# Quick: Jarrett could be traded next summer



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

He took part in his weekly OLive chat today and speculated a bit on the point guard situation.

On Brandon Roy at the point: "I think it's his future position, and I think that's something to keep an eye on this summer. I think there's a chance that this team could trade Jarrett Jack."

"That's not a knock on Jarett's abilities or his performance ... if the opportunities arise, they would feel comfortable trading Jarrett, because they know Brandon, it looks like that is going to be his position in the NBA."

He offered no sources within the organization and didn't indicate that it was anything more than speculation. So take it with a grain of salt. For that matter, take it with an entire salt mine. But still, some interesting speculation to think about as the year goes on.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

wastro said:


> He took part in his weekly OLive chat today and speculated a bit on the point guard situation.
> 
> On Brandon Roy at the point: "I think it's his future position, and I think that's something to keep an eye on this summer. I think there's a chance that this team could trade Jarrett Jack."
> 
> ...


Myeh...I suppose they could, but I think it'd be far better to have Jack at PG, Roy at SG, and then Roy could spell at PG. That way Webster could play extended minutes at backup SG and starting/backup SF.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Must be that Jack doesn't get along with coach Iavaroni.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah dont make sense to trade jack he makes the team better than having roy without jack!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

This is silly. Brandon Roy CAN play PG, but it's not his natural position. Even if it were, Jack can play off the ball (he did in Georgia Tech).

Dumb. Silly speculation.

(If you're going to speculate, the better fake reason for trading Jack would be _Rodriguez_ needing to start.)


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Sounds like Quick just pulling **** out of his *** to get people to read his chats. 

Jarrett and Roy both controlling the ball works well, IMO. Teams don't always know what to expect everytime down the court.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Any player _may_ be traded next summer... this falls under the No Bleep Sherlock category. By Patterson' statements, I'm pretty sure that any Blazer employee giving JQ anything more then the time of day would probably be fired, so I don't think he has any sources within the organization to quote.

Anyhoo as long as we're baselessly speculating... Quick may be fired next summer.

STOMP


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Jarret's our starting PG and doing a pretty darn good job. Who would we trade him for, and what position? What would be the point of trading him?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Myeh...I suppose they could, but I think it'd be far better to have Jack at PG, Roy at SG, and then Roy could spell at PG. That way Webster could play extended minutes at backup SG and starting/backup SF.



This I think is solid.. especially with Sergio as a potential backup PG...

Roy can still be a playmaker at SG. And I like Webster spending some time at SF


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> Jarret's our starting PG and doing a pretty darn good job. Who would we trade him for, and what position? What would be the point of trading him?


My first reaction was to say that Portland could package him with an expiring contract, but the only expiring contracts next year are Dan Dickau and Juan Dixon.

But in terms of need ... well ... another point guard, unless the front office thinks Sergio is ready for more playing time. Then maybe a small forward? Elsewhere in the rotation, the Baby Blazers just need to grow up and mature into their roles -- Portland's pretty well set everywhere but SF.


----------



## BiggaAdams (Nov 10, 2006)

Not a chance in hell we are going to trade Jack. We didn't get rid of Telfair last year and hand Jack the job only to trade him away and start Roy there. There is nothing wrong with having 2 guys who can distribute the ball. Hell, having a SG who can pass like a PG is a huge advantage. Jack is going to be a very good player in this league, he's still improving and seems to be just the PG Nate wants.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

no way JJ has been great and roy is a natural 2


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Any player _may_ be traded next summer... this falls under the No Bleep Sherlock category. By Patterson' statements, I'm pretty sure that any Blazer employee giving JQ anything more then the time of day would probably be fired, so I don't think he has any sources within the organization to quote.
> 
> Anyhoo as long as we're baselessly speculating... Quick may be fired next summer.
> 
> STOMP


Heh. Maybe you already knew this, Stomp, but yes, Quick announced that the Oregonian is moving him off of the Blazers after this season and that he's bummed about it because from his perspective the team is finally really turning a corner and he'd like to be part of that. Just FYI, and while it was from the Fan, it was directly from the horse's mouth a day or two ago.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

What the freak is with this Quick guy? This would not make Portland better in any way, on top of that it makes Jack feel expendable which is exactly the wrong feeling for this kid to have. Jack is having a great year and doing fine running this team. Jack and Roy are going to be special as a one two punch. Quick needs to shut his mouth until he learns basketball or how to make a team. Neither does Quick seem to have a grasp on!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Jason Quick was a huge fan of Damon Stoudamire.

Ill believe it when I see it.

PBF


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:



> Heh. Maybe you already knew this, Stomp, but yes, Quick announced that the Oregonian is moving him off of the Blazers after this season and that he's bummed about it because from his perspective the team is finally really turning a corner and he'd like to be part of that. Just FYI, and while it was from the Fan, it was directly from the horse's mouth a day or two ago.



:yay: 

That's one down....


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Jason Quick was a huge fan of Damon Stoudamire.
> 
> Ill believe it when I see it.
> 
> PBF


I would trade Jarret Jack for Damon Stoudamire in a heartbeat. Damon is a true playmaker and shooter that this team has needed since Terry Porter left.

If the Grizz offer it up, we'd be stupid to not do it...

:biggrin:


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I would trade Jarret Jack for Damon Stoudamire in a heartbeat. Damon is a true playmaker and shooter that this team has needed since Terry Porter left.
> 
> If the Grizz offer it up, we'd be stupid to not do it...
> 
> :biggrin:


Why get Damon when we just might be able to trade for Derek Anderson? I remember when the Rockets signed him they mentioned that he could play all 5 positions. I think that we could relaly use his toughness and overall versatility on our young team. He we also help unite the team as a veteran leader. Plus, he is a winner. He did win a championship this past season. Pull the Effing trigger. 

(by the way, is "effing" considered masking a curse word? I didn't intend to, cause I actually just really wanted to say effing. But it seems to reside in a small valley located somewhere in the grey area.)

On another note: Imagine a starting backcourt of Damon Stoudamire and Derek Anderson.............droooool

prunetang


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

handclap problematic said:


> I remember when the Rockets signed (Derek Anderson) they mentioned that he could play all 5 positions.


That's hilarious. 

DA's five positions would be: waterboy, benchwarmer, cheerleader, towel fluffer, and jockholder.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Did you guys see that DA actually started a game the other day for the Bobcats?

WTF?


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

So in the bizarro world of bbf.com, Jarret Jack is untouchable and Zach Randolph should be traded ASAP. Did anyone consider that moving Roy to the point opens up the 2 for Webster? I say this because Webster is not a 3 and that is the one area this team needs to improve to become a contender over the next few years. Throw in that Roy was basically unstoppable on the pick and roll in the three healthy games he had to start the year, and that having a spot-up shooter at the 2 like Webster makes much more sense than having Jack playing out of position.

I love this place. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Burgundy (Jun 29, 2006)

papag said:


> So in the bizarro world of bbf.com, Jarret Jack is untouchable and Zach Randolph should be traded ASAP. Did anyone consider that moving Roy to the point opens up the 2 for Webster? I say this because Webster is not a 3 and that is the one area this team needs to improve to become a contender over the next few years. Throw in that Roy was basically unstoppable on the pick and roll in the three healthy games he had to start the year, and that having a spot-up shooter at the 2 like Webster makes much more sense than having Jack playing out of position.
> 
> I love this place. :biggrin:


Agree with the first part. But Web looks a lot more like a 3 than a 2 to me. I don't like making Roy play PG either, other than in spells. It takes too much energy (especially if Web is his back court mate) I want to see Roy in a D. Wade type role where he can look to score, especially late in games. As for trading Jack, I guess it depends on what you get back. I like his game - he's solid. I think he'll develop a more consistent perimeter game - he reminds me of T.P. I can see a PG combo of Jack and Sergio working out real well. That combo gives you ALMOST everything you want from a PG. Jack is a good defender, good FT shooter, can play physical, and Sergio can really push the ball and get guys good looks.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

papag said:


> So in the bizarro world of bbf.com, Jarret Jack is untouchable and Zach Randolph should be traded ASAP. Did anyone consider that moving Roy to the point opens up the 2 for Webster? I say this because Webster is not a 3 and that is the one area this team needs to improve to become a contender over the next few years. Throw in that Roy was basically unstoppable on the pick and roll in the three healthy games he had to start the year, and that having a spot-up shooter at the 2 like Webster makes much more sense than having Jack playing out of position.
> 
> I love this place. :biggrin:


I agree with you on Zach, but not JJ.

Forced to make a choice, I would take a Jack/Roy backcourt over a Roy/Webster backcourt in a heartbeat. Jack is a legit NBA starter. Webster is still mostly unrealized potential. 

I got flamed the last time I said this - but I still believe Adam Morrison is going to have a better career than Webster.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Heh. Maybe you already knew this, Stomp, but yes, Quick announced that the Oregonian is moving him off of the Blazers after this season and that he's bummed about it because from his perspective the team is finally really turning a corner and he'd like to be part of that. Just FYI, and while it was from the Fan, it was directly from the horse's mouth a day or two ago.


Well, good! The O needs a fresh start on Blazer coverage. Now if a certain columnist could be reassigned...

barfo


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Quick didn't say the Blazers would be actively shopping Jack for the heck of it over the summer.
I think what he meant was if the 'opportunity' arose that the team would get a superstar in return and if teams asked for Jarrett as part of a package, that the Blazers probably wouldn't automatically say no.

Despite all that, it's still silly and dumb to say the Blazers would trade Jarrett.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Quick thinks we're going to actively shop Jack so Roy can start at PG? Even if we were to assume that Roy was equally good at PG or SG, that still doesn't make Jack redundant. He's still a better guard by far than anyone on the roster but Roy, and he seems to be thriving in Nate's system, so it doesn't make any sense to push for a trade.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

BiggaAdams said:


> Not a chance in hell we are going to trade Jack. We didn't get rid of Telfair last year and hand Jack the job only to trade him away and start Roy there. There is nothing wrong with having 2 guys who can distribute the ball. Hell, having a SG who can pass like a PG is a huge advantage. Jack is going to be a very good player in this league, he's still improving and seems to be just the PG Nate wants.


Totally agree. And I don't think they make Roy a fulltime PG unless Martell proves he can be a consistent shooting guard, which unfortunately he hasn't done yet. At this point, Roy is also our best SG. Jack has done well enough that I don't see this happening unless we get a lot in return.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Did you guys see that DA actually started a game the other day for the Bobcats?
> 
> WTF?


well it's not like he moved anyone of note to the bench :wink:

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Heh. Maybe you already knew this, Stomp, but yes, Quick announced that the Oregonian is moving him off of the Blazers after this season and that he's bummed about it because from his perspective the team is finally really turning a corner and he'd like to be part of that. Just FYI, and while it was from the Fan, it was directly from the horse's mouth a day or two ago.


I didn't know that, but thanks for relaying the great news. I hope that Jason gets his much deserved transfer to Nome.

STOMP


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

papag said:


> So in the bizarro world of bbf.com...


whoa, until now I didn't notice that this isn't basketballboards.net anymore.

:scatter:


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Although I agree with most of you that JJ is the real deal and will likely be a Blazer for at least another couple years, I dissagree that this is proof that Quick is a knob. This is what I like to see from Quick and other like him. Speculate about interesting twists and trades and lineups and stuff like that, not just dissing on the crew. 

I wish he would just offer his opinion more often instead of always trying prove something. I think that the idea of trading JJ has some merit, and is fun to discuss, it just falls short on one main thing. Roy is not a PG. Sure, he can play the position very well, but he has played much better as a SG then as a PG. His D is great against other SG's and SF.s, bbut against smaller/quicker PG's he gets burned. Keep Roy playing mostly the SG roll.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

We should just cut Jack and sign JR Rider!


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

jj and sergio plus roy is better than:

roy and sergio


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Quick was probably offering up his opinion is all. While Roy is a good ball handler, and can easily play the point the team would be stupid to trade Jack. Since living in Houston I watch NBA league pass and the announcers for the opposing teams along with coaches think he is one of the great young PG's in the league. IF, and that's a big IF the Blazers traded him they would undoubtably get an extremely good player back.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I believe that Jack has been part of the steadying force on this team that is helping turn things around, not a guard we want to get rid of.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Quick = Vecsey

Sure, JJ "could" be traded "if" someone offered a superstar. So oculd anyone else on the team. But what are the odds that someone is offering LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Greg Oden (assuming he enters the draft) or even Tim Duncan. About zero?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Let us not forget that this is the last year that Jason Quick will be following the team. Not sure what he is going to be doing after this season at the Oregonian, maybe he is going to be delivering papers?

He has to throw as much stuff against the wall to see if any of it sticks. I think that there is so much positive going on with the Blazers Quick is really at a lost for words so he is going to make some waves of his own? :lol:


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

First off, Roy is not a point guard. He is a SG who can slash and create. Roy can play the point in a pinch, but is more of a Pippen-type who can initiate the offense or play off the ball.

He could play the Point in a triangle offense as Ron Harper did, but his lack of speed would be exposed as a full time point.

Jack is a fine point, on a par with Andre Miller and Deron Williams. There is no need to put Roy and Jack at odds with each other.

Quick is a complete fool and is only trying to stir things up. He has admitted that he will be off the Blazers' beat next year and wants to get in a few licks before he goes.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> First off, Roy is not a point guard. He is a SG who can slash and create. Roy can play the point in a pinch, but is more of a Pippen-type who can initiate the offense or play off the ball.
> 
> *He could play the Point in a triangle offense as Ron Harper did, but his lack of speed would be exposed as a full time point.*
> Jack is a fine point, on a par with Andre Miller and Deron Williams. There is no need to put Roy and Jack at odds with each other.
> ...


I have to disagree on this. Roy was unstoppable on the pick 'n roll from the top of the key. Ron Harper never had that as a part of his game in the triangle. I simply see no comparison between the two. I'd actually accept a Webster/Harper comparison as valid, but Roy can get to the rim on perimeter defenders. Harper in triangle could never do that and was never even asked to do that.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Quick has been spending too much time talking with those guys on The Fan. They've been trying to trade Jack, Webster and Outlaw since the season started.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> Must be that Jack doesn't get along with coach Iavaroni.


Possibly your best post ever.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

*IF...* and I do mean *IF*

If B.Roy can come close to reaching his potential, he will be a better (more dangerous) pointguard than JJ.

If Sergio can come close to reaching his potential, he will also be a better point guard than JJ. (see Steve Nash)

If Martell can come close to reaching his poetential... JJ becomes the 4th best guard on this team. Therefore, he could become a key trading chip in trading for the missing piece to a championship team.

Don't let your love for JJ cloud your thinking... we're after a championship.

Go ahead and flame away, homers. :biggrin:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Quick has been spending too much time talking with those guys on The Fan. They've been trying to trade Jack, Webster and Outlaw since the season started.


maybe he is getting a job there?


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

If we were going to trade Jack, my guess is that it would be this summer and it would probably be draft related. 

While this may be a once in a decade draft, it's very weak at the PG position. Hypothetically speaking if we could package Jack with a mid-lottery pick to move up to draft Durant I'd do it.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> *IF...* and I do mean *IF*
> 
> If B.Roy can come close to reaching his potential, he will be a better (more dangerous) pointguard than JJ.
> 
> ...


"Potential" is a funny thing. It's pretty subjective until it's realized, and very hard to accurately predict. It would pretty presumptuous to assume that such raw and unproven players as Sergio and Webster will be better than Jack. They have long way to go, and from what we've seen lately, Jack isn't standing still either.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> "Potential" is a funny thing. It's pretty subjective until it's realized, and very hard to accurately predict. It would pretty presumptuous to assume that such raw and unproven players as Sergio and Webster will be better than Jack. They have long way to go, and from what we've seen lately, Jack isn't standing still either.


 You could call it presumptuous, some call it scouting.:cheers:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> You could call it presumptuous, some call it scouting.:cheers:


Seems more like wild guessing to me.

edit: ok, please help me to understand from a scouting perspective. If Webster and Sergio have this certain potential for greatness: what can we see now that makes Sergio more like Steve Nash than Jason Williams? What do we see in Webster that makes him more like X great player than Kyle Korver? I'm curious to know.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Things must be too positive in PDX, so Quick is trying hard to come up with something. See: Canzano.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Seems more like wild guessing to me.
> 
> edit: ok, please help me to understand from a scouting perspective. If Webster and Sergio have this certain potential for greatness: what can we see now that makes Sergio more like Steve Nash than Jason Williams? What do we see in Webster that makes him more like X great player than Kyle Korver? I'm curious to know.


 Sorry Duds, I can't give you the benefit of my 40+ years of watching pro-hoops in a few paragraphs or a few pages. If you can't see the potential in Sergio or Webs there's no point in my trying anyhow. You may find this hard to believe, but in 20 or 30 years from now you'll know more about bball and people in general than you do now. I've been wrong about enough players, but I don't think I'm wrong about Sergio or Webster. Also, there's a reason the blazer scouts get the big bucks, they're good.

Interesting that you compared Korver to Martel... I think Martel will have a simular shooting skill as Korver in a few years. However I think Martel is/willbe a better athlete and be able to drive to the hoop better than Korver, making him a better and more dangerous scorer. Shooters are such a premium that I'm sure the blazers would love to have Korver on the team right now. I hear they tried to pry him away from Philly.

Martel and Sergio are both going to be awesome in a couple of years.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Sorry I'm a little late to this but if the Blazers dealt Jack then I'm going to sprout antlers and graze in the woods and hope I don't get shot.

I don't know where Quick got that but I don't want to touch it because its covered with something brown and stinky.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Quick has been spending too much time talking with those guys on The Fan. They've been trying to trade Jack, Webster and Outlaw since the season started.


When did the guys on the Fan want to trade any of these players?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> Sorry Duds, I can't give you the benefit of my 40+ years of watching pro-hoops in a few paragraphs or a few pages. If you can't see the potential in Sergio or Webs there's no point in my trying anyhow. You may find this hard to believe, but in 20 or 30 years from now you'll know more about bball and people in general than you do now. I've been wrong about enough players, but I don't think I'm wrong about Sergio or Webster. Also, there's a reason the blazer scouts get the big bucks, they're good.
> 
> Interesting that you compared Korver to Martel... I think Martel will have a simular shooting skill as Korver in a few years. However I think Martel is/willbe a better athlete and be able to drive to the hoop better than Korver, making him a better and more dangerous scorer. Shooters are such a premium that I'm sure the blazers would love to have Korver on the team right now. I hear they tried to pry him away from Philly.
> 
> Martel and Sergio are both going to be awesome in a couple of years.


Sorry, but that sounds like a cop-out, and a bit condescending. You know so much that you can't type some of it out? I'm sorry, but age doesn't automatically give you knowledge and wisdom.

I can tell you what I see when I watch Martel and Sergio. Martel is a guy with medium grade athletecism who has shown very few outstanding skills other than pure shooting. I do compare him to Korver. You talk Korver up, but I really doubt that you or anyone thinks Korver is an example of a "great" or "awesome" player. He's a great shooting-specialist, but that's it. If Martel had exceptional strength or speed, or great awareness, or passing ability, or the ability to handle the basketball at all, or better footwork on defense, he could be more than just a shooter and a very one-dimensional player. So far though, he hasn't shown any of that, which means there isn't much reason to believe that greatness is in his future. 

Seriously, what other skill besides a good jumpshot does he have? Isn't it necessary to have more than a jumpshot to be "great"? I think so.

Sergio does have more potential though. He has that true PGs ability to track multiple objects in space simultaneously. He can break down defenses fairly effectively and put the ball in his open teammates' hands. I do see potential in him because of that, because that's a natural gift, along with great footspeed. He has great ball handling fundamentals as well. He protects the ball when he drives and doesn't pick up his dribble until he's ready to pass (except when he awkeardly tries to run one of Nate's plays). Yet he still has a very long way to go before he's anywhere close like Nash.

For one thing, Nash can score. Sergio ... not so much. Nash can hit from 3pt land, and defenses have to respect that. Nash can drive and lay it up, can pull up for a jumper or can do little spin moves to get open shots in the lane. Defenses have to respect all that. Sergio can score a little, but doesn't make defenses respect him. They sag and cheat on him because they know that he's a dangerous passer but not a good shooter, from any distance. A great true point guard should be willing to pass at any time, but he should also be able to score, because that forces defenses to react and helps to get his teammates open.

He also doesn't seem to have the ability to slow down his game. If he isn't running, he seems pretty lost. Admittedly, Nash is running most of the time in Phoenix, but he has the ability to play under control at a slower pace. There's a whole new dimension of calculated decision making that Sergio seems unaware of. That's my guess as to why Nate doesn't play him right now, because Nate wants his offense to be deliberate and under control. Even under a less restrictive coach, Sergio would probably be camped on the pine for a lack of control. His frenetic play makes fans happy but drives most coaches crazy.

I have a lot more hope for Sergio's potential than Webster's, but right now we're watching Jack already play pretty well in just his second year. It's crazy to talk about trading Jack when he is so thoroughly outplaying those other two guys. It's easy to look at a young guy and just slap a "potential" label on him, but unless there is some very tangible evidence to justify it, it's just wishful thinking. If such evidence exists, by the way, one should be able to describe it in words within a few paragraphs.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

reading this makes me sick

close this thread and let it die


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Sorry, but that sounds like a cop-out, and a bit condescending. You know so much that you can't type some of it out? I'm sorry, but age doesn't automatically give you knowledge and wisdom.
> 
> I can tell you what I see when I watch Martel and Sergio. Martel is a guy with medium grade athletecism who has shown very few outstanding skills other than pure shooting. I do compare him to Korver. You talk Korver up, but I really doubt that you or anyone thinks Korver is an example of a "great" or "awesome" player. He's a great shooting-specialist, but that's it. If Martel had exceptional strength or speed, or great awareness, or passing ability, or the ability to handle the basketball at all, or better footwork on defense, he could be more than just a shooter and a very one-dimensional player. So far though, he hasn't shown any of that, which means there isn't much reason to believe that greatness is in his future.
> 
> ...



Duds, please factor in the age of Sergio and Martel when comparing them to Nash and Korver. Martel just turned 20 years old this month and Sergio turned 20 in June. It's a huge factor that you seemed to have forgot to include... apples to apples. How will Martel do in 5 years from now when he will be Korver's age? He'll be eating the present day Korver's lunch, that's where.

If you want to do a meaningful comparison, please compare them at the same age.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Jack should not be traded...But, if Roy continues to have games where he gets 7/8 assist we should, on draft day, offer our pick and Jack for the 1st or 2nd pick to get Oden/Durant. Thats it.


----------



## Banjoriddim (Aug 14, 2004)

graybeard said:


> Duds, please factor in the age of Sergio and Martel when comparing them to Nash and Korver. Martel just turned 20 years old this month and Sergio turned 20 in June. It's a huge factor that you seemed to have forgot to include... apples to apples. How will Martel do in 5 years from now when he will be Korver's age? He'll be eating the present day Korver's lunch, that's where.
> 
> If you want to do a meaningful comparison, please compare them at the same age.


I shouldn't answer to this but... I don't see your logic... I mean he did agree that age is factor (IMHO), just that... they will be better but how much is unknown and I would seeks hard evidence befor I dump decent starter for "potential" (esp if I personally don't see raw athletism and intense defense or any other cool but raw skills that could seriously improve players skillset and play).

btw I am big fan of Sergio and I belive he is dead right esp. on coach part (what makes me bit sceptic about hes future in Portland).


----------

