-cap teams is $5,356,000

@ max 8% annual raises that means;

5.356
5.784
6.247 (team option)

Hopefully it was for a bit less than that.


----------



## sanfranduck

Assuming that Portland hangs on to Outlaw, by my count Portland now has 18 players under its control:

Blake
Jack
Sergio
Green
Koppenen*
Roy
Webster
Fernandez*
Jones
Outlaw
Miles
Aldridge
Frye
McRoberts
Freeland*
Oden
Pryzbilla
LaFrentz

If you assume that Koppenen, Fernandez, and Freeland are all going back to Europe, that makes 15. And since they haven't signed Outlaw yet, technically they only have 14 guaranteed contracts. 

But you have to think that the Blazers are making a 2-for-1 or a 3-for-2 where they receive the "1" at some point this offseason. And frankly the teams that receive the lower number typically do better in those types of trades.


----------



## yuyuza1

Anyone think we can pull a Jack + future pick/Webby for Granger deal? 


He'd be pretty awesome to have right now, and Indy might be a willing partner. Granted he's one of their lone bright spots, Granger might be replaced by the likes of Shawne Williams or Mike Dunleavy. They are also in need of a PG, as Tinsley seems to be more trouble (injury/character-wise) than originally planned.


----------



## Samuel

Draco said:


> The mid-level exception for over-the-cap teams is $5,356,000
> 
> @ max 8% annual raises that means;
> 
> 5.356
> 5.784
> 6.247 (team option)
> 
> Hopefully it was for a bit less than that.


If the market for him was around 11 over 3 years, I think Portland's 11 over 2 with a team option on the third makes even more sense than the former deal considering the cap relief window they're looking at. 

There's really no reason to worry about the cap unless it affects the payroll after 09-10.


----------



## Five5even

yuyuza1 said:


> Anyone think we can pull a Jack + future pick/Webby for Granger deal?
> 
> 
> He'd be pretty awesome to have right now, and Indy might be a willing partner. Granted he's one of their lone bright spots, Granger might be replaced by the likes of Shawne Williams or Mike Dunleavy. They are also in need of a PG, as Tinsley seems to be more trouble (injury/character-wise) than originally planned.


its possible. And grangers contract expires in the summer of '09.

We'd probably have to give up a bit more though.

If there is any chance that Indiana wants to completely clean house they could dish Jermaine Oneal to the Lakers. This would mean they would recieve Lamar Odom. He would take Grangers spot, so it would make a deal for granger more likely.

We could possibly be a part of a 3 team deal with indy and LA in my mind, but its got about a 1% chance of happening IMO.


----------



## Samuel

I don't see a scenario where Indiana would give up Granger.


----------



## Five5even

Samuel said:


> I don't see a scenario where Indiana would give up Granger.


Add a few draft picks and you could have yourself a deal...

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=2768~2795~2760~615~2748~1998~617&teams=11~11~22~13~11~11~11


----------



## yuyuza1

Samuel said:


> I don't see a scenario where Indiana would give up Granger.



Their fans think otherwise. I recall seeing this a few weeks ago, and was completely astonished.


----------



## Samuel

yuyuza1 said:


> Their fans think otherwise. I recall seeing this a few weeks ago, and was completely astonished.


Yeah, if you figure O'Neal is on the way out, Granger is the last guy they'd want to deal.


----------



## Yega1979

Don't write off Jack yet. Sergio is still playing like a good third string/average 2nd string PG. And he'll take some time to develope. This is only a 3 year deal while Sergio developes.

But I am very happy Steve is returning. Very solid all-round PG, good attitude. He's a bit better at running an offense than Jack...but Jack is a better scorer.


----------



## Rip City Reign

sanfranduck said:


> I for one hope that Pryzbilla does not get dealt this offseason. I can't wait for Oden to dominate ... but do we really want to count on a rookie to play 35 minutes per game, every game? No WAY. especially a rookie who has only had one season of post-high school ball; and it was a short season at that due to injury.
> 
> I think we'll need Pryzbilla next year. Channing Frye is a PF, not a C, and we're going to need Pryz to A. spell Oden, and B. eat up some minutes at center.


Frye is 6'11" and 260 lbs and Raef can also play some C. We can even go with Alridge at C and Travis at PF if needed. Joel is expendable.


----------



## Peaceman

This improves a very weak position for Portland. Sergio isn't the answer and if we keep Jack, he needs Blake to compete and push him. I actually like Jack and think he has continued to make small improvements. While many have said Sergio would replace Jack, anyone that has watched basketball can see Sergio needs at least another year. His defense may be close to the worst I have even seen. While being a poor defender isn't the end of the world, he seems to be getting worse the more he plays. I think Dickau replaced him at the end of the year because of that. 

Anyway I'm happy we have someone who can run the offense and is very consistant.


----------



## Yega1979

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



dudleysghost said:


> Blake doesn't have a big impact on the stat sheet, but he has a nice impact on the scoreboard, which is more important.
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0607/0607DEN.HTM


Ha! Check the Blazers out, Dan Dickau is +11 in that category. That's better than most NBA all-stars.

Those ratings also do not bode well for the theory that Zach hampered the team....


----------



## Spud147

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



sa1177 said:


> ??? Jack's defense is mediocre at best....the Blazers were consistently burned at the PG position last year on the defensive end. Blake is a significant upgrade on the defensive end IMO.


Yep, his defense. It wasn't always there last season but I saw enough of it to recognize the potential. I think Jack caught a little bit of the Martell syndrome, he's got all the skills right there but needs to get his confidence back. I think he got so focused on doing exactly what Nate wanted he got overly critical of himself when he made the wrong decision. Jack is a passionate emotional player and once he's confident in his role he's going to be a point guard that most teams are going to wish they had and I really hope we're not one of them.


----------



## dudleysghost

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Yega1979 said:


> Ha! Check the Blazers out, Dan Dickau is +11 in that category. That's better than most NBA all-stars.
> 
> Those ratings also do not bode well for the theory that Zach hampered the team....


I definitely don't think Zach hampered the team. Dickau's high rating in that category though I'd attribute to small sampling size. Lots of players who play few minutes have wild +/- ratings, although Dickau isn't nearly as bad as many make him out to be, which is why Nate played him over Sergio at times.

Both Dickau and Blake are point guards who don't put up big numbers but still affect the team positively by playing competently. Ime Udoka is another one. The point is, there are many things that don't show up in the stat sheet, contrary to popular belief, and coaches love Blake because he does those things well.


----------



## BenDavis503

Way Happy About This One!!!


----------



## Spud147

zagsfan20 said:


> You forgot to mention his inability to hit a jumpshot, his ineptness at running a fast break and his absolute horrible ability to get big men the ball downlow.


See this is what I mean about feeling like I'm watching a completely different player than everyone else! His shooting didn't appear to be horribly inferior compaired to the rest of the league's point guards. I didn't see him get much of an opportunity to run a fast break because he was usually in the starting unit with Zach (who was consistently blamed for holding the Blazers back from playing an uptempo game because he was slow). 

I think he was in there trying to do what Nate wanted and that meant playing at the pace of the team's best player. Given the amount of scoring Zach did for the Blazers it seems the ball was getting to him very consistently.


----------



## Samuel

"Hello Orlando? Yes, we'll give you Jack and Przybilla for Turkoglu and a future first."


----------



## Five5even

Samuel said:


> "Hello Orlando? Yes, we'll give you Jack and Przybilla for Turkoglu and a future first."


hell no we wont.


----------



## M3M

I dont know about this. I would rather have Jack. I personally cant stand blake.


----------



## c_note

Great move by us. Blake is CLEARLY better at running an offense, it's guaranteed Jack will not become better than Blake within a few years. Better shooter, better defender, smarter, better player.

Trading Webster is a bad idea. His value is pretty low, it's not worth getting rid of him.


----------



## Five5even

c_note said:


> Great move by us. Blake is CLEARLY better at running an offense, it's guaranteed Jack will not become better than Blake within a few years. Better shooter, better defender, smarter, better player.
> 
> Trading Webster is a bad idea. His value is pretty low, it's not worth getting rid of him.


if including webster allows us to get a very good SF then i would do it.

It all depends on who we are trading for. If its someone of value then webster may be necessary.


----------



## andalusian

c_note said:


> Great move by us. Blake is CLEARLY better at running an offense, it's guaranteed Jack will not become better than Blake within a few years. Better shooter, better defender, smarter, better player.


I am not sure where you get this - Jack is already a better player than Blake.

Better scorer, better shooting percentage (overall and 3), better FT%, better assists per game in a little bit more time on a much slower pace team with Roy handling the ball a lot next to him, about a wash on blocks/steals/rebounds. Blake is a better defender now - but he is not as strong, older and has a lot more experience.

Blake is basically a downgrade in everything but defense while being more expensive, older, not as athletic.

There are two options here - either KP has some stud SF he is trying to get for Jack/Joel or Blake/Roy/Jack are the 3 guard rotation and Sergio is officially a project or traded.


----------



## c_note

Yea, for Marion/Prince caliber, I'd trade him I guess.


----------



## MARIS61

crowTrobot said:


> jack was no worse at feeding the post than anyone else, and he was never ALLOWED to push tempo


That's hilarious.

Jack was always the last player down the floor, even behind Zach.

He doesn't have the handles, the quick wits, or the passing ability to play a running game.

Blake has all that and is a FAR better defender.

This is the first sign to me that we're actually going to run, whether Nate likes it or not.

All this talk about cap space and A+ player abvailable in 2 more years happens to coincide with the end of Nate's contract.

Hmmm......:biggrin: :clap2: :yay: :cheers: :worthy: 

I Like Pritchard.


----------



## alext42083

I love this move.
Steve Blake is sort of what the team needs. The Blazers don't need too many more young guys, and Blake will be steady and consistent at the point. Add the fact how KP worked Blake's contract into the two-year window, great move.

KP is the man! Now if he can get a small forward for Jack and Co., this will be icing on the cake.


----------



## MARIS61

Done Deal!

http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/Trail_Blazers_Sign_Steve_Blake-231688-1218.html


----------



## crowTrobot

MARIS61 said:


> That's hilarious.
> 
> Jack was always the last player down the floor, even behind Zach.



no that's hilarious.


----------



## Entity

Blake had been a solid shooter over his career (except for last season), and has an incredible assist to turnover ratio (3/1). He definitely has better ability than Jack and Sergio when it comes to running an offense. Typically, he's been a guy that distributes the ball to other players, but can rely on a three point shot if all else fails.

I think Jack is skilled all around, and I wouldn't mind keeping him on the roster. If Portland moves him then hopefully we can fill a need well. Otherwise, I'm not opposed to having him rotate in the 1 and 2 like Frye will with the 4 and 5.


----------



## LameR

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



Rip City Reign said:


> Sergio has proven NOTHING in the SL. He still can't defend and Nate craves defense at the point. Blake is not a starter. Jack stays.


Do you expect him to? It's summer league. Oden sucked. Sergio's only had Oden and Aldridge as reliable targets, and everything else is just chaos. 

I hate it when people argue about summer league. It should just be considered a place to take your chances on an unproven player, not a way to evaluate talent. Give Sergio a chance with a real team.


----------



## alext42083

andalusian said:


> Blake is basically a downgrade in everything but defense while being more expensive, older, not as athletic.


I think you're underrating Blake a little bit. He knows how to set up an offense, he can dish, he can lead a team -- he's got intangibles that don't show up in a box score.

As for the older part, he's 27 years old? This guy is entering his prime for the next two years, and after that, this team will be making a big-time run to a title.

Who knows? Maybe Jack can get the backup minutes at the point and at the two since we're looking for a backup guard anyway.


----------



## Bob Whitsitt

You people are wrong. I like Jarrett Jack, but there are a lot of times where he's absolutely useless on the floor. He doesn't run well. He is not good defensively except in the steals category. He's an inconsistant shooter who caught fire to get his shooting percentage up. He doesn't hit big shots. He is not nearly as true of a floor general as Steve Blake is.

I don't think Blake is our answer and I DO like Jack, but I'd rather have Blake running the floor than Jack because he makes fewer mistakes and is much more comfortable leading a team than Jack is. I hope we keep them both and do a 4-guard rotation (moving Webster to the 3 where he belongs) then use Green sparingly during the year.


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y.

wow i just got back from work and this is the first thing i see. nice i think he will be a solid addition to help develop the core


----------



## Rip City Reign

c_note said:


> Great move by us. Blake is CLEARLY better at running an offense, it's guaranteed Jack will not become better than Blake within a few years. Better shooter, better defender, smarter, better player.
> 
> Trading Webster is a bad idea. His value is pretty low, it's not worth getting rid of him.


Blake is a better passer, Jack is a better scorer. Jack is a better defender and doesn't get beaten on post-ups like Blake does. 

Blake is streakier than Jack on offense, he can be very good or very bad and if often non-existent. Jack is a better finisher and a better free throw shooter. Jack is more aggressive on offense and can take over at times and has a much more developed offensive game. 

They are different players with different skill sets. The Blazers are a better team with both players.


----------



## Five5even

Rip City Reign said:


> Blake is a better passer, Jack is a better scorer. Jack is a better defender and doesn't get beaten on post-ups like Blake does.
> 
> Blake is streakier than Jack on offense, he can be very good or very bad and if often non-existent. Jack is a better finisher and a better free throw shooter. Jack is more aggressive on offense and can take over at times and has a much more developed offensive game.
> 
> They are different players with different skill sets. The Blazers are a better team with both players.


I wouldnt worry about Blakes Defense. If he gets beat, so what? We have Oden and Aldridge, Frye, Outlaw, Przybilla as a defensive force in the next layer of defense.

Blake is a veteran to the point where he wont get beaten off the dribble or posted on too many times to where our bigs will get into foul trouble.


----------



## Blazer Freak

Didn't Blake guard Kobe and such players when he was with us.


----------



## c_note

Rip City Reign said:


> Blake is a better passer, Jack is a better scorer. Jack is a better defender and doesn't get beaten on post-ups like Blake does.
> 
> Blake is streakier than Jack on offense, he can be very good or very bad and if often non-existent. Jack is a better finisher and a better free throw shooter. Jack is more aggressive on offense and can take over at times and has a much more developed offensive game.
> 
> They are different players with different skill sets. The Blazers are a better team with both players.


Jack is better at driving and scoring, that's it. 

Blake streakier? Blake is better from outside. They are both streaky.

Do you really want the PG, especially someone like Jack, taking all the shots and "taking over"? I sure don't, and Blake always looks to pass first.


----------



## dwood615

i just got off work and saw this im stoked cuz i just saw blake a week or 2 ago and thought it would be cool to see him back here...

2 things...

1)will jack be gone...or sergio???

2)whats up with ime and outlaw???


----------



## Five5even

dwood615 said:


> i just got off work and saw this im stoked cuz i just saw blake a week or 2 ago and thought it would be cool to see him back here...
> 
> 2 things...
> 
> 1)will jack be gone...or sergio???
> 
> 2)whats up with ime and outlaw???


i see us signing outlaw to play time at SF and PF.

trade away jack or sergio with joel and maybe webster for a better SF. Jack is more likely to be traded.

Ime will sign with the spurs.


----------



## Captain Chaos

c_note said:


> Jack is better at driving and scoring, that's it.
> 
> Blake streakier? Blake is better from outside. They are both streaky.
> 
> Do you really want the PG, especially someone like Jack, taking all the shots and "taking over"? I sure don't, and Blake always looks to pass first.


My thoughts exactly. Let's get someone to dish to Roy, LA, and Oden. I even think Blake and Sergio are better in the open court with regards to decision making.


----------



## Entity

He's only been gone a year, but he's coming back to a completely different team. That familiar nostalgia of walking around the Blazer's facilities not long removed will contrast sharply with the brand new people wearing black, red, and white jerseys.

Team before he left:
*Przybilla*
Ratliff
Ha
Skinner
Randolph
*Outlaw*
Khryapa
*Miles*
Lenard
Dixon
*Webster*
*Jack*
Telfair

And we're not even sure about the return of _any_ of those players in bold.


----------



## andalusian

c_note said:


> Blake streakier? Blake is better from outside. They are both streaky.


Blake shot 41% last year. Jack shot 45%. Jack shoots better than Blake.
Blake shot 32% from 3. Jack shot 35%. Blake is NOT better from outside.
Blake shot a dismal 67% FT, Jack shot 87%

Blake got only 1 more APG next to two great scorers in AI and Carmelo in a fast pace offense compared to Jack in a much slower pace offense with Zach that took 5 seconds before making his move to the basket thus rendering whoever passed him the ball assist-less. If you combine Blake's MIL and DEN season - he made less assists per game and almost the same amount of turn-overs.

Blake is a downgrade from Jack while being older and not as strong and the numbers support it.


----------



## Bwatcher

It is interesting how so many have different strongly held viewpoints on Jack and Blake. Roughly totaling the clear indications so far, it seems 12 clearly prefer Jack to about 9 clearly preferring Blake, but many in the middle seem to be fine with Blake.

I pretty much concur with NateBishop3. Jack isn't a PG. I like his competitiveness, and I think he really tried to run the team as Nate would like him to, but his skill set isn't that of a PG. I see Blake as a much better fit over the next few years. Also, I think that Sergio and Green can learn more from watching Blake than they can from watching Jack. In short, to me, Blake is a much better fit at this point.

I also think that Jack won't really be happy here now, and that he really deserves a chance to go elsewhere. Hope it happens soon.


----------



## Entity

andalusian said:


> Blake shot 41% last year. Jack shot 45%. Jack shoots better than Blake.
> Blake shot 32% from 3. Jack shot 35%. Blake is NOT better from outside.
> Blake shot a dismal 67% FT, Jack shot 87%
> 
> Blake got only 1 more APG next to two great scorers in AI and Carmelo in a fast pace offense compared to Jack in a much slower pace offense with Zach that took 5 seconds before making his move to the basket thus rendering whoever passed him the ball assist-less. If you combine Blake's MIL and DEN season - he made less assists per game and almost the same amount of turn-overs.
> 
> Blake is a downgrade from Jack while being older and not as strong and the numbers support it.


I'm not going to grade Blake on one season. His career before that (including his time in Portland) shows just the opposite, where he was putting up better numbers than Jack ever had, and the numbers support _that_. Aside from the numbers and seeing them both play, I think Blake clearly has the mental toughness and court IQ to beat Jack as a starter. We haven't traded Jack away yet. As of right now, his skill set is still in Portland.


----------



## andalusian

alext42083 said:


> I think you're underrating Blake a little bit. He knows how to set up an offense, he can dish, he can lead a team -- he's got intangibles that don't show up in a box score.


In the same amount of time, in a much faster offense pace, next to two great scorers in AI and Carmelo Blake got only one more APG than Jack while scoring 4 points less per game. This does not even include the Playoffs where his performance took a big hit. If you call this knowing how to set the offense, Jack must be a superstar.

I have nothing against Blake, he is a nice backup PG - but even against Jack (that has a lot more room for improvement) - he is a downgrade.

If this move is to get a stud SF for Jack+pieces - great. If it is to make Jack a backup or remove Jack for some cap relief - it will be a downgrade.

If Jack is not moved - Sergio is going to have a lot of problem getting minutes.


----------



## Samuel

Bwatcher said:


> I also think that Jack won't really be happy here now, and that he really deserves a chance to go elsewhere. Hope it happens soon.


I think it breaks down to this:

1. KP is constructing this team with the future in mind.
2. Because of this fact, KP will make decisions to try and get the most value out of each asset.
3. KP just signed Steve Blake with the intention of starting him.
4. If Blake starts, Jack would get less minutes and production off the bench.
5. Since Jack's production would go down if he stayed, and KP is trying to get the most out of his assets, he must be moved as soon as possible.

There's just no way that KP would keep Jack if his stock has nowhere to go but down with this team. Time to move on...


----------



## andalusian

Entity said:


> I'm not going to grade Blake on one season. His career before that (including his time in Portland) shows just the opposite, where he was putting up better numbers than Jack ever had, and the numbers support _that_. Aside from the numbers and seeing them both play, I think Blake clearly has the mental toughness and court IQ to beat Jack as a starter. We haven't traded Jack away yet. As of right now, his skill set is still in Portland.


What are you talking about - the last two years were the best of his career - and his time in Denver was the best part of his career and I have shown that even there he was not great compared to Jack.

Jack's career PER is higher than Blakes - Blake's best PER was in his first stint in Portland (he actually went back last year overall and in Denver/MIL) and Jack's PER last year was higher than Blake's best PER ever.

The numbers are clearly in favor of Jack.


----------



## Entity

I take it back, Jack's numbers (in the overall sense) are on a par with Blake's career, but Blake's mentality and court IQ are stronger.

(edit): was hoping to get this in before your comment, but I'll post an analysis shortly.


----------



## BBert

Neither Blake nor Jack are the long-term solution at PG for this team. We'll need to do better when our window opens up in 3 years.

So who's better in the short term? Blake. He's mature and experienced. He's a better passer and facilitator of the offense. He plays quicker and makes his teammates better. He makes better decisions with the ball, can run a pick and roll, and is much better at feeding the post. With LaMarcus and Oden, we need to pick and roll and feed the post. He's also, IMO, a better defender, and he makes few mistakes on offense. And we don't have to trade anyone to get him. And his contract will be off the books in 09, when we are targeting major cap space.

What do the Blazers need more than a Point Guard? A Small Forward. So, who on the Blazers can get us the SF we need in a trade? Jarrett Jack can. By himself, probably Josh Childress. Packaged, if Atlanta wants Martell or Joel, maybe Marvin Williams. 

Seems simple to me.


----------



## Bob Whitsitt

The group of you that are looking at the stats are ridiculous. Blake is a better floor leader and does SO many intangibles that Jack does not do. His numbers last year were on a team of ballhogs who were in the playoff hunt and playing tougher opponents, while Jack's Blazers were nowhere near the playoffs and played a lot of lolligagging teams, especially towards the end (when Jack's numbers improved greatly). 

Blake is the better player right now no matter what anyone says. He's more experienced, has phenomenal basketball IQ, and runs a team far far better than Jack does. I like Jack but Blake is the right guy right now out of the two of them.


----------



## e_blazer1

Bob Whitsitt said:


> The group of you that are looking at the stats are ridiculous. Blake is a better floor leader and does SO many intangibles that Jack does not do. His numbers last year were on a team of ballhogs who were in the playoff hunt and playing tougher opponents, while Jack's Blazers were nowhere near the playoffs and played a lot of lolligagging teams, especially towards the end (when Jack's numbers improved greatly).
> 
> Blake is the better player right now no matter what anyone says. He's more experienced, has phenomenal basketball IQ, and runs a team far far better than Jack does. I like Jack but Blake is the right guy right now out of the two of them.


What he said.


----------



## Entity

Per 40 min numbers career:

Blake
'04 WAS 38.6 FG, 37.1 3PT, 1/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 82.1 FT, 12.8 PTS, 6.0 AST, 1.6 A/TO ratio, 1.6 STL
'05 WAS 32.8 FG, 38.7 3PT, 1/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 80.5 FT, 11.8 PTS, 4.3 AST, 1.8 A/TO ratio, 0.8 STL
'06 POR 43.8 FG, 41.3 3PT, 1.5/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 79.1 FT, 12.6 PTS, 6.9 AST, 3.6 A/TO ratio, 0.9 STL
'07 M/D 41.1 FG, 32.2 3PT, 1.5/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 67.2 FT, 9.5 PTS, 7.3 AST, 3.2 A/TO ratio, 1.1 STL

Jack
'06 POR 44.2 FG, 26.3 3PT, 4.6/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 80.0 FT, 13.2 PTS, 5.5 AST, 2.1 A/TO ratio, 1.0 STL
'07 POR 45.4 FG, 35.0 3PT, 3/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 87.1 FT, 14.3 PTS, 6.3 AST, 2.3 A/TO ratio, 1.3 STL

This is why I say they're on a par. Jack shoots a lot more twos than Blake, and that probably lends to Blake's poorer FG%. I'd give FG%, FT%, and PTS to Jack, 3P%, ASTS, and A/TO to Blake, and STLS to both. But I'd give mentality to Blake.


----------



## Bob Whitsitt

Entity said:


> Per 40 min numbers career:
> 
> Blake
> '04 WAS 38.6 FG, 37.1 3PT, 1/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 82.1 FT, 12.8 PTS, 6.0 AST, 1.6 A/TO ratio, 1.6 STL
> '05 WAS 32.8 FG, 38.7 3PT, 1/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 80.5 FT, 11.8 PTS, 4.3 AST, 1.8 A/TO ratio, 0.8 STL
> '06 POR 43.8 FG, 41.3 3PT, 1.5/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 79.1 FT, 12.6 PTS, 6.9 AST, 3.6 A/TO ratio, 0.9 STL
> '07 M/D 41.1 FG, 32.2 3PT, 1.5/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 67.2 FT, 9.5 PTS, 7.3 AST, 3.2 A/TO ratio, 1.1 STL
> 
> Jack
> '06 POR 44.2 FG, 26.3 3PT, 4.6/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 80.0 FT, 13.2 PTS, 5.5 AST, 2.1 A/TO ratio, 1.0 STL
> '07 POR 45.4 FG, 35.0 3PT, 3/1 2PA/3PA ratio, 87.1 FT, 14.3 PTS, 6.3 AST, 2.3 A/TO ratio, 1.3 STL
> 
> This is why I say they're on a par. Jack shoots a lot more twos than Blake, and that probably lends to Blake's poorer FG%. I'd give FG%, FT%, and PTS to Jack, 3P%, ASTS, and A/TO to Blake, and STLS to both. But I'd give mentality to Blake.


*Numbers do not show the intangibles*. The point is that Blake makes FAR FAR fewer mistakes than Jack and while the numbers don't necessarily show it, Blake takes smarter shots and is pass first, pass second, shoot third.

*I LIKE JARRET JACK*. I just think you people who are pooping your pants over Jack being "better" than Blake are not only wrong, but looking at the entire situation incorrectly.


----------



## Entity

Bob Whitsitt said:


> *Numbers do not show the intangibles*. The point is that Blake makes FAR FAR fewer mistakes than Jack and while the numbers don't necessarily show it, Blake takes smarter shots and is pass first, pass second, shoot third.
> 
> *I LIKE JARRET JACK*. I just think you people who are pooping your pants over Jack being "better" than Blake are not only wrong, but looking at the entire situation incorrectly.


Calm down, buddy. I'm a Steve Blake guy. I'm all about showing his intangibles, and I make that his selling point. I'm just having a discussion with andalusian here.

*attempts to dodge wrath*


----------



## andalusian

I like Blake, but his career PER is lower than Jack's despite Jack's youth and lack of experience. There is one thing Blake does better than Jack now - defense. That's it - he turns the ball over about the same as Jack, he scores less and less efficiently and he is NOT a better passer as shown by his assists numbers adjusted for pace - so the idea that he has superior IQ and he knows to set the offense better is hogwash.

Blake will be a great backup PG. If the idea is to trade Jack+... for a great asset - I have no issues with it. If the idea is that Blake backs Jack and we get a great asset for Sergio - no problems. But if the idea is that Blake is better than Jack but we are going to keep Jack - it is a mistake. Blake's production fell last year compared to the year before - so I am not sure he is entering his prime - he might be in decline already... - Jack is just starting and within a year or two will be much much better than Blake ever will be.


----------



## Paxil

How many PGs do we need?
Jack (contract)
Blake (contract)
Rodriguez (contract)
Green (contract)
Koponen (?)
and of course Roy gets minutes there too.

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K


----------



## Entity

If Blake's season this year doesn't mirror what he did for Portland the first time he played here and looks more like what he did last year, I'll shelf him and wait to see what KP can do at some future date. If Jack improves his ability to distribute, shoot the long ball, and runs the offense confidently regardless of whether or not he comes off the bench, then I'll rate him over Blake. This will be my "let's wait and see" statement.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler

I'd start Jack or Blake and send Sergio to the developmental league for minutes.

This trade makes us pretty decent at the 1.


----------



## MARIS61

Jack will be bye-bye Tuesday.


----------



## Crimson the Cat

Flippin sweet!

Now we know for sure Jack is gone. Can't wait to see what's in store!

I can't believe we're in reach of the Playoffs again.


----------



## sa1177

Pull out the statlines all you want...in the end you will find they are pretty much equal for their careers. This move comes down to what Nate wants in his PG IMO. Solid defense and the ability to run a offense and feed the post. Blake is simply better in all of these areas. How many times last year did Jarret have to pass the ball off to Brandon so he could feed the ball inside to Zbo. Jack simply does not excel at playing well with good low post players. He doesn't run the pick and roll well and is not good at feeding the post down low. Jarret's just not good at what our bread and butter is...and that's dominating in the post with Lamarcus and Oden.

We have got to have the PG who best helps us maximize our strength on the inside...and at this point that's Blake.


----------



## Public Defender

I think whoever posted that Blake can disappear on offense is right. And from a "setting up the offense" standpoint, that can also be a problem. I can recall Nuggets' games where it really seemed as though the team was playing 4-on-5 when Blake's shot was off. Jack had the occasional game where his head wasn't in it, but overall would do everything he could to contribute on offense. 

In the months of November, December, and January last season, Blake had a whopping total of seven games (7!) where he scored in double figures. Over that time period, he had six or more assists only nine times (9). During the same period, Jarrett Jack had 31 games where he scored in double figures and had 13 games with six or more assists. From an offensive perspective, Jack was certainly superior over an extended time period (the pattern holds up, by the way, over much of last season). Defensively, Jack is stronger and a better rebounder, Blake is quicker and craftier. 

On balance, this is a very hard call. I like both players. With ten seconds left in the game, down by a point, time-out called, and a lot of pressure on a player to make the right decision, I'm probably going to go with Steve Blake. But for the course of a week, when the team needs an offensive sparkplug night in and night out, again, I'll go with Jack. Hmm... I may have just talked myself into starting Blake, and holding onto Jack as a frequent PG or SG sub.


----------



## sa1177

Paxil said:


> How many PGs do we need?
> Jack (contract)
> Blake (contract)
> Rodriguez (contract)
> Green (contract)
> Koponen (?)
> and of course Roy gets minutes there too.
> 
> Strange things are afoot at the Circle K


Jack: trade for SF
Blake: starter
SRod: backup
Green: NBDL or IR
Koponen: Europe


----------



## sa1177

Public Defender said:


> I think whoever posted that Blake can disappear on offense is right. And from a "setting up the offense" standpoint, that can also be a problem. I can recall Nuggets' games where it really seemed as though the team was playing 4-on-5 when Blake's shot was off. Jack had the occasional game where his head wasn't in it, but overall would do everything he could to contribute on offense.
> 
> In the months of November, December, and January last season, Blake had a whopping total of seven games (7!) where he scored in double figures. Over that time period, he had six or more assists only nine times (9). During the same period, Jarrett Jack had 31 games where he scored in double figures and had 13 games with six or more assists. From an offensive perspective, Jack was certainly superior over an extended time period (the pattern holds up, by the way, over much of last season). Defensively, Jack is stronger and a better rebounder, Blake is quicker and craftier.
> 
> On balance, this is a very hard call. I like both players. With ten seconds left in the game, down by a point, time-out called, and a lot of pressure on a player to make the right decision, I'm probably going to go with Steve Blake. But for the course of a week, when the team needs an offensive sparkplug night in and night out, again, I'll go with Jack. Hmm... I may have just talked myself into starting Blake, and holding onto Jack as a frequent PG or SG sub.


We didn't sign Blake to be a scorer...we signed him to play solid defense and run our team. To feed the post and let Oden and Lamarcus do the rest. Roy is our scorer from the guard position.


----------



## Yega1979

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



dudleysghost said:


> I definitely don't think Zach hampered the team. Dickau's high rating in that category though I'd attribute to small sampling size. Lots of players who play few minutes have wild +/- ratings, although Dickau isn't nearly as bad as many make him out to be, which is why Nate played him over Sergio at times.
> 
> Both Dickau and Blake are point guards who don't put up big numbers but still affect the team positively by playing competently. Ime Udoka is another one. The point is, there are many things that don't show up in the stat sheet, contrary to popular belief, and coaches love Blake because he does those things well.


I was actually joking about Dickau, I regard him as one of the worst players in the NBA. Blake on the other hand is a good PG...better than Jack I think.


----------



## Public Defender

But you don't want to play 4-on-5 on offense. Anyone who's watched the Blazers play has seen years when guys from Rod Strickland to Sebastian Telfair had trouble making shots from the outside. Teams sag in, entry passes get harder. "Running the team" in those circumstances can get harder, overall.


----------



## sa1177

Public Defender said:


> But you don't want to play 4-on-5 on offense. Anyone who's watched the Blazers play has seen years when guys from Rod Strickland to Sebastian Telfair had trouble making shots from the outside. Teams sag in, entry passes get harder. "Running the team" in those circumstances can get harder, overall.


Stave Blake shoots just a couple % points below Jack from the field and 3pt line, there is no difference between the two in terms of ability to stretch a defense and open the passing lanes etc.


----------



## Yega1979

Public Defender said:


> I think whoever posted that Blake can disappear on offense is right. And from a "setting up the offense" standpoint, that can also be a problem. I can recall Nuggets' games where it really seemed as though the team was playing 4-on-5 when Blake's shot was off. Jack had the occasional game where his head wasn't in it, but overall would do everything he could to contribute on offense.
> 
> In the months of November, December, and January last season, Blake had a whopping total of seven games (7!) where he scored in double figures. Over that time period, he had six or more assists only nine times (9
> 
> 
> 
> Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony dominate the ball. His shooting percentage also fell drastically after leaving Portland. I think he was bummed about leaving, and not quite as comfortable.
> 
> With us, he shot over 41% from 3pt land. That's an incredible percentage. Blake isn't going to set the world on fire, but he provides shooting, decent PGsmanship and defense.
Click to expand...


----------



## Public Defender

sa1177 said:


> Stave Blake shoots just a couple % points below Jack from the field and 3pt line, there is no difference between the two in terms of ability to stretch a defense and open the passing lanes etc.


I disagree. The fact that Jack was aggressive in terms of shooting and looking for his own shot - and keeping a good percentage - has made a difference in forcing his man to guard, night in and night out. Blake's frequently absent offense let players off the hook. I'm not saying that's a constant concern, but it is more of a concern, in my opinion, with Blake than with Jack. 

I agree to an extent with Yega, that Blake's deflated scoring was because he shared the ball with AI and 'Melo, but even so, a player has got to put up some points. In Blake's time in Portland, yes, his percentages were better, but as I recall, there were games where he would virtually disappear, and the Blazers' offense would suffer as a result (unfortunately, nba.com doesn't seem to retain game-by-game stats for his earlier years, so I can't back that up).


----------



## MARIS61

sa1177 said:


> ...there is no difference between the two in terms of ability to stretch a defense and open the passing lanes etc.


Considering Jarrett takes about 5 seconds longer to bring the ball across the half-court line I'd say both those statements are wrong.


----------



## sa1177

MARIS61 said:


> Considering Jarrett takes about 5 seconds longer to bring the ball across the half-court line I'd say both those statements are wrong.


good point Blake is much quicker up the court which I certainly like....I was speaking in terms of a half court offense, which IMO we will be using quite a bit with Lamarcus and Oden being our primary options.

I agree that Blakes quickness moving the ball up the court will be helpful in catching defenses out of position and providing our guys with open looks.


----------



## Yega1979

Public Defender said:


> But you don't want to play 4-on-5 on offense. Anyone who's watched the Blazers play has seen years when guys from Rod Strickland to Sebastian Telfair had trouble making shots from the outside. Teams sag in, entry passes get harder. "Running the team" in those circumstances can get harder, overall.


They won't be able to sag on Blake though. Remember that Blake shot over 41% from 3pt range while playing for the Blazers. Guys don't shoot much better than that.

Blake won't try to create his own shot though. Like Jack, who will occasionally penetrate and pull up for the mid range jump shot, Blake will be much more passive on offense. But I think is ability to run the offense will account for many more points than his lack of offensive aggressivness.


----------



## Blazer Freak

Yega1979 said:


> They won't be able to sag on Blake though. * Remember that Blake shot over 41% from 3pt range while playing for the Blazers. Guys don't shoot much better than that.*
> 
> Blake won't try to create his own shot though. Like Jack, who will occasionally penetrate and pull up for the mid range jump shot, Blake will be much more passive on offense. But I think is ability to run the offense will account for many more points than his lack of offensive aggressivness.


He was also playing with Zach downlow, attracting double teams. If Oden and Aldridge can prove to have the same effect, they he can shoot that well again.

Just something to remember.


----------



## Samuel

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1184381719211500.xml&coll=7



Jason Quick said:


> Blake, a free agent point guard who played in Milwaukee and Denver last season, confirmed Friday that *he signed a three-year deal worth up to $12 million.* The team has the option to cancel the third year.


So I'm guessing it's 3,600,000, then 4,000,000, then the team option of 4,400,000.

What a steal by KP! He could even bring back Udoka with the extra MLE money left over if the market is unkind to Ime...

I think 7.6m over two years is a pretty good value for a player of Steve Blake's caliber.


----------



## hoojacks

He's faster, a (much) better playmaker and plays better defense than Jack.

IMO that makes up for slightly decresed offense.

that being said, where ever Jack ends up, I think he'll do very well.


----------



## alext42083

Samuel said:


> http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1184381719211500.xml&coll=7
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm guessing it's 3,600,000, then 4,000,000, then the team option of 4,400,000.
> 
> What a steal by KP! He could even bring back Udoka with the extra MLE money left over if the market is unkind to Ime...
> 
> I think 7.6m over two years is a pretty good value for a player of Steve Blake's caliber.


Agreed. It's a great deal for the Blazers.
Low risk, high reward. Fits exactly into KP's style. The guy can do nothing wrong.
Fits right into the two-year window. If we don't need Blake after '09 with that free-agent class, then we free up more cap room.


----------



## mgb

Nate is happy to have Blake back:



> "We need the veteran leadership at the point Steve will bring us," said McMillan, who has been trying to find a way to get Blake back since he was traded to Milwaukee last summer. "I always loved Blake's game, and I love what he will add to this young team."


That is from MB's blog.

I think it's a good move. I don't think this means JJ is going to be traded, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was.

We should be hearing from his wife again.


----------



## Entity

mgb said:


> We should be hearing from his wife again.


Hah, I forgot all about that!


----------



## Samuel

If Portland were to offer Ime Udoka the rest of the MLE it would probably look like this:

Year 1: 1,756,000
Year 2: 1,931,000
Year 3: 2,124,760 (team option)

So 5.8m over 3 years with a team option on the third. I have a feeling his agent is bluffing, so that offer might actually be competitive. We'll see...


----------



## STOMP

I'm okay with the signing as it seems to fit the big picture plan Pritchard has been alluding to. For obvious reasons, the club is building their future around their three young studs. All three play unselfish team ball which will only be accentuated with SB at the point as he is a true pass first PG. While not a world beater, he's pretty efficient. I like how he gives the ball up early and his D. Jack and/or Sergio may turn out to be better players in the long run, but I like the idea of a pass-first steady vet setting up the three who really matter for the next few seasons more then bearing with decent young PGs trying to figure out their niche at the same time. 

That Steve's contract comes off the books the same year as several other vets (2009-10) also makes him a good fit financially as the club segways to it's best championship window when Oden, LA, and Roy are in their respective primes. Blake obviously isn't a centerpiece for that future, but he adds to the expiring contracts which could allow them the capspace to add a proven 4th stud to their mix. To me, this signing signals the club's focus on that 2010 offseason and makes it less likely that they'll make a run at any MLE type free agents for the next couple of years. But with the big 3 already in place, it should be a lot more fun to be patient with the organic/internal growth plan then it's been.

STOMP


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic

mgb said:


> Nate is happy to have Blake back:
> 
> 
> 
> That is from MB's blog.
> 
> I think it's a good move. I don't think this means JJ is going to be traded, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was.
> 
> We should be hearing from his wife again.


What did his wife do?


----------



## Samuel

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> What did his wife do?


She posted on here a couple of times.


----------



## yakbladder

Samuel said:


> She posted on here a couple of times.


No she didn't.

Someone who liked Blake and happened to be a female posted on here.

In fact, she took a lot of crap for saying that Blake was better than Jack and even better than the then-saint-and-can-do-no-wrong Telfair.

Apparently, she was right.


----------



## yakbladder

I like Blake quite a bit, but I still think Jack is the better option long term. 

I find it incredibly funny, in a tragic way, how many people are overly-anxious to give Webster and Outlaw many years to develop and yet Jack is already no good and needs to be shipped out.


----------



## yuyuza1

Trade idea:

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=4104144

Add a protected first round pick to Memphis from Portland.


----------



## STOMP

yuyuza1 said:


> Trade idea:
> 
> http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=4104144
> 
> Add a protected first round pick to Memphis from Portland.


Adding a protected 1st doesn't seem to go nearly far enough to give Memphis the motivation to part with Miller to me. I'd think that they are relatively excited about their projected starting 5 of Conley, Miller, Gay, Gasol and Darko and would like to see them play a bit before they scrap the present for the future.

STOMP


----------



## yuyuza1

STOMP said:


> Adding a protected 1st doesn't seem to go nearly far enough to give Memphis the motivation to part with Miller to me. I'd think that they are relatively excited about their projected starting 5 of Conley, Miller, Gay, Gasol and Darko and would like to see them play a bit before they scrap the present for the future.
> 
> STOMP


They'd save a lot of money, and Kinsey really came on strong at the end of last year. They could also play Gay at SG, and bring Warrick to play SF. My thought was that Miller seems expendable because of the young talent they have.


----------



## Oldmangrouch

yakbladder said:


> I like Blake quite a bit, but I still think Jack is the better option long term.
> 
> I find it incredibly funny, in a tragic way, how many people are overly-anxious to give Webster and Outlaw many years to develop and yet Jack is already no good and needs to be shipped out.


To be fair, there is a difference between wanting to dump Jack, and recognizing that he has considerable trade value.

Anyway, I am still not convinced that signing Blake means Jack is gone. I still think the loser here is Sergio.


----------



## MAS RipCity

WOw, I come back from a bachelor party..and find this! I am indifferent on the signing. I just hope we can land a good young SF. I guess it won't matter in 2 years when we sign Chris Paul


----------



## Samuel

Memphis gets hosed in that scenario. Miller is still pretty young, it's not like he's a bulky unproductive contract.


----------



## southnc

yakbladder said:


> No she didn't.
> 
> Someone who liked Blake and happened to be a female posted on here.
> 
> In fact, she took a lot of crap for saying that Blake was better than Jack and even better than the then-saint-and-can-do-no-wrong Telfair.
> 
> Apparently, she was right.


 Well, the passion in her posts made me believe she was either his wife or one of his 3 sisters. :azdaja: 

But, I could be wrong. :whoknows:


----------



## yuyuza1

Samuel said:


> Memphis gets hosed in that scenario. Miller is still pretty young, it's not like he's a bulky unproductive contract.


You're right. He doesn't seem as a likely acquisition as I once thought. Never mind.


----------



## Samuel

I still think that a Przybilla for Turk deal makes a lot of sense for both teams. We might have to include Jack.


----------



## Tortimer

Samuel said:


> I still think that a Przybilla for Turk deal makes a lot of sense for both teams. We might have to include Jack.



I think if we could get Hedo for Joel I would still do that trade. If we add Jack I would possible want something more maybe at least a 2nd round pick or something.


----------



## B_&_B

*Re: Blake is back. Agrees to 3-year deal*



hasoos said:


> I am not so sure Jack is going anywhere. I thought Sergio would come in and show something this year, and while his play has improved in summer league as time went on, he did not do the things necessary to step up another level of NBA play. So that being said, and seeing as how Roy can only play one position on the court at once, they could be bringing him in for them to split time again. Maybe this time though, Jack will be the starter and Blake the bench boy.


I'm with ya. I wouldnt be surprised to see Sergio packaged with Raef or Joel. Jack can play the 2, so he could get solid minutes backing up the 1 and 2. Several teams where very interested in Sergio last year, so maybe we can get some to take Raef's contract if we package him with Sergio... although Raef's contract is up in 2 years I think, and Joel's is longer, so maybe KP would rather deal Joel with Sergio.


----------



## Samuel

The thing about Orlando is I'm not sure they really need Jack on top of Arroyo and Nelson. I feel like we'd need to take back Nelson if we sent them Przybilla and Jack for Turk. And do we really need Nelson? 

I suppose they could take on Jack as a backup SG... who knows.


----------



## Minstrel

While I would have preferred Brevin Knight, I don't think we could have gotten him for this price. I'm reasonably fine with Blake now that I know there's a team option on the third year. He'll be a decent veteran pass-first PG...I'm no great fan of his, but he knows how to get the ball to other players. And I love that his deal can be voided at the same time other contracts ends.


----------



## Blazer Freak

Minstrel said:


> While I would have preferred Brevin Knight, I don't think we could have gotten him for this price. I'm reasonably fine with Blake now that I know there's a team option on the third year. He'll be a decent veteran pass-first PG...I'm no great fan of his, but he knows how to get the ball to other players. And I love that his deal can be voided at the same time other contracts ends.


This is the boat I'm in..


----------



## mgb

southnc said:


> Well, the passion in her posts made me believe she was either his wife or one of his 3 sisters. :azdaja:
> 
> But, I could be wrong. :whoknows:


Ya, I was just guessing, but when he was traded and she was mad and said promises were made it convince me even more that she at least knew him personally if not his wife.


----------



## Ukrainefan

I think that it is possible that BBallchik was so passionate because she had strong feelings about a society in general that puts image and flashiness over substance.


----------

