# Vecsey Just Said...



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

on TV right now that the Blazers won't budge unless Frye is included. He also said that the rumors that Miles and Nate don't get along are absolutely bogus.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> on TV right now that the Blazers won't budge unless Frye is included. He also said that the rumors that Miles and Nate don't get along are absolutely bogus.


I hope he's right (and as for the holding out for Frye, I bet he is true..why the hell would we be holding out for Lee? Why wouldn't the knicks, if they really want miles and ratliff, JUMP at that??? seriously?)


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Awesome! I love Miles, but talented big men like Frye are very, very hard to come by. Nearly 14 points and 6 boards in 25 minutes is comparable to any other premier big man in the league per 48 minutes. I think Frye could even beat our Zach as our starting PF, making ZBo and his 85M contract expendable.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Anyone think that Thomas will give in and include Frye? I say no.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

i think thomas may just make a trade to be able to say he made one.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Play the Telfair card!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

HOWIE said:


> Play the Telfair card!


again, when blake starts putting up significantly better #'s (and his history shows that he won't pull a steve nash..check his college stats folks, Nash was a SIGNIFICANTLY better college player) than Telfair or Jack does, then maybe we can even joke about trading Telfair to Knicks, just because he's a "NY boy".

Blake, after 4 years in college and 2 years in the NBA (even if he didn't play) isn't exactly that much better than Telfair (or Jack for that matter). If a player in his 2nd season, is putting up #'s that aren't all that much worse than another player...and he's several years younger..you don't trade the younger player unless he's a total *******, or demands it. I know that you're doing it to be "tlong funny".

Telfair has improved greatly from last year, and it's not like he doesn't show signs of further improvement. Blake is basically at his peak, and what he is. A decent player, who should be the backup IF they keep him.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Hap said:


> I hope he's right (and as for the holding out for Frye, I bet he is true..why the hell would we be holding out for Lee? Why wouldn't the knicks, if they really want miles and ratliff, JUMP at that??? seriously?)


Well put.

For once my inclination is to agree with Vescey. I've never bought into the preconceived notion that Miles and Nate had any problems. I've seen nothing but positive signs from Miles all year.

And Miles and Ratliff is just too much to give up for just Lee, unless the main goal is to save money and suck for an extra year.

If this is true, don't expect either of these guys to blink until the last minute. I think Nash has a pretty good hand. It could be a long week.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

I'm sure this has been brought up, but what if NY wants Detroit's pick? 

Frye
Penny

for 

Miles
Theo
Detroit's pick 

I still don't think Thomas does that. I think they're keeping Frye and Curry for sure.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd give them Detroit's pick for sure as long as we don't give up our #1.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

HOWIE said:


> Play the Telfair card!


You know in all seriousness Howie,trading Telfair to the Knicks would be a great idea. If word got out that one of their favorite sons could be had Thomas might feel the pressure and over pay. I'm not really sure what good trading with New York does, but if there were a way to get a combo of Fry,Lee, Robinson and a high pick I say go for it.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Hap said:


> Blake is basically at his peak, and what he is. A decent player, who should be the backup IF they keep him.


Hap - I'm really disappointed to see such a simple-minded statement coming from you. This is just Blake's 2nd full year in the NBA as a PG. (Last year he was religated to a perimeter specialist after returning from injury, whilst Areans played 40+ mins / game as the PG). If you check the stats, Blake has improved in practically every area this year. Especially in his Assist / TO ratio and his defence.

The PG position requires a lot of maturity and experience. Blake is no where near his peak and should continue to improve. I would also offer up the same for Telfair and Jack as well. But in Telfair's case, he still needs to acquire the fundementals that both Jack and Blake have already mastered via their college experience.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think Frye could even beat our Zach as our starting PF, making ZBo and his 85M contract expendable.



1. no way would Frye start over zach.
2. zach is already expendable (but nobody would trade for his contract unless
they were unloading a worse one).


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Right on, southnc


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> Hap - I'm really disappointed to see such a simple-minded statement coming from you. This is just Blake's 2nd full year in the NBA as a PG. (Last year he was religated to a perimeter specialist after returning from injury, whilst Areans played 40+ mins / game as the PG). If you check the stats, Blake has improved in practically every area this year. Especially in his Assist / TO ratio and his defence.



but if you check out his college stats, you'll see he was pretty pedestrian. It's not like he's shown that he can put up really great #'s anywhere.



> The PG position requires a lot of maturity and experience. Blake is no where near his peak and should continue to improve. I would also offer up the same for Telfair and Jack as well. But in Telfair's case, he still needs to acquire the fundementals that both Jack and Blake have already mastered via their college experience.


I dont know if I'd say that either jack or blake have mastered fundementals, let alone mastered anything. People seem to think that Blake will turn into something he's not. He's not steve nash, nor has he *EVER* shown that he is that kind of player. While it is high school, at least telfair has shown that he has a flair to be something bigger than 9 points and 5-6 assists a game.

It's rare that a college player who after 4 years finally gets to double figures, is going to be more than what he is, after 3 years in the league.

The thing is, IF telfair needs to "acquire the fundementals" (that jack and blake have "mastered" *snicker*) and he's not all that much worse than the two of them are at this piont (despite being younger and having no college experience) it seems to point to him being a lot better in the end.

I could understand if this was like the team having Tony Parker starting, and Telfair off the bench, but Blake isn't really anything more than he is, and thats not an insult to his game. 

College generally says a lot about a players worth, altho you'll sometimes get someone like Richard Jefferson who puts up the same ppg all his years in college.

But Blake started off with meek #'s, and didn't exactly end up with big time #'s. 

I don't know why some people get so perturped when someone points out that he is what he is, a role playing PG in this league. He's a good Danny Young.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

After reading this thread and watching Telfair play more, I've got a question: 

Can Telfair even thrive in the Blazers' current system? To me, it seems like Telfair needs to have the ball in his hands to be really effective. He's as quick a point guard as you'll find, and his dribbling skills are second to none. I've only watched four Blazers games this year, which may not be enough, but it seems like the offense depends a lot on ball movement and motion. From what I saw, Telfair usually brought the ball up the court and passed it off, setting the offense in motion. I really think he needs to have the ball more to be effective, so he can penetrate the defense. 

Obviously, he has a lot of work to do with his shot and decision-making, but I just don't see how he can develop in the current system. What do you all think?


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Hap said:


> but if you check out his college stats, you'll see he was pretty pedestrian. It's not like he's shown that he can put up really great #'s anywhere.


*Blake's College Career Highlights:*
Named Honorable Mention All-America by AP following junior and senior seasons. Named First Team All-ACC as a senior after Third Team All-ACC nod as a junior. *Finished career fifth among NCAA’s all-time assist leaders with 972*, fourth all-time in ACC history behind Bobby Hurley (1,076), Chris Corchiani (1,038), and Ed Cota (1,030). *Is the first player in ACC history with at least 1,000 points, 800 assists, 400 rebounds, and 200 steals.* Set school records with game started (136) and minutes (4,312). Ranks third all-time in school history with 182 three-point field goals made and fourth with 234 steals. Had 23 career double-figure assist games.


In addition to:

4 NCAA Tournament Sweet 16 or better
2 NCAA Final 4s
2002 NCAA National Champions

Yeah - real pedestrian.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Well, Thomas could deal Frye because he has Curry and Jerome James also. Thomas is known to do crazy things like sign Jerome James. How long until Thomas last?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> *Blake's College Career Highlights:*
> Named Honorable Mention All-America by AP following junior and senior seasons. Named First Team All-ACC as a senior after Third Team All-ACC nod as a junior. *Finished career fifth among NCAA’s all-time assist leaders with 972*, fourth all-time in ACC history behind Bobby Hurley (1,076), Chris Corchiani (1,038), and Ed Cota (1,030). *Is the first player in ACC history with at least 1,000 points, 800 assists, 400 rebounds, and 200 steals.* Set school records with game started (136) and minutes (4,312). Ranks third all-time in school history with 182 three-point field goals made and fourth with 234 steals. Had 23 career double-figure assist games.
> 
> 
> ...


as for the "4th all time" assists stuff, big deal. The guys ahead of him did exactly what in the NBA? Bupkiss.

ok, here is a list of 28 current NBA PG's who have significantly better college stats, and therefore one could argue that they'll improve a lot more in the NBA than Blake. Altho Dickau and Tryone Lue are some of the flaws in this theory.

Jason Williams. 13 and 17
Damon 7, 11, 18 and 23
Baron Davis 12 and 16
Dickau 19 and 21
Andre MIller 8.6, 10, 14 and 16
Cassell 21, 23, 18 18
Ridnour 7.4, 15.5, 20
Antonio Daniels 12.6, 10, 16 24
Claxton 15, 16, 13 23
Fisher 7.2, 10, 18 15
Nash 8.1, 14.6, 21 17
Bobby Jackson 11 13 15
Bibby 13.5 17
Arenas 15.4, 16.2
Francis 12.5, 25, 17
Wade 18 22
House 17.5 11 19 23
Knight 11, 17, 16 16
Lue 9, 19 21
Delk 4.5, 16.6 17 18
Tinsley 14 22 11 14
Billups 18 19
McInnis 5.6, 12 16.5
Hinrich 5.5, 11.5, 15 17
Marbury 19
Kidd 13, 17
Payton 12.5, 14.5 21, 25
Jason Terry 3.1, 10.6, 10.6, 22


whereas Blake was 7, 7 8 and 11.6

All of those guys are better than Blake cept for Dickau. You could say that Lue and Tinsley are also better. All of them showed they have a much higher capacity (or ceiling) than Blake did. So by comparison, yes,Blake had pedestrian stats in college. Winning a national title doesn't make him better than Ridnour, who didn't. Going to the final 4 doesn't make him better than Ridnour, who didn't. You honestly can't tell me you'd rather have Blake over Ridnour because Blake won a national title, can you?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

kaydow said:


> I'm sure this has been brought up, but what if NY wants Detroit's pick?
> 
> Frye
> Penny
> ...



I think that is the kind of deal that will go down if any.... the pick spices it up just a bit, yet we still get Frye

I read today that NY thinks Frye and Curry are their building blocks for the future... so maybe they will not trade Frye


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Oooooo, oooooo, oooooo... hey, I've got an idea! :angel: 

We make the "rumored" trade with New York (Ratliff and Miles for Penny, Lee, and Denver's '06 1st), then turn around a pull a two-part (for CBA purposes; at least I think this would be necessary), blockbuster trade for Paul Pierce! 

1.
Penny
2006 1st (unprotected)
2006 1st (from Denver)

for

Paul Pierce




then...



2.
Patterson
Dixon

for

Raef Lafrentz




Blake / Telfair / Jack
Pierce / Webster / Smith
Przybilla / LaFrentz / Ha
Khryapa / Outlaw / Monia
Randolph / Lee / (LaFrentz)




:rocket: BASH AWAY!!! :rocket:

And, yes, I realize that this scenario/idea/whatever is a pipe-dream... at absolute best! :devil2:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> You know in all seriousness Howie,trading Telfair to the Knicks would be a great idea. If word got out that one of their favorite sons could be had Thomas might feel the pressure and over pay. I'm not really sure what good trading with New York does, but if there were a way to get a combo of Fry,Lee, Robinson and a high pick I say go for it.


The only reason I say play the Telfair card is if you want to get Frye. I don't see New York giving him up unless they get a player that would spark interest at Madison Square Garden like you said, Telfair. Even then it breaks the Cardinal rule of trading a big for a small, but as you said, it might put just enough pressure on Thomas to say yes. We aren't talking logic like Hap keeps trying to bring up, we are talking about hot buttons for certain GM's. Do you really think that I say "play the Telfair card" if we are talking about Minnesota or Washington? No, only if you are talking Knicks or Nets.

So again, if you really want Frye, you play the Telfair card or shut up about holding out for Frye.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Well, if it takes both Miles and Bassy to get Frye then their will be no deal. I love Frye, but giving up a 20yo PG and a SF who is completley capable of being a 20ppg scorer is too high of a price to pay.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

southnc said:


> *Blake's College Career Highlights:*
> Named Honorable Mention All-America by AP following junior and senior seasons. Named First Team All-ACC as a senior after Third Team All-ACC nod as a junior. *Finished career fifth among NCAA’s all-time assist leaders with 972*, fourth all-time in ACC history behind Bobby Hurley (1,076), Chris Corchiani (1,038), and Ed Cota (1,030). *Is the first player in ACC history with at least 1,000 points, 800 assists, 400 rebounds, and 200 steals.* Set school records with game started (136) and minutes (4,312). Ranks third all-time in school history with 182 three-point field goals made and fourth with 234 steals. Had 23 career double-figure assist games.
> 
> 
> ...


Blake doesn't just talk the talk.

He walks the walk.

When he finds a team that can do the same, he'll shine.

Unfortunately, he hasn't found that team yet.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Well, if it takes both Miles and Bassy to get Frye then their will be no deal. I love Frye, but giving up a 20yo PG and a SF who is completley capable of being a 20ppg scorer is too high of a price to pay.


Interesting...Suppose Zeke sees it your way and offers Penny,Picks/Lee for Ratliff and Bassy??

No way does Zeke trade Frye.....If you dont do it for Odom or Artest,you dont do it for Miles...
Believe it or not Larry really like Qyntell Woods,which makes me wonder about going after Miles


----------



## Jaybird (Aug 5, 2002)

Hap said:


> as for the "4th all time" assists stuff, big deal. The guys ahead of him did exactly what in the NBA? Bupkiss.
> 
> ok, here is a list of 28 current NBA PG's who have significantly better college stats, and therefore one could argue that they'll improve a lot more in the NBA than Blake. Altho Dickau and Tryone Lue are some of the flaws in this theory.
> 
> ...


No offense, but what in the world do those numbers mean? With no frame of reference, the blind putting down of numbers doesn't really emphasize anything.

Judging by my knowledge of a few of the players, I'm assuming you're listing pts per game by year in college. 

IF that's the case, what a horrific argument for judging a point guard's potential. If a PG's goal was simply to score points, maybe that would be a valid criticism. But distributing the ball, assists, wins, defense, and running an offense are all as important if not more if not arguably more so. Who cares if your PG scores 35 pts a game, if you're losing games because your offense amounts to him dribbling the ball and looking to score himself. It doesnt make you a good PG, just a selfish one that's good at putting the ball in the hoop. 

A point guard has to be the extention of a coach's will out on the court. He has to judge the tempo of the game and adjust the style of play accordingly, keep his players involved, run the proper plays and recognize the opposing defenses. That's how a PG can truly affect TEAM success, not by simply scoring more. 

Whether or not Blake is to be the a PG in the plans of the Blazers, he's proven through his tenure that he's learned how to manage a team and turn the whole into something greater than the sum of its parts consistently. Telfair hasn't shown that ability yet, and maybe he will. But to bash a player because he puts the ball in his teamates hands in good positions to score is ludicrous. And to say there's no upside in that is just wrong.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Jaybird said:


> No offense, but what in the world do those numbers mean?


shoe size.

what the hell would they mean? For gods sake. 



> With no frame of reference, the blind putting down of numbers doesn't really emphasize anything.
> 
> Judging by my knowledge of a few of the players, I'm assuming you're listing pts per game by year in college.
> 
> IF that's the case, what a horrific argument for judging a point guard's potential. If a PG's goal was simply to score points, maybe that would be a valid criticism. But distributing the ball, assists, wins, defense, and running an offense are all as important if not more if not arguably more so. Who cares if your PG scores 35 pts a game, if you're losing games because your offense amounts to him dribbling the ball and looking to score himself. It doesnt make you a good PG, just a selfish one that's good at putting the ball in the hoop.


it means that he is what he is. a good player on a team, nothing to get all excited about, or worth keeping over potentially better players.



> A point guard has to be the extention of a coach's will out on the court. He has to judge the tempo of the game and adjust the style of play accordingly, keep his players involved, run the proper plays and recognize the opposing defenses. That's how a PG can truly affect TEAM success, not by simply scoring more.
> 
> Whether or not Blake is to be the a PG in the plans of the Blazers, he's proven through his tenure that he's learned how to manage a team and turn the whole into something greater than the sum of its parts consistently. Telfair hasn't shown that ability yet, and maybe he will. But to bash a player because he puts the ball in his teamates hands in good positions to score is ludicrous. And to say there's no upside in that is just wrong.


my point was, and has been and always will be, don't make Blake into more than what he is. He's a good player, but his ceiling is lower than that of Jack and Telfairs. He won't be the next Steve Nash, he'll be lucky to be the next Eric Snow.

As for his assist totals, that proves nothing. The guys ahead of him on the all time assist list, (with the exception of one that i don't know) haven't done JACK in the NBA. Being on the winning NCAA team doesn't mean squat. It's the same mindset that made BJ Armstrong a wanted man, or Horace Grant because they were on the team that won an NBA title. 

Blake doesn't have it in him to become a great PG, and the sooner people realize that, the better. He has never shown that he'll be on the same level of Nash, Kidd, Parker or whatever. He is what he is, and to act like he'll be anything more than what he's been for the *LAST 7* years, is getting old. 

He's not spectacular. He's steady, but nothing to get excited about. He'll be a good backup, but there isn't a single team in the NBA who'd have him start over their own PG right now. And the main reason why he starts now in Portland is because the team knows that putting Telfair out there now, isn't/wasn't that wise. Doesn't mean he's worse than Blake, just means he's still in learning, but his learning curve is much better than Blakes.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm just gonna ask. Hap, why the hate for Steve Blake? I just don't get it.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Its not hate on Steve Blake. What makes you think its hate? Its looking at the guy objectively. He's not calling Blake a bad player....just calling a spade a spade.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I'm just gonna ask. Hap, why the hate for Steve Blake? I just don't get it.


for about the 93rrd time, it's not "hate for Steve Blake". It's called "having a realistic view of Steve Blake".

It's like when people make Viktor out to be more than he is. Viktor is a good role player for a team. 

Steve is the same. He is what he is, a good player who shouldn't be causing Portland fans to be getting all hot and bothered to trade Telfair or Jack.

I could understand if he showed in his past (college) the ability to be a star, but dude hasn't. He's not someone that we need to be trading Telfair over, or acting like he's gonna be something big. Almost all of the players that you can come up with to justify him being better than he is now (meaning, justifying keeping him) had previous stats (in college) that are significantly better.

This isn't about hating Blake, it's about being realistic when it comes to how good of a player he is.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't understand why he can't be as good as Eric Snow. He's been in the league for 2.5 years and has been improving in each one of them. Why can't he improve even more in the next 2-3 years? Steve Nash wasn't all that in his first few years in this league. Now, I'm not saying he'll ever be as good as Nash, but it's not fair to say that his ceiling isn't as high as what Telfair or Jack's is.

I too believe that both Telfair and Jack can be better than Blake 3 years from now, but to not really give Blake a fighting chance doesn't sound objective to me. Players change.

P.S. I won't call it "hate", but you definitely seem to be more critical of Blake most of the time.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I don't understand why he can't be as good as Eric Snow. He's been in the league for 2.5 years and has been improving in each one of them. Why can't he improve even more in the next 2-3 years? Steve Nash wasn't all that in his first few years in this league. Now, I'm not saying he'll ever be as good as Nash, but it's not fair to say that his ceiling isn't as high as what Telfair or Jack's is.
> 
> I too believe that both Telfair and Jack can be better than Blake 3 years from now, but to not really give Blake a fighting chance doesn't sound objective to me. Players change.
> 
> P.S. I won't call it "hate", but you definitely seem to be more critical of Blake most of the time.



Eric Snow was a much better defender then Blake when he was younger. Blake does not have the footspeed to be an excellent defender. He also doesn't have the foot speed to get his own buckets via penetration. What he is good at is not making mistakes and getting the offense going in the half court sets.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Pretty spot on, hasoos. I'd also add that Blake's probably a better shooter, too.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I don't understand why he can't be as good as Eric Snow. He's been in the league for 2.5 years and has been improving in each one of them. Why can't he improve even more in the next 2-3 years? Steve Nash wasn't all that in his first few years in this league. Now, I'm not saying he'll ever be as good as Nash, but it's not fair to say that his ceiling isn't as high as what Telfair or Jack's is.


Steve Nash also had shown he was a much better player in college than Blake was. Thats something that seems to be missing from your base here, admitting that Blake wasn't exactly great in college.

Nash showed his ability to score, shoot and assist. And most importantly, the ability to be taken in the 1st round. Blake didn't.



> I too believe that both Telfair and Jack can be better than Blake 3 years from now, but to not really give Blake a fighting chance doesn't sound objective to me. Players change.


do not confuse what I'm saying with what you're arguing against. This isn't about him not having a "fighting" chance, it's just that people need to realize he is what he is. Saying he is what he is, isn't saying he's a bum, or sucks. It just says that he's a good role player, who, if we tag him as the starting PG for the long run, we're not getting ourselves a great PG. 



> P.S. I won't call it "hate", but you definitely seem to be more critical of Blake most of the time.


I'm not critical of him, I like his game and I like him. But I am critical of people making him out to be much more than he is. Most of the _actual_ blazer fans who started off acting like he was so great, have toned it down. Why have they? I don't know, but I'd bet a lot of it has to do with them realizing that Blake is what he is, and nothing more. 

What exactly has he done to show that he's worth the praise he gets? Well, he's like 5th all time in assists (altho if Payton had played the same # of games, he would've had a lot more than Blake had..so per-game averages are more important than totals)..well, so what? the other guys who had good assist #'s surely are great PG's in the NBA, right?

It'd be a different story if he was coming in scoring 15+ a game and 5-6 assists per game in college. But he didn't. He was at 8 ppg, and 7 assists. 

Thats role player #'s. How many really good players (who went to college) have had those pedestrian college stats?

I'd venture a guess that it's close to nill.

Let's not make him out to be more than a good role player (on a really bad team) who at best, is a stop-gap measure at the PG spot.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> It'd be a different story if he was coming in scoring 15+ a game and 5-6 assists per game in college. But he didn't. He was at 8 ppg, and 7 assists.


In the ACC, that's not bad at all. You should have watched him play, he was impressive to watch. Relying on stats, in this case, may not be your best bet. Because there's something to be said for a floor general who leads a team to an NCAA championship. This is a guy who took over for Steve Francis as a freshman and held the position for 4 years. And it's not like that was his first experience playing competitive ball. He went to Oak Hill Academy (Stackhouse, Strickland, Mercer, McInnis), a school that is consistently ranked in the USA Today Top 25 and travels around the country. He's been playing against top level competition for a lot longer than most 4th year players. 

So I'm not so sure sampling his statistics at Maryland is the best way to read Steve Blake.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Steve Blake was a second round pick. He's 26 next week. He's started 45 games on a series of bad teams.

It's not necessary IMO to look back to college for Blake's potential... he's just not demonstrated anything to this point to indicate he's going to be anything significant in the NBA.

Doesn't mean that he won't emerge as a late bloomer, but the odds are stacked against it.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Steve Blake was a second round pick. He's 26 next week. He's started 45 games on a series of bad teams.
> 
> It's not necessary IMO to look back to college for Blake's potential... he's just not demonstrated anything to this point to indicate he's going to be anything significant in the NBA.
> 
> ...


And if it wasn't for that history, he wouldn't be a Blazer. Him and Dixon were buy low, sell high acquisitions. That doesn't mean they won't amount to anything, that just means that the Blazers organization saw a difference between their percieved value and their actual value.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> And if it wasn't for that history, he wouldn't be a Blazer. Him and Dixon were buy low, sell high acquisitions. That doesn't mean they won't amount to anything, that just means that the Blazers organization saw a difference between their percieved value and their actual value.


or it could mean that they saw two cheap guards, of which were actually willing to come to Portland, and signed them.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> or it could mean that they saw two cheap guards, of which were actually willing to come to Portland, and signed them.


Same difference.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Hap,

Getting into an argument with you is like bumping into Shaq's wife a couple of times. :biggrin: 

*The only thing I was trying to point out was that Blake still has plenty of upside; that he is not yet at his peak, as you indicated.* From everything I can see, this must be true. As to whether he will become a "significant" player, only time will tell. Just as is does for Jack & Telfair.

Your essay-sized reponses and then follow-ups that almost undermine your original replies are really unnecessary, IMO.

Just my 2 cents. :angel:


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

southnc said:


> Hap,
> 
> Getting into an argument with you is like bumping into Shaq's wife a couple of times. :biggrin:
> 
> ...


Exactly!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> Hap,
> 
> Getting into an argument with you is like bumping into Shaq's wife a couple of times. :biggrin:
> 
> ...


stating ones opinion with nothing to back it up is just fluff.

here, I'll try.

Blake has no upside, and he has reached his peak. 

there, thats better.

now that the jockularity is over with, he might have plenty of "upside". But that doesn't mean **** when you take into account his ceiling is more limited, and it's not like he's shown that his peak is going to be much better. He's done nothing to show that he'll be significantly better in the future than he is now.

what exactly has done he done to suggest that he has enough "upside" to justify the praising he's getting? Guy is in his mid 20's, didn't put up terribly impressive #'s in college, and still isn't putting up impressive #'s in his 3rd year, during the time he has been _a starter_.

but you're right, he has "plenty of upside". he'll make a really good backup someday.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

southnc said:


> Hap,
> 
> Getting into an argument with you is like bumping into Shaq's wife a couple of times. :biggrin:
> 
> ...


He speaks for all of us! :clap:


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Blake doesnt have nearly the upside Telfair and Jack have. End of story. Blake has no ability to penetrate, and is the definition of mediocre Point Guard. He can shoot pretty well, but looking at 3 pointers he is on par with Sebastion. He has a tiny frame, and can simply not take it to the hoop. He is a steady, unspectacular and smart player, but these comparisons to a young Nash are insane.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blake will be the next PG to win league MVP.





Or not.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Okay, I see that several people here think Blake has at least a fighting chance to be as good as Telfair and Jack and several don't. So, what do each of you think are the peaks for each player and the odds that they will have at least as good a career as the others?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

gambitnut said:


> Okay, I see that several people here think Blake has at least a fighting chance to be as good as Telfair and Jack and several don't. So, what do each of you think are the peaks for each player and the odds that they will have at least as good a career as the others?


All I know is that Nate and the Blazer braintrust are gonna have a mighty difficult decision(s) on their collective hands over the summer.

There's no doubt in my mind that no more than two of these three guys will be with the Blazers next season. Which one(s) goes.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

gambitnut said:


> Okay, I see that several people here think Blake has at least a fighting chance to be as good as Telfair and Jack and several don't. So, what do each of you think are the peaks for each player and the odds that they will have at least as good a career as the others?



Hm...

I think the odds are against all 3 that any of them will have a really good career (as things stand now). Please note these are the best I think these guys could be, not what they WILL be. 

I think Blake will be about a 9 ppg, 5-6 assist guy at his peak, but it won't be very long. Chance of this being the case? I'd say 75%. Chance of him being better vs worse? 25-75.

Jack could be about a 14 ish, 7 assist guy, for a while. Chance of being this? I'd say 60%. Chance of being better? 50-50

Telfair could be 16-7 and for as long as Jack. Chance of this? I'd say aobut 50-50. Chance of him being better? I'd say 70-30.

It's really difficult to compare 3 completely different talent bases, on the same "grading scale".

2 of the guys are a lot more talented than the other, but the other has more "maturation" on his side. I doub't think that Blake will be the best of the 3 in the long run, barring an injury or something. His starting point isn't exactly that great to begin with, and he doesn't have the signs of someone who has the ability TO become something great (speed, defense and athleticism to start with).

However, the player of the 3 that'll most likely reach his "potential" is Blake.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I think it would be sweet if the Knicks buckled and gave us Frye. I think he would fit into Ratliff's spot quite nicely (not that he can do what Ratliff does but he would be a nice backup). 

I really don't think Miles is that big of a loss. He can put up big numbers on a crappy team but I don't think he'll ever be able to be the main cog in a winning team. 

I'm imagining a depth chart next year that looks like this:

Joel / Frye
Randolph / Outlaw
Morrison / Kryapa
Webster / Dixon
Telfair / Blake

On the Blake vs. Telfair vs. Jack debate:

Blake has proven that he can be a reliable 8/6 guy as a starter who does a good job of running the team both offensively and defensively. Jack and Telfair have proven nothing. So I can see how Blake fans are hoping that he can continue to improve gradually while continuing to do the things he's proven he can do. But like Hap and others said it's just not very likely. 

Who knows, maybe we can become a winning team with a guy like Blake running the helm if we have some serious scorers at other positions. I'd rather guys like Telfair and Jack that have the atheletic ability to score develop the team focused game that Blake has so we don't have to hope that other scores emerge.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> And if it wasn't for that history, he wouldn't be a Blazer. Him and Dixon were buy low, sell high acquisitions. That doesn't mean they won't amount to anything, that just means that the Blazers organization saw a difference between their percieved value and their actual value.


Maybe. MUCH more probable that you and some other Blazers fans (and Terps fans) are seeing things that aren't there than that the entire NBA incorrectly saw them as nonfactors (Blake, in particular).

Ed O.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

While I agree somewhat with Hap, I think Steve Blake
(and VK) are perfect for the team. What the blazers
have lacked the last few years is players with a clear
understanding of pecking order. Put another way,
SB and VK are perfect role players - they know they
will not be superstars. They will accept their roles
as backups.

I thought the Danny Young analogy was somewhat
apropos. For years, the team tried to get rid of DY, but
quicker, flashier players didn't have his fundamentals/
outside shot. With SB, we have someone who will become
that better DY.

Unfortunately, this is why I think we should consider
trading Telfair. No matter how good you think he will
become, he will always be a lousy backup - he'll never
truly accept it, and team chemistry will suffer.
My feeling right now is that JJ will is
currently better than SB, and will probably always be.
Things could change, but right now, I say
IF THE DEAL IS RIGHT, trade Telfair.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wizmentor said:


> Unfortunately, this is why I think we should consider
> trading Telfair. No matter how good you think he will
> become, he will always be a lousy backup - he'll never
> truly accept it, and team chemistry will suffer.
> ...


hm, why do you thik he'll always be a lousy backup? Or do you mean, he won't accept a role AS the backup, and therefore he's not worth keeping?

Personally, I think you keep all 3, until one shows he's significantly better than the other 2. So far, none of the 3 have shown that, but 2 of them have shown they have the ability to become much better than the other one. 

I think you trade any of the three if the "deal is right", but you don't look to trade someone who's already a better outside shooter than Jack (despite being younger) and as equally good a PG as Blake is (despite being younger). Why not? IMHO, the flaws in his game are because he's younger, and considering the flaws in his game aren't much more than the two ahead of him, it says a lot about his potential.

It's not like when we had Jermaine and 2/3 starters ahead of him were obviously better. Blake isn't obviously better, nor is Jack. And the deficiencies in Telfairs game have A: been improved on and B: mostly due to experience (or lack there of). 

He's not a good outside shooter (he's improved his 3 point shooting tremendously). He's turnover prone (he's cut down turnovers a LOT) and he plays a little out of control (he's cut that down too).

How many 20 year old PG's (outside of Paul) would be as good as a 26 year old and a guy who's had 3 years of college? 

I'd bet the vast majority wouldn't.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

gambitnut said:


> Okay, I see that several people here think Blake has at least a fighting chance to be as good as Telfair and Jack and several don't. So, what do each of you think are the peaks for each player and the odds that they will have at least as good a career as the others?


right now, I'd guess that they all are about equal in value. 

Telfair has "superstar" at the higher end of his upside, but he also has "poor man's Damon Stoudamire" at the other end, so I think he's more high risk/high reward. 

Blake is Mr. Steady Eddy, but a longshot of being anything more than a bench player on a quality team.

Jack has Greg Anthony potential on defense, and is a potential 12 ppg scorer on offense. Or he may never improve from where he's at now. 

I'm most inclined to trade Blake just because of contracts. with no Bird rights, there's the added risk with him that he doesn't want to re-sign after next year if he really blossoms.


----------



## chula vista blazer (Jul 13, 2005)

Blake- at 27 years, he's starting to get it. Nash was about the same age when he started to average 7 assists/game, so it's possible for a point guard to bloom later. That said, I put Blake's percentage chance of becoming an all star at 15%

Telfair- extremely young (so is Chris Paul, but Telfair is no Chris Paul), great ball handling, passing and so so shooting/knowledge of how to run an offense. Chance of being a star- about 30%

Jack- already a solid point guard with defensive skills. If it were my team, this is the horse that I'd run. Potential for being a 9 assists/3 turn over type of point guard with Payton type defense. His own offenisve production will probably never equal a Telfair/Stoudamire, but this is a point guard we're talking about. Chance of being a star 40%. Chance of being a top ten point guard- 70%.


I would trade Telfair if the deal was right, keep Jack and Blake.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

chula vista blazer said:


> Blake- at 27 years, he's starting to get it. Nash was about the same age when he started to average 7 assists/game, so it's possible for a point guard to bloom later. That said, I put Blake's percentage chance of becoming an all star at 15%


Just thought I'd note that Blake is actually 25 right now; about to turn 26 later this month.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Hap said:


> hm, why do you thik he'll always be a lousy backup? Or do you mean, he won't accept a role AS the backup, and therefore he's not worth keeping?


...if he can't beat out Jack. Yes, he'll never accept a permanent role as a backup.



Hap said:


> Personally, I think you keep all 3, until one shows he's significantly better than the other 2. So far, none of the 3 have shown that, but 2 of them have shown they have the ability to become much better than the other one.
> 
> I think you trade any of the three if the "deal is right", but you don't look to trade someone who's already a better outside shooter than Jack (despite being younger) and as equally good a PG as Blake is (despite being younger). Why not? IMHO, the flaws in his game are because he's younger, and considering the flaws in his game aren't much more than the two ahead of him, it says a lot about his potential.


Really, I'm just wondering if Frye is the "right price". I'm also wondering if the Telfair/Mcmillan
duo is a good one, in the same way that I wonder if the Marbury/L. Brown combo really works.



Hap said:


> It's not like when we had Jermaine and 2/3 starters ahead of him were obviously better. Blake isn't obviously better, nor is Jack. And the deficiencies in Telfairs game have A: been improved on and B: mostly due to experience (or lack there of).
> 
> He's not a good outside shooter (he's improved his 3 point shooting tremendously). He's turnover prone (he's cut down turnovers a LOT) and he plays a little out of control (he's cut that down too).


I like your optimism, and I hope you're right. But right now, he's nowhere in the stratosphere
of a young Damon Stoudamire, Kenny Anderson, or anyone else. This is the year in which
he was handed the reins, and lost his job to a player you've been "realistic" about, even
after all the "strides" he's made.

I'm not a ST-hater. I hope he becomes a premier pg and leads Portland to the championship.
But, I'm not going to keep his name out of trade negotiations, because its not obvious he
will pan out. He's a huge risk, and we have plenty of those already.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wizmentor said:


> Really, I'm just wondering if Frye is the "right price". I'm also wondering if the Telfair/Mcmillan duo is a good one, in the same way that I wonder if the Marbury/L. Brown combo really works.


boy, nothing like guilt by blood there.

what has telfair ever shown to suggest he's even remotely like his cousin?

seriously, can we give that analogy a rest once and for all?



> I like your optimism, and I hope you're right. But right now, he's nowhere in the stratosphere
> of a young Damon Stoudamire, Kenny Anderson, or anyone else. This is the year in which
> he was handed the reins, and lost his job to a player you've been "realistic" about, even
> after all the "strides" he's made.


he lost his starting job because he was injured too. that played a lot into the equation.

but also, Webster lost his starting job to Dixon, should we give up on Webster? I mean, if Telfair isn't supposed to improve on certain things, why would Webster then do it? I say trade em both!

I doubt that Damon, at age 20, would've been that good in the NBA. Kennys first year the league (after 2 years of college ball, and *older* than Telfair) his #'s weren't exactly earth shattering.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Blake is one of the worst starting Point Guards in the league. Here are the starting PG's I would take over Blake...

Delonte West
Felton/Knight
Hinrich/Gordon/Duhon
Terry/Harris
Miller/Watson
Chauncy Billups
Baron Davis
Tinsley/Saraus
Cassell/Livingston
JWill/Wade
Ford/Mo
Kidd
Chris Paul
Stephon Marbury
Jameer Nelson
Steve Nash
Mike Bibby
Tony Parker
Luke Ridonour
Mike James
Deron Williams
Gilbert Arenas

Blake is the definition of mediocre. He has played well, but is a stopgate. He is not worth more than 3M, and we will not resign him. We should deal him while we can, not one of our young and developing PG's. I bet Blake would be loved on many teams, and I be we could get a PF or C back.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Blake is one of the worst starting Point Guards in the league. Here are the starting PG's I would take over Blake...
> 
> Delonte West
> Felton/Knight
> ...


Gilbert Arenas might be more of a SG and I don't know enough about Delonte West, Mike James and Deron Williams to decide if I like them better than Blake, I definitely like the others better than him though.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Blake is one of the worst starting Point Guards in the league. Here are the starting PG's I would take over Blake...
> 
> 
> Blake is the definition of mediocre. He has played well, but is a stopgate. He is not worth more than 3M, and we will not resign him. We should deal him while we can, not one of our young and developing PG's. I bet Blake would be loved on many teams, and I be we could get a PF or C back.


I dissagree BG. Blake is mediocre, and doesn't have a super high ceiling - that's correct. But he's a super character guy. Shows up early, stays late, calls his lady after every game on the road. I don't think you can put a value on that - especially if you're a Blazer fan. I think this kid could be a leader and a fan favorite for years to come - even if it's as a b/u. Look around at the Blazer roster and ask yourself "Who is going to be the team leader for years to come?" A guy who leads vocally, and sets the standard for attitude, work ethic, professionalism, etc. Blake is a rare commodity in today's NBA. I think the Blazers need to deal Telfair or Jack, and keep Blake. I wouldn't trade any of our PG's just yet, unless we were getting something special in return. I, like many others, still can't decide if Telfair or Jack is our future starting PG. I'd wait until this time next year to decide. And for those of you who say it will be too late by then, you're wrong! Both Telfair and Jack will still be young enough to take a chance on.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

kaydow said:


> calls his lady after every game on the road.


How that Hell does that help the Blazers organization anymore? That is a retarded point to bring up. I can care less about him calling his girl after every game. Pippen and Jordan cheated on their wives, yet they are one of the top 50 players of all time, I'd rather have that. 


I think it's rediculous to say lets get rid of either Telfair or Jack and keep Blake. That's just retarded. Blake is about 6 or 7 years older than Telfair and what, 4 or 5 older than Jack? And you want to say Blake is better thats your opinion but how much better? Do you really think Telfair and Jack won't be better than Blake when they turn 25 or 26? They are already next to him now, what makes you think they aren't going to pass him in a year? Not to mention Blake will jet after the next season because we don't own his bird rights. Blake is a good guy to have on the team, don't get me wrong but he isn't a starting point guard in this league and he's not much better if any than Telfair or Jack now to give up on either.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

A lot of short sighted thinking going on in this thread IMO....

Why not give up on Webster? I mean Dixon beat him out, is still fairly young (26? I think) and is signed for another 2 years....

I think the same logic applies to Telfair....This is the problem with HS players...fans and the media in particular EXPECT results quickly, and if they don't get them are WAY too quick to pull the trigger and deal them away...thankfully POR mgmt for all its flaws isn't so shortsighted....

I think dealing away a 20yr old PG with Telfair's potential would be a very big mistake at this point, and it is not like he has been awful....8/9 pts 3/4 assists is not bad for a 20yr old PG in his 2nd year out of high school....

I couldn't disagree more with people so eager to ship Telfair out, those are the kinds of move that come back to haunt you later on....


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> A lot of short sighted thinking going on in this thread IMO....
> 
> Why not give up on Webster? I mean Dixon beat him out, is still fairly young (26? I think) and is signed for another 2 years....
> 
> ...


Excellent post! Couldn't agree more!

2 current All-Star PG's were considered nothing more than perennial backups after 2 full years in the league.  This from 2 guys who played college ball plus the 2 years in the NBA. Now, these two guys are MVP candidates. Fortunately for them, the Suns were able to get Nash back after dealing him away. You think that Boston wished it had been a little more patient with Billups?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> I think it's rediculous to say lets get rid of either Telfair or Jack and keep Blake. That's just retarded. Blake is about 6 or 7 years older than Telfair and what, 4 or 5 older than Jack? And you want to say Blake is better thats your opinion but how much better? Do you really think Telfair and Jack won't be better than Blake when they turn 25 or 26? They are already next to him now, what makes you think they aren't going to pass him in a year? Not to mention Blake will jet after the next season because we don't own his bird rights. Blake is a good guy to have on the team, don't get me wrong but he isn't a starting point guard in this league and he's not much better if any than Telfair or Jack now to give up on either.


check your facts before your rant. It reduces your credibility--especially when calling people retarded. It wouldn't surprise me if Telfair has good numbers some day. However, I also doubt that Telfair will be able to run a team as well as Blake (or Jack). I guess that makes me retarded too, but I would much rather keep Jack and Blake than Telfair.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> How that Hell does that help the Blazers organization anymore? That is a retarded point to bring up. I can care less about him calling his girl after every game. Pippen and Jordan cheated on their wives, yet they are one of the top 50 players of all time, I'd rather have that.
> 
> 
> I think it's rediculous to say lets get rid of either Telfair or Jack and keep Blake. That's just retarded. Blake is about 6 or 7 years older than Telfair and what, 4 or 5 older than Jack? And you want to say Blake is better thats your opinion but how much better? Do you really think Telfair and Jack won't be better than Blake when they turn 25 or 26? They are already next to him now, what makes you think they aren't going to pass him in a year? Not to mention Blake will jet after the next season because we don't own his bird rights. Blake is a good guy to have on the team, don't get me wrong but he isn't a starting point guard in this league and he's not much better if any than Telfair or Jack now to give up on either.


I don't think Blake is a starting PG either, that's why I said keep his as the B/U!! Don't you understand that Telfair and Jack aren't going to be content splitting minutes long term? Pick one of them, get rid of the other, and keep Blake as a b/u is what I said. Jack and Telfair would be more tradable assets than Blake anyways. I'll repeat, I like Steve Blake as our B/U PG. Get it. Plus, I didn't say to give up on Jack or Telfair now - I said wait until this time next year to start looking at that. And guys like Blake DO help the org! For as many fans who don't go to games anymore b/c the Blazers aren't winning, there are just as many who don't go b/c they can't relate to the players. Most of those are fringe fans who don't waste time on the Fan Boards like we do, but potential ticket buyers none the less. Blake is a guy you can market. Not b/c he's an all star, he'll never be that. He's a solid guy. None of that would be worth squat if he didn't have strenghts on the court, but he does! He's shown the ability to get the team into its offense, he's a good shooter, decent defender, a perfect b/u IMO. Not a playmaker, but a b/u. Did I say b/u enough times or do you still think I believe Blake is a better player than Jack or Telfair?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> check your facts before your rant. It reduces your credibility--especially when calling people retarded. It wouldn't surprise me if Telfair has good numbers some day. However, I also doubt that Telfair will be able to run a team as well as Blake (or Jack). I guess that makes me retarded too, but I would much rather keep Jack and Blake than Telfair.


if after 4 years of college, and 2 years in the league, this is as good as Blake runs a team (read: not a whole lot better)...woopty doo.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Man, this thread is going "south" faster than a Hawk escaping winter.

The problem is not with any of our PGs - I think, as a group, they're holding up their end of the bargan. And all have been improving this year - especially Jack & Blake.

We need to focus more on the other positions - we still need
-Tall SG (especially with small PGs); Dixon has done a very good job, though
-Quality SF
-Quality backup PF
-10 day contract Center, until Joel & Ratliff recover; Ha ain't getting it done.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> We need to focus more on the other positions - we still need
> 
> 
> -10 day contract Center, until Joel & Ratliff recover; Ha ain't getting it done.


As I mentioned in another thread, how do they pull that off with a current 15-man roster?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

We don't need to trade any of our point guards. Three is the right number to have. 
But if someone offers us something good, we could survive for awhile with two. 
Which one could be traded would depend on what the other team wanted and what they were
offering. None of them are untouchable.

However, it's a little silly to argue about which one we should get rid of. There's no reason to get rid of any of them in the absence of an interesting offer.

barfo


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

barfo said:


> We don't need to trade any of our point guards. Three is the right number to have.
> But if someone offers us something good, we could survive for awhile with two.
> Which one could be traded would depend on what the other team wanted and what they were
> offering. None of them are untouchable.
> ...


 :clap: :rock:


----------

