# "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack," <merged>



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

These are the words of Blazer GM Kevin Pritchard. Que Star Trek music. These quotes come from Jason Quicks objective report on the issue entitled, "Blazers pit Blake vs. Jack"

I know the first thought that came to my mind was the almost identicle quote that came out regarding Zach Randolph, and since Zach is still a Blazer...I also feel that KP always wanted Oden.

This is not to say that KP cannot be trusted, but you certainly cannot take the man at his word. It is different than trust, a little more along the lines of faith. Everything might not make sense at the time, but you should believe that in the end it will be okay. Call it Kool-Aid if you like, heck we did obtain James Jones. 

If you think about it the quote might actually be true. I mean it is kinda like the Bill Clinton approach. Clinton did not engage in sexual relations, he was simply sitting there when it all just sorta happened. So who is blowing in Pritchards ear on the other end of the phone? The key word is "engaged" as is maybe KP means that they have not made the initial call. I am sure teams have called about Jack.

If they do end up keeping Jack, then I think we found our answer to the SF question. Here is another quote from KP-

_"The luxury of this is that with Jarrett, Brandon (Roy) and Steve, they are all multipositional players. They can all play (shooting guard) and they can all play the point. And two of them can play together at the same time. In this league, you've got to have options and be 10 (players) deep." _

Ah the old multipositional approach, a kama sutra if you will of backcourt bliss. This works really well when you get three players involved, just ask the Suns. 

This was from Quick's behind the beat blog, Quicks's words:

_"word is that coach Nate McMillan is leaning toward frequently playing with a three-guard offense this season. So, in essence, it could work."_
-Jason Quick

Now I certainly have no doubt that a lineup of Blake, Jack, Roy, LMA, and Oden will work. I would love to see it.

In the "Fact Box" in the article the question is posed, Will four be a crowd? I say only if you run out of positions.

Quick's article
http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1184482537203510.xml&coll=7

Quick's blog entry
http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2007/07/jarrett_jack_they_see_me_in_a.html


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

Jack is all but traded. Either that or Sergio really isn't the PG of the future and he is traded. As I said in the other thread regarding Jack, there is no way Blake or his agent would agree to come here for a short contract if he wasn't all but assured he would be the starter.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

So..the team wasn't talking about trading Zach, and it turned out they had been trying all off season and during the season..Blake had "signed a deal" with Denver, but turned out he hadn't and ended up signing with the Blazers, a team that Quick said had no chance...and now the team isn't talking about trading Jack.....

Quick sure is on a role.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

I think there's a good chance that we keep Jack for this season- I don't see Sergio as being ready for prime time yet and a Jack/Blake or Blake/Jack rotation gives us a decent 1 spot. It also gives us some depth at the 2, because it allows Jack to slide over there at times.

It can also light a fire under Jack, who I think has more potential than Blake. I think that Jack is also definitely better than our matador-defense point guard at this point.

I really like this signing, I think it's one of those small moves that brings us closer to the playoffs.

I see the roster as follows:

1- Blake/Jack/Sergio
2- Roy (with Jack/Webster playing minutes)
3- Jones/Outlaw/Webster
4- Aldridge/Raef/Frye
5- Oden/Pryzbilla/McRoberts

On reserve- Miles, Green

This is a pretty nice team- we can have decent defense by playing Blake/Roy/Jones/Aldridge/Oden and having scoring- both from the perimeter with Outlaw/Roy/Jack and inside with Aldridge and Oden(though we'll see how that develops).

I think the team, so long as we resign outlaw, is good for 44 wins.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

Of course he's going to deny the rumors. That's his job. Trades are confidential internal affairs of a private business.

As for Blake and Jack, I think they compliment each other very well. I see Blake as the starter because I view Jack as the ultimate "glue guy" or sixth man on a championship team.

If they want to trade someone they should trade Sergio. I am not convinced he'll ever be a starter at this level. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



Hap said:


> Quick sure is on a role.


I know its really hip right now to bash Quick, but its really lame to try to slam him for quoting Pritchard.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



blazerboy30 said:


> I know its really hip right now to bash Quick, but its really lame to try to slam him for quoting Pritchard.


Ok, so you take away the one quote, and whats that leave you? Someone who is still wrong a lot.

I didn't even address his gross misunderstanding of the CBA (Canzano has him beat for "I don't even remotely know how the CBA works" department though) either. 

Maybe if Quick had said "Pritchard said this....but also said the same thing about Zach Randolph".


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



blazerboy30 said:


> I know its really hip right now to bash Quick, but its really lame to try to slam him for quoting Pritchard.


Who ever said it was hip?

If a popular pastime of Blazer's messageboard nerds is "hip", then ok.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

I do NOT consider Steve Blake to be a "multipositional" player. In fact he makes me a little nervous trying to watch him play the 2.

But Jack IS a "multipositional" player and I don't see why the Blazers couldn't use him at the 2.

I'd hate to see Jack get moved just because Blake is back. I think Blake being back is a good thing, really, but after giving it some thought I don't see why that means Jack would be out the door.

I have to respectfully disagree with whoever said Jack had more "potential" than Blake. It isn't like Blake is some grandfather with one foot in the proverbial NBA career grave -- he's 27, an age at which he is still on the cusp of his prime.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*KP at it again*

I was reading the O today and there is an article about Jack and Blake. KP called Jack and told him about the trade. When Jack asked about the trade rumors, KP said "[we] see you in a Blazer uniform, and that there are no trade talks going on.

At the begining of the summer I would have believed KP. But after the whole "we aren't shopping Zach, there is no pending deal for Zach" to " that was the best offer we got for Zach" . . . I really don't believe him this time around. 

Is it a good thing I don't trust the GM . . . who cares, I just want a winning team again.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

*Re: KP at it again*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Is it a good thing I don't trust the GM . . . who cares, I just want a winning team again.


It's ok to not trust what he's saying as long as you trust what he's doing.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

Either Sergio or Martell (if they go with Jack at the 2) are going to rot at the end of that bench.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



Samuel said:


> Either Sergio or Martell (if they go with Jack at the 2) are going to rot at the end of that bench.


Good. Neither one of them appears to be ready to make contributions in a game at the NBA level. Make the guys earn minutes on a decent team, instead of being given minutes on a bad team.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



soonerterp said:


> *I do NOT consider Steve Blake to be a "multipositional" player. In fact he makes me a little nervous trying to watch him play the 2.*
> But Jack IS a "multipositional" player and I don't see why the Blazers couldn't use him at the 2.
> 
> I'd hate to see Jack get moved just because Blake is back. I think Blake being back is a good thing, really, but after giving it some thought I don't see why that means Jack would be out the door.
> ...


When he was with us he guarded the best player on the other. Players like Kobe and such.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: KP at it again*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I was reading the O today and there is an article about Jack and Blake. KP called Jack and told him about the trade. When Jack asked about the trade rumors, KP said "[we] see you in a Blazer uniform, and that there are no trade talks going on.
> 
> At the begining of the summer I would have believed KP. But after the whole "we aren't shopping Zach, there is no pending deal for Zach" to " that was the best offer we got for Zach" . . . I really don't believe him this time around.
> 
> Is it a good thing I don't trust the GM . . . who cares, I just want a winning team again.


John Nash seemingly told everybody what he was thinking.

Though I liked having the access to the info as a fan, I have to say, it made me uncomfortable. I couldn't figure out the "angle". You know, how being the only guy at the poker table with all his cards showing would be helpful in the game.

Worry about results - not the process.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: KP at it again*

Man, some of you people would be horrible poker players.

"Ummm ... yeah, I have pocket aces, just so you all know. I didn't want you guys to think I was a liar by slow-playing it and getting all of you to put your money in the pot."


Lesson here: KP has nothing to gain by showing his hand. He should be out-and-out lying to the media, to the other GM's, and in some cases, to his players. That's part of the game. Let other general managers think they have to give up more than they think they should to get a solid young point guard.

-Pop


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: KP at it again*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I was reading the O today and there is an article about Jack and Blake. KP called Jack and told him about the trade. When Jack asked about the trade rumors, KP said "[we] see you in a Blazer uniform, and that there are no trade talks going on.
> 
> At the begining of the summer I would have believed KP. But after the whole "we aren't shopping Zach, there is no pending deal for Zach" to " that was the best offer we got for Zach" . . . I really don't believe him this time around.
> 
> Is it a good thing I don't trust the GM . . . who cares, I just want a winning team again.



Lets get one thing straight here. KP told Zbo and his agent both they were going to trade him. After the trade went down, when asked, Zbo said him and his agent had been informed weeks before the deal went through. Secondly, no GM is going to say openly they are looking to trade somebody, and the player in question themselves doesn't want them to either, because it degrades the value of the player, and if no deal can get done, the player doesn't get traded and ends up sitting here in a bad situation.

So what exactly what is your problem? That KP isn't keeping you personally in the loop? That he doesn't ask your opinion of every trade possiblity that comes through? That he doesn't call you up and tell you a trade is going down? Maybe you should get some counseling to help you get through your ordeal.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



soonerterp said:


> I do NOT consider Steve Blake to be a "multipositional" player. In fact he makes me a little nervous trying to watch him play the 2.
> 
> But Jack IS a "multipositional" player and I don't see why the Blazers couldn't use him at the 2.
> 
> ...


Sure he is multipositional. When he plays shooting guard he plays in the "Bend Over" position.:biggrin:


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: KP at it again*

LameR said it perfect.


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



hasoos said:


> Sure he is multipositional. When he plays shooting guard he plays in the "Bend Over" position.:biggrin:


Unless he is behind Kobe, in which case Blake is fully erect with Kobe being the one bent over.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

Gambler, you think Raef gets time before Frye?


----------



## Bob Whitsitt (Jul 12, 2007)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

First off, Roy will not play the 3. Second off, a 3 guard system will work with young guys who mesh well together. Thirdly, stop trolling every Jason Quick post there is. And finally - STOP BASHING BLAKE. Don't be so pigheaded, you are all the same people who loved him a couple years ago. He's better than Jack in almost every way and it will become apparent this year.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



Sug said:


> Unless he is behind Kobe, in which case Blake is fully erect with Kobe being the one bent over.


 :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



BenDavis503 said:


> Gambler, you think Raef gets time before Frye?


No...I was just being sloppy in adding the names. I'm actually pretty excited about Frye's potential. 

however, I do remember a time when Raef was a good player- it'd be nice to see flashes of that.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

Yeah I'm really stoked about Frye too


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



Bob Whitsitt said:


> First off, Roy will not play the 3. Second off, a 3 guard system will work with young guys who mesh well together. Thirdly, stop trolling every Jason Quick post there is. And finally - STOP BASHING BLAKE. Don't be so pigheaded, you are all the same people who loved him a couple years ago. He's better than Jack in almost every way and it will become apparent this year.


Why are you telling people what to do in your post? This is a place to post opinion, not post what somebody tells you to post as your opinion. 

Secondly, nice bunch of generalities. I always have felt Blake is a pile of shiznit, I have no problem with what Jason Quick writes, and Jack is better then Blake, and you obviously haven't payed close attention if you think Roy will never play the 3, he already has, and will continue to when the Blazers go small.

Anything else you want to be wrong about?:biggrin:


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



hasoos said:


> Why are you telling people what to do in your post? This is a place to post opinion, not post what somebody tells you to post as your opinion.
> 
> Secondly, nice bunch of generalities. I always have felt Blake is a pile of shiznit, I have no problem with what Jason Quick writes, and Jack is better then Blake, and you obviously haven't payed close attention if you think Roy will never play the 3, he already has, and will continue to when the Blazers go small.
> 
> Anything else you want to be wrong about?:biggrin:


I was just about to post something similar, except with spelling errors.:cheers:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



For Three! Rip City! said:


> As for Blake and Jack, I think they COMPLIMENT each other very well.


They certainly do:

"It's a good move," Jack said. "They are trying to improve the lineup, and we're getting some experience. I guess now I have to come into camp and battle for the position."

"I think he did a good job for us. We kind of got into a groove, a rhythm, once he became our starter," Jack said. "I'm sure I will get in touch with him when I get to Portland next week."

Blake: "Great. A lot of guys who can play."

"That's why I play the game, competition," Blake said. "That's the thing I thrive on, being hurt when I lose and doing everything to win. But this isn't about competition with the other point guards, those guys are my teammates. It's not about beating them, we are out to beat our opponents."

Even Sergio got into the act:

." . . . Blazers point guard Sergio Rodriguez on the Blake deal: "Steve Blake is a good point guard, but I have to work to be better, not only just better than him. I want to play, so I will continue to work hard so I can play as many minutes as possible."


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

That said, if Jack stays it means another season wasted while Nate constantly juggles line-ups looking for the right combination and PT and chemistry never come about.

This has been the main reason we lose dating all the way back to WeakCheeks.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

How rosy....atleast outwardly.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: KP at it again*

Hypocrisy and lying is a far worse sin than what most "JailBlazers" have ever done.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

When you give up a height advantage, I'm not convinced the three guard line-up works _unless_ the idea is really to push the ball. Blake, Jack, and Roy could "out quick" most other 1,2, and 3 combinations (presuming the other team isn't also playing small, in which case the height thing is a wash). I wouldn't be opposed to seeing them running more and the ball-handling is pretty high there, all three being PG-capable.

Still, the same could be done with Rodriguez or Green in the line-up (though yet more height is given up) and I'm concerned about Rodriguez potentially never coming off the bench -- I like Nate rather a lot but I fear that with Blake, Jack, Roy, and even Green there (if he is) Nate might never turn to Rodriguez.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: KP at it again*



hasoos said:


> Lets get one thing straight here. KP told Zbo and his agent both they were going to trade him. After the trade went down, when asked, Zbo said him and his agent had been informed weeks before the deal went through. Secondly, no GM is going to say openly they are looking to trade somebody, and the player in question themselves doesn't want them to either, because it degrades the value of the player, and if no deal can get done, the player doesn't get traded and ends up sitting here in a bad situation.
> 
> So what exactly what is your problem? That KP isn't keeping you personally in the loop? That he doesn't ask your opinion of every trade possiblity that comes through? That he doesn't call you up and tell you a trade is going down? Maybe you should get some counseling to help you get through your ordeal.


Tell you what, I'll get counseling if you join me. Good lord, all I did was wake up, read the paper, and comment that KP said something and this time I don't believe him . . . then I wondered if that was good and kind of shrugged it off in my mind with a "just want to win".

Now if my questioning the way I feel about a KP quote is a "problem" . . . then I guess I won't posts my thoughts anymore . . . but I thought that is what this board is for.

See you in counseling . . .


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

I think Blake and Jack are not easy to post up against, but I expect that Rodriquez and Green are rather easy to post against. 

I think that the 3 guard rotation may work as a stop gap, but it is not something that is really desirable. If one looks around the league at available/probably can trade for SFs, it has become clear to me, that it is not going to be easy to get a really good SF. The good ones are pretty much tied up now. As an alternative, I suspect the Blazers are looking at "perimeter shooting" and how to make do with what we have. Martell at the moment, seems like only a spot up shooter. He doesn't run off screens well, so one way to take advantage of his shooting is to put him in with 2 PGs who can move/drive to draw an off defender away from Martell. So, as someone wrote earlier, I think the 2 PGs with Martell and the bigs is a potentially decent line up for offense. Martell rebounds well on defense, so that helps for part of the defense. He is vulnerable one on one, but with LA and Oden behind him, there is at least a good chance for recovery. It will require practice.

All this being said, I personally doubt that J. Jack can remain satisfied unless he is getting 25-30 minutes a game. We may well get a chance to see.

In retrospect, I really like the pickup of James Jones. Many kinda possible SF pick ups don't seem significantly better than Jones, and in addition (just $3 mill, thanks Paul) we got pick #24. Next year if Rudy F comes, I think we shall really see a good guard rotation.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*

The reason I don't like the 3 guard thing is Roy is really the only guard we have, unless we keep Ime, who is a better than average defender.

Blake is okay and Jack and Sergio are below average.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: KP at it again*



Masbee said:


> John Nash seemingly told everybody what he was thinking.
> 
> Though I liked having the access to the info as a fan, I have to say, it made me uncomfortable. I couldn't figure out the "angle". You know, how being the only guy at the poker table with all his cards showing would be helpful in the game.
> 
> Worry about results - not the process.


Good point about Nash . . . he was honest to a fault. I guess the consensus is KP has no choice but to lie. I wonder why he doesn't just say we don't comment on trade rumors. Or why he has to personally assure Jack there are no current trade talks, if there are?

But who cares right, I think some posters are missing my conclusion, which is the same as most posters . . . I don't care, I just want to start winning.

It was just a comment that I don't really trust what KP says to media and players.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: KP at it again*



hasoos said:


> So what exactly what is your problem? That KP isn't keeping you personally in the loop? That he doesn't ask your opinion of every trade possiblity that comes through? That he doesn't call you up and tell you a trade is going down? Maybe you should get some counseling to help you get through your ordeal.


Jeez, calm down buddy.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

*Re: KP at it again*

Prior to the Orlando camp KP said they were not shopping Zach. I took that as a sign that they hadn't been officially shopping Zach, but they were going to begin.
With KP's recent comments about having not engaged in talks about Jack, I think that's probably true, officially. But I expect serious talks about trading Jack are about to begin. It's not lying, he's just not telling the world his full intentions.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



MARIS61 said:


> ... chemistry never come about... this has been the main reason we lose dating all the way back to WeakCheeks.


You can't be serious. The "main reason"? The Blazers have lost because they're inexperienced, not reliable as shooters from the outside, indecisive in the face of even the most predictable of defenses, unable to keep opposing guards out of the paint, and shaky late in games. The juggling of lineups has been McMillan's best effort to counteract the substantive problems that the team's players experience on the court. Have frequent lineup changes contributed to losses? At times. But at other times, McMillan's moves have saved games from the crapper.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



MARIS61 said:


> The reason I don't like the 3 guard thing is Roy is really the only guard we have, unless we keep Ime, who is a better than average defender.
> 
> Blake is okay and Jack and Sergio are below average.


Don't forget about Jones. He is a very good defender and is capable of playing at the 2G position as well. With all these combos we have a very good chance of being in many games because we can now sub for defense or offense as the need arises. On D there will be little need to switch. This is a little like the Suns in that players are very intechanagable. I think your concerns are unsubstantiated. 

The Mason or Magettee possible's are interchangeable as well. Ask the question, does the team get better talent wise with the addition of these two or another player??? 

I see some very exciting basketball in our future. Not unlike the year 76-77 and the first part of 77-78. This is the start of something very nice here.:clap: :clap: :clap: :yay: 

Go Blazers!!!!!!!!!!!

gatorpops


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Public Defender said:


> You can't be serious. The "main reason"? The Blazers have lost because they're inexperienced, not reliable as shooters from the outside, indecisive in the face of even the most predictable of defenses, unable to keep opposing guards out of the paint, and shaky late in games. The juggling of lineups has been McMillan's best effort to counteract the substantive problems that the team's players experience on the court. Have frequent lineup changes contributed to losses? At times. But at other times, McMillan's moves have saved games from the crapper.


no doubt. If I were making a top 10 list of reasons that the club has struggled the last few years, I doubt Cheeks/Nate over juggling lineups would warrent a mention let alone sit atop that list. 

my top 3 reasons...
1. lack of talent (especially in the backcourt).
2. imbalanced rosters
3. injuries

Reason #1 is paramount.

STOMP


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: KP at it again*



hasoos said:


> Lets get one thing straight here. KP told Zbo and his agent both they were going to trade him. After the trade went down, when asked, *Zbo said him and his agent had been informed weeks before the deal went through.* Secondly, no GM is going to say openly they are looking to trade somebody, and the player in question themselves doesn't want them to either, because it degrades the value of the player, and if no deal can get done, the player doesn't get traded and ends up sitting here in a bad situation.


You have a link for that?


----------



## ASDQWE (May 31, 2007)

*Re: KP at it again*

Sometimes a good GM will have to lie to get what he wants. Whether to increase a player's trade value, or to assure some people of his intentions. Whatever that may be, it's probably a necessary part of running a team.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



Hap said:


> So..the team wasn't talking about trading Zach, and it turned out they had been trying all off season and during the season..Blake had "signed a deal" with Denver, but turned out he hadn't and ended up signing with the Blazers, a team that Quick said had no chance...and now the team isn't talking about trading Jack.....
> 
> Quick sure is on a *role*.


Is Quick on _Days of Our Lives_ this week, or is it a guest spot on _Entourage_?

:lol:


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



Blazer Freak said:


> When he was with us he guarded the best player on the other. *Players like Kobe and such*.


Yeah, it's amazing how short the memories are on this forum.

Blake wasn't around when Kobe put up 65 on the Blazers this year, was he? Seems like that was Ime's duty, or maybe I am wrong? :biggrin:


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



MARIS61 said:


> The reason I don't like the 3 guard thing is Roy is really the only guard we have, *unless we keep Ime, who is a better than average defender.*
> Blake is okay and Jack and Sergio are below average.


I...can't drive...*65*!!!

:lol:


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

Sug said:


> ...it is kinda like the Bill Clinton approach. Clinton did not engage in sexual relations, he was simply sitting there when it all just sorta happened. So who is blowing in Pritchards ear on the other end of the phone? The key word is "engaged" as is maybe KP means that they have not made the initial call. I am sure teams have called about Jack.


I'm not sure I get the point of that analogy... so Clinton is Pritchard, and Jack... 

...oh ha ha, jack, I get it. nevermind


----------



## lyleb123 (Feb 12, 2007)

:worthy: this was an eductional and FUN thread to read


----------



## UOSean (Jul 7, 2005)

Just because KP says that he hasn't talked about trades involving Jack doesn't mean he won't. We have too many PGs and someones gonna get the squeaze. Both Jack and Sergio have good trade value so either one could potentially be moved.


----------



## Rip City Reign (Jul 1, 2007)

UOSean said:


> . We have too many PGs and someones gonna get the squeaze.


Three is not too many. Green hasn't shown much and Jack can play some backup SG if needed. Kopenen is headed back to Europe, Jack is staying in Portland.


----------



## Rip City Reign (Jul 1, 2007)

*Re: "We have not engaged in any trade talks involving Jarrett Jack,"*



MARIS61 said:


> The reason I don't like the 3 guard thing is Roy is really the only guard we have, unless we keep Ime, who is a better than average defender.
> 
> Blake is okay and Jack and Sergio are below average.


Lumping Jack with Sergio when discussing defense is unfair. Jack is far better than Sergio on defense and it better than Blake at guarding taller players.


----------

