# Blake signs deal...? (merged)



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Blake signs deal...?*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091900943.html

I saw this on RealGM. Hadn't seen it posted here. Can anyone confirm? Doesn't seem like the best idea to me.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



cpt.napalm said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091900943.html
> 
> I saw this on RealGM. Hadn't seen it posted here. Can anyone confirm? Doesn't seem like the best idea to me.


interesting. Is there any chance the team can sign a vet instead? I know that it's good to have guys who have "been there" (title game, etc) but this seems a little too "let's just get a good kid" to me.

But at least we now have 3 players (maybe more? I don't know) who have gone to the finals in the NCAA, and 2 more from Russia who have played in big time tournaments.

I guess you could say they're building a winning reputation by getting guys who have played on winning teams, hoping the mentality spreads like wildfire.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

Possible situation is Telfair or JJack going down to NBDL? Unless there is serious doubt about either of these two - Steve Blake doesn't seem like a better answer.

:whoknows: :whoknows: :whoknows: :whoknows: :whoknows:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



cpt.napalm said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091900943.html
> 
> I saw this on RealGM. Hadn't seen it posted here. Can anyone confirm? Doesn't seem like the best idea to me.


Someone should ask the guys on Courtside Monday Night about this.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



RedHot&Rolling said:


> Possible situation is Telfair or JJack going down to NBDL? Unless there is serious doubt about either of these two - Steve Blake doesn't seem like a better answer.
> 
> :whoknows: :whoknows: :whoknows: :whoknows: :whoknows:


Telfair sent down to the NBDL? :laugh:


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

Trade brewin'.

PBF


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

I checked with a source of mine inside the "walls" and he knew nothing other than Blake had been in for a visit recently.

I think I'll wait for the press conference welcoming him to Portland.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



washingtonpost.com said:


> Blake was the primary backup to all-star point guard Gilbert Arenas the last two seasons but was bothered by a sore ankle last year and appeared in only 43 games, with one start. After the season, Blake expressed a desire to move on, saying that he was *looking for an increased role.*


[sarcasm]Portland is perfect for him. Smart move on his part.[/sarcasm]

Pack your bags for Forth Worth, Blake.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

If they did pick him up. What is with the plaeyrs free-agent pick-ups by the Blazers, they dont mak sense. An undersized two and a old vet who hasnt been in the league and now get a point guard at equal talent level as your first round pick.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



ProudBFan said:


> Trade brewin'.
> 
> PBF



I sure hope not. I *really* like Jack as a foil to Telfair -- he's bigger, known to be a rugged defender, and he's almost certainly a better shooter (pretty incredible numbers from 3 in college, if I recall correctly). Telfair, on the other hand, is lightning on the court. Admittedly I don't know Blake very well but, even if he's "better" than Jack, it's hard to imagine him being a better fit with Telfair... unless, of course, it's Telfair who's getting moved. And if *that's* the case, it'd better be some trade!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



RedHot&Rolling said:


> I checked with a source of mine inside the "walls" and he knew nothing other than Blake had been in for a visit recently.
> 
> I think I'll wait for the press conference welcoming him to Portland.


Me too!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



PorterIn2004 said:


> I sure hope not. I *really* like Jack as a foil to Telfair -- he's bigger, known to be a rugged defender, and he's almost certainly a better shooter (pretty incredible numbers from 3 in college, if I recall correctly). Telfair, on the other hand, is lightning on the court. Admittedly I don't know Blake very well but, even if he's "better" than Jack, it's hard to imagine him being a better fit with Telfair... unless, of course, it's Telfair who's getting moved. And if *that's* the case, it'd better be some trade!


Depends on what's coming back IMO....

Jack and Darius for say....Paul Pierce?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

Here's what Nash said to me just now in an email (and I'm sure to a lot of you, includnig PBF, who emailed him too)



> When and if Steve Blake signs, then our PR dept will issue a press
> release.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



> Jack and Darius for say....Paul Pierce?


I was thinking the same thing Schil..frankly it wouldn't shock me if Telfair was traded either. Nate like hard-nosed tough defense which Jack can supposedly provide. We all the Celtics have junk for PG's.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

Telfair isnt going anywhere. Nash and his staff love him and see a lot of potential in him. I'd also be really surprised to see Jack get traded, at least not anytime soon. Nash hasnt even had a chance to see what Jack can do yet.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



Schilly said:


> Depends on what's coming back IMO....
> 
> Jack and Darius for say....Paul Pierce?


That'd definitely be something I'd define as Some Trade. :biggrin: That said, I'm thinking we've still got a rather stretch of time before Jack can be traded, yes? And *That* said, if Telfair and Darius would bring us back someone like Pierce, I'd certainly consider it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

the thing that bugs me is..the team is doing just what trader bob did that drove so many fans crazy (even bob fans).

Clogging the team with duplicate players. The difference is tho, when TB did it, he had proven talent, vs unknown talent.

Of course, I think TB also signed/traded for guys who were a little bit of a locker room issue type player.

But it still seems to be the same scenario happening here. Getting way too many players, which'll cause issues later on.


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

Anyone thinking maybe Jack and A futer pick or something to LA for bynum i just had a funny feeling about it maybe happening if we infact did sign blake


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



Hap said:


> the thing that bugs me is..the team is doing just what trader bob did that drove so many fans crazy (even bob fans).
> 
> Clogging the team with duplicate players. The difference is tho, when TB did it, he had proven talent, vs unknown talent.
> 
> ...


I disagree. Blake, Smith, and even Dixon are role players, and I think they accept that role on the team. Bob acquired guys who thought they were all super stars and demanded playing time.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Telfair isnt going anywhere. Nash and his staff love him and see a lot of potential in him. I'd also be really surprised to see Jack get traded, at least not anytime soon. Nash hasnt even had a chance to see what Jack can do yet.


That's what I'm thinking, too. So yes, even if there's a trade brewing, it's hard to see how bringing Blake in helps, unless they're planning on running him at the 2, which *might've* made sense before bringing in Dixon and Smith but now? And, unless I'm wrong about this, Dixon at least and perhaps Smith are on the roster for at least months, yes?

In the end, I'm guessing that they're planning on letting Telfair, Jack, and Blake duke it out. Blake might be the best pure shooter of the three (Jack really being the only competition) and, given the shooting woes, that might be enough to trump other factors and get him some time. And, the more I think about it, I can see some sense in it. Guys on the roster who can (at least in a pinch) play:

center -- Joel, Theo, Ha, Zach
power forward -- Zach, Joel, Theo, Miles, Khryapa, Patterson, Outlaw
small forward -- Miles, Outlaw, Patterson, Khryapa, Monia, Webster, Smith
shooting guard -- every small forward plus Dixon and Jack
point guard -- Telfair, Jack, Dixon

In that sense, it's the least manned position and, I'm pretty skeptical about Dixon at the point. Jack, meanwhile, is a rookie and Telfair's just entering his first full year of big minutes.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

Having a 3rd pg might not be a bad idea, but I don't see what's in it for Blake. He's going to get a decreased role, and probably signing for no more money than anywhere else. I like him, but not better than the guys in front of him. I could see it as injury insurance, too, except that Telfair and jack don't have an issue of injuries and are still quite young. Maybe Jack is going in a package after all...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I disagree. Blake, Smith, and even Dixon are role players, and I think they accept that role on the team. Bob acquired guys who thought they were all super stars and demanded playing time.


if they accept their roles, that's one thing. But why would Blake have left a team saying he wanted more minutes and a bigger role..to become a backup to the backup PG.

I'm not saying it can't happen (and money DOES talk while bull**** walks), it just seems to me they're getting a lot of players who might not be too giddy about not playing (Dixon, imho, the most).

It seems to me that they shouldn't have as many guards as they do.

Telfair, Jack, Dixon, Blake, Smith, Webster and Monia. And of those, only 2 are tall enough to play the SG realistically (Webster and Monia) and 3 can play PG and 2 can play both PG and SG. And that's hoping that Travis doesn't play SG.

It's almost as bad as the SF scenario now. With Darius, Travis, Viktor, Sergei and Ruben (am I missing someone?).


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



sa1177 said:


> ...frankly it wouldn't shock me if Telfair was traded either. Nate like hard-nosed tough defense which Jack can supposedly provide.


Ridnour is nowhere near "hard-nosed defense," he seemed to work out well for Nate.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



Hap said:


> if they accept their roles, that's one thing. But why would Blake have left a team saying he wanted more minutes and a bigger role..to become a backup to the backup PG.
> 
> I'm not saying it can't happen (and money DOES talk while bull**** walks), it just seems to me they're getting a lot of players who might not be too giddy about not playing (Dixon, imho, the most).
> 
> ...


I hear you, Hap, particularly about Dixon. He's gonna have to impress me for me to not think the Blazers made a mistake by bringing him in. If we're gonna have a 6'3" SG, I'd rather it be someone who's a tall PG than a short SG -- give me Blake or Jack at that position. Smith, at least, is supposed to be really "long" and someone who can really fill it up. Plus, he's a bit taller. Even so, in hindsight I'm thinking that there's really a *lot* of competition there and while the Blazers have been preaching the benefits of competition, I think there's a point where it causes more problems than it solves. Are they really going to just let 'em claw at each other in practice until Nate's down to the nine or ten guys he likes the best and let the rest dig splinters the rest of the season?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

soooo Backcourt

PG
Telfair
Jack

PG/SG Tweeners
Dixon
Blake

SG
Smith
Webster

SG/SF Tweeners
Monia
Outlaw maybe

So basically Portland has 7 guys who will be battling for PT at 2 positions


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

Another interesting thing to consider is that Blake *has* to be aware of the current roster. What is it they've told him? It seems to me there are all sorts of teams out there that could better use someone of his skills... unless he's really gonna blow by both Jack and Dixon to be the primary back-up point? Even so, I've really gotta wonder what management is thinking will happen with the rest of the bench.

The other thing I noticed is that Blake's rumored to've signed yet another 2 year contract, thus potentially putting the team back in the same situation they're in now with Joel -- seems to me that if you really like a guy, particularly a guy coming on the cheap, well enough to bring him in for 2 years, it's tactically foolish to not sign him on for three.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

Just another deal that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's got to be something else going on if we end up acquiring Steve Blake while we have duplicates in Charles Smith and Juan Dixon.

If anything, we should have gone after Walter McCarty to get another big body out there instead of another midsize shot in the dark.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

maybe smith wont be on the roster? iirc smith isnt on a locked contract, now we are thin in the bigs and bloated at the pg, sg and sf which makes me wonder if rubin or miles is going byebye for a big!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I disagree. Blake, Smith, and even Dixon are role players, and I think they accept that role on the team. Bob acquired guys who thought they were all super stars and demanded playing time.


I don't buy that. Ruben Patterson and Jeff McInnis, amongst other FA signings, knew that they'd have to work hard to get minutes, let alone a starting job.

The difference is that the players we're acquiring now aren't starting quality. I'd much rather have starting-quality bench players working hard (and occasionally complaining) to get minutes than guys who "accept roles" because they're not capable of anything else.

Now, with all of this said, I don't mind the Blake signing as long as it's for $1m or less a year for the two years. He's a decent little player, and the team needs a third PG for when injuries hit.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



SheedSoNasty said:


> Just another deal that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's got to be something else going on if we end up acquiring Steve Blake while we have duplicates in Charles Smith and Juan Dixon.


Steve Blake is a PG. Smith and Dixon are both shooting guards. I don't see much overlap here.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



RedHot&Rolling said:


> I think I'll wait for the press conference welcoming him to Portland.


I agree that it might be a premature report, but I don't know if a press conference is the best time to decide it's a sure thing when it comes to FAs. Although Blake IS unrestricted, unlike Mr. Hassell.

Ed O.


----------



## Chalupa (Jul 20, 2005)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

Maybe the team doesn't view Dixon or Smith as possible PGs. So with Telfair a 2nd year player and Jack a rookie with injury questions, it is a good idea to have a 3rd PG.

Also maybe with Victor Khryapa's solid play in the Euro games they view him as a better option at PF than Walter McCarty so they just signed the other free agent they liked.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

I actually like this signing. Blake is a nice defender, good floor leader, above average passer and a decent 3 point marksman. Not to mention cheap. Blake may be making a mistake by joining the blazers(if this is even true), but as a fan I welcome him because he sure as hell wont make this team any worse. Why not have 7 young guys battling for minutes at 2 spots. That will create competition, force the kids to work harder and give us flexibility if we want to make a future trade.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



Ed O said:


> Steve Blake is a PG. Smith and Dixon are both shooting guards. I don't see much overlap here.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree that there's not a lot of duplication in that sense. The duplication that I see is that all three could (and on this roster, likely would/will) be logging minutes as at least somewhat undersized SGs. I'm all for playing the best guy and all that and, in pixel, Blake seems to be both the best ball-handler of the three (perhaps important when there's a young PG at the reigns) and the best shooter (also something the team is lacking). Perhaps, in the end, Dixon and/or Smith will prove to be better at enough other aspects of the game that they'll keep Blake on the bench but, particularly given the order in which they've been added, I have to wonder whether or not management would've added Dixon and Smith if Blake had been the first of the three to return the phone call, as it were.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

RE: Charles Smith.

There was a report that Smith's contract was completely unguaranteed and basically only ensured that he would get an invitation to training camp. Has anyone else heard the same? If that's not the case, I'm not really down with this signing although Walter McCarty isn't exactly a guy I'd want us to sign either with Khryapa and Miles perfectly able to play the 4 for some spot minutes.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

if Blake does come here, here's his likely thought process: "Hmm, I could try to get minutes behind my team's best player (Arenas) and a guy they just signed for a multiyear contract (Daniels), or I could try my luck in Portland where there's only one PG who has even half a season of experience. As a former second round draft pick who hasn't really set the world on fire and is coming back from injury, this is about as good as I'm going to get." 

I don't really care for the idea of signing anyone who isn't a can't miss thing. I'd rather stay flexible. however, PG is pretty thin right now and he sounds like as good an option as anyone for a second/third stringer.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

wish we woulda true pf via a trade or something


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/blazersblog/

Blazers released a press release:


> Portland - The Portland Trail Blazers have signed restricted free agent Point Guard Steve Blake to an offer sheet. Per team policy, the terms of the deal were not disclosed. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement the Washington Wizards will have until September 28th to match the Trail Blazers offer.
> 
> ...


Interesting that he's restricted, but I wasn't paying attention to whether the Wizards tendered him so I am not shocked that he is.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*



Ed O said:


> Steve Blake is a PG. Smith and Dixon are both shooting guards. I don't see much overlap here.
> 
> Ed O.


Have it your way, substitute Smith and Dixon for Telfair and Jack. Still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me yet.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

C: Przybilla, Ratliff, Ha
PF: Randolph, Khryapa
SF: Miles, Outlaw, Patterson
SG: Monia, Webster, Dixon, Smith
PG: Telfair, Jack, Blake

That's 15 right there. I'm guessing Smith doesn't make the squad or we have a 2 for 1 trade brewin' up somewhere.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

it's up on the blazers home page!



> "Steve Blake has competed at the highest level in college culminated by his experience at Maryland and winning a National Championship and with his two season at Washington he adds to the limited experience of a young team." said Trail Blazers General Manager John Nash. *"Nate in particular was looking for a perimeter threat at the point guard position and Steve has demonstrated that at the NBA level." *


hmmmm... the plot thickens.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

telfair blake jack
miles dixon webster
Outlaw rubin monia
zbo viktor 
Joel theo ha

swing men = miles outlaw rubin monia viktor theo


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

nba teams are required to have 15 players. whats wrong with this signing? maybe they thought jack didnt push telfair enough


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

This actualy does look like a nice signing...Telfair is a slasher and passer. Jack is a rookie
who might be good on D..Blake can play D and does shoot 38% from 3, which is something
we do need. 

Telfair/Blake/Jack thats a nice mix of talent and ability plus if blake or Jack fail we only have
them for 2 yrs.

Now at the 2/3 thats up in the air. What is wrong with making Outlaw/Monia/Dixon/Miles
Webster and Khyrapa fight for minutes and finding out who can really help this team 2-3
yrs down the rd..We have had players for the last 3yrs being guaranteed minutes when they
weren't producing.. Yes it does create some what of a logjam but it is the only way to see
who is the best...I left Smith and Ruben off the list because we know he isn't a longterm
answer.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

*Steve Blake to Portland????*

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/blazersblog/


what do u think about that???


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Steve Blake to Portland????*



dwood615 said:


> http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/blazersblog/
> 
> 
> what do u think about that???


Find out here


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

A lot of teams go 3 deep at point guard because it is hard to find players versatile enough to play both SG and PG, so they end up picking up another PG for depth. Whereas guys who can play SG/SF are a dime a dozen, so you don't have to keep as many (except for Portland of course, who I expect one day to field a whole team of SF and Sebastien Telfair if Nash keeps up his current pace of acquiring SF...) :biggrin:


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

*Re: Blake signs deal...?*

The only thing that's a little strange is that the Blazers are now pretty thin upfront and loaded in the backcourt. But, I think Nate McMillan and Nash think that Ruben Patterson is more than capable of playing PF, so that's probably the direction they're thinking in. 

So, this may be the rotation: 

PG: Telfar, Jack, Blake
SG: Dixon, Monia, Webster, Smith
SF: Miles, Outlaw, Khryapa
PF: Randolph, Patterson
C: Ratliff, Przybilla, Ha

Blake is decent insurance in case one of the young PGs gets hurt.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

i like the competition look on it...its that or we could sign some scrub who wouldnt challenge or push anyone for PT...i like the signing...gives us harder working players...trade flexibility...versatility...injury insurance


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

viktor will be the back up pf


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

can we steal one of your PG's??  

lol, but seriously, while you guys have a plentiful stock of PG's, we have 3 GUARDS, not just PG's, but guards in general on contract right now, & one with weak ankles(Ray) that if he goes down, the team goes down......to the cellar in the NW division. Ay, such is the NBA i guess.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

myELFboy said:


> can we steal one of your PG's??
> 
> lol, but seriously, while you guys have a plentiful stock of PG's, we have 3 GUARDS, not just PG's, but guards in general on contract right now, & one with weak ankles(Ray) that if he goes down, the team goes down......to the cellar in the NW division. Ay, such is the NBA i guess.


Gotta get something hammered out with Flip, eh?


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> viktor will be the back up pf


Shouldn't Theo still be in the PF rotation?


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Blake can bomb threes pretty well, a bit streaky but overall solid from behind the arc. Outside of that, I wouldn't be expecting very much. I don't know why several people think he's a good defender; he'll try hard, but don't confuse effort with productivity. While he'll nail a perfect pass just right every now and then, for every one of those expect two failed attempts at threading the needle. He'll go full throttle in practice and never take a night off though, which is always nice.

For a minimum signing, I think you could certainly do worse. You get a good three point shooter and a hard worker, someone you'll never be unhappy to have on the team. Just like with his partner Dixon however, the key is to keep expectations realistic -- as a whole he's a below average backup who with some time, has a chance of improving to "decent."


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

dwood615 said:


> i like the competition look on it...its that or we could sign some scrub who wouldnt challenge or push anyone for PT...i like the signing...gives us harder working players...trade flexibility...versatility...injury insurance


Blake, Dixon, Smith and the possible McCarty ARE scrubs, and nothing more in my view.

I'll continue to hope they were brought in as easy to punish PRACTICE PLAYERS and hope to God they never see time in a real game.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

For some reason I believe that Nash is trying to get ++ME++ back as a Blazer fan. For the longest time, I've hated the Blazers, with the final straw being trading Clyde away. But for the last 5 years or so, I've been a very big Maryland fan, and this summer they have signed TWO former Terps! HOORAY HOORAY. Now if he can do something about that Darius guy for me then I'm all in.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

What did the Blazers do before they traded Clyde that was so bad?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Let's Goooooo Maryland!

Look for Nash to pick up Lonnie Baxter and Chris Wilcox next.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Let's Goooooo Maryland!
> 
> Look for Nash to pick up Lonnie Baxter and Chris Wilcox next.


Wilcox was thought to be pretty good when he was drafted. I think he still could be, just hasn't been given the proper chance. I wouldn't mind trying him at backup PF if we could swing it.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Blake, Dixon, Smith and the possible McCarty ARE scrubs, and nothing more in my view.
> 
> I'll continue to hope they were brought in as easy to punish PRACTICE PLAYERS and hope to God they never see time in a real game.


Dixon a scrub? You must not watch much of the NBA. Effective role players dont = scrubs. A scrub is a guy like R.Frahm.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Dixon a scrub? You must not watch much of the NBA. Effective role players dont = scrubs. A scrub is a guy like R.Frahm.


Frahm could be a role player, we never got much of a chance to see. He's supposed to be good at the role of shooter. We know one thing for sure, his role shouldn't include throwing inbounds passes.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

gambitnut said:


> Frahm could be a role player, we never got much of a chance to see. He's supposed to be good at the role of shooter. We know one thing for sure, his role shouldn't include throwing inbounds passes.


Frahm only plays a couple of minutes per game, thats not a role player. Thats a guy who keeps the bench warm.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

If he were given a slightly bigger role, Frahm could probably do quite well for himself. Maybe not 'Dale Ellis' well, perhaps 'Walter McCarty' well.


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

Good deal. Jarret Jack will not see the floor much so it's good that they brought in a competent pg who really can challenge Telfair or tutor him if the case may be.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

SheedSoNasty said:


> If he were given a slightly bigger role, Frahm could probably do quite well for himself. Maybe not 'Dale Ellis' well, perhaps 'Walter McCarty' well.


Ya, maybe if he had help from the guy in your avatar, Captain Planet. 
The fact that Frahm has yet to sign a new deal with an NBA team proves to me that other GM's dont think he has what it takes to get it done in the NBA.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Dixon a scrub? You must not watch much of the NBA. Effective role players dont = scrubs. A scrub is a guy like R.Frahm.


Frahm can shoot.

Dixon can't.

Simple as that.

I'll take Frahm over Dixon 8 days a week.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Frahm can shoot.
> 
> Dixon can't.
> 
> ...


:laugh:


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Frahm can shoot.
> 
> Dixon can't.
> 
> ...


I have to admit, I laughed out loud at that too.

I'd take Gill over Frahm. And I mean Eddie, not Kendall.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Given all the guard losses Washington has absorbed this year, my money is on Washington matching the Blazers offer, making all this discussion moot.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

IMO, this is just another example of Nash's incompetence. WTH do we need Steve Blake for ??? The single biggest need the team has is *backup power forward!* So what's Nash do?...he goes and signs a 3rd string point guard! He has done nothing to address the backup power forward position. This team is woefully undermanned in the frontcourt.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Given all the guard losses Washington has absorbed this year, my money is on Washington matching the Blazers offer, making all this discussion moot.


I pretty much agree. The Oregonian article today said that because they got Antonio Daniels and Chucky Atkins, they wouldn't match the offer. On the other hand, they lost Hughes and Dixon. I could see it going either way, depending on exactly how much we offered Blake.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

tlong said:


> IMO, this is just another example of Nash's incompetence. WTH do we need Steve Blake for ??? The single biggest need the team has is *backup power forward!* So what's Nash do?...he goes and signs a 3rd string point guard! He has done nothing to address the backup power forward position. This team is woefully undermanned in the frontcourt.


I agree with you and I think Nash agrees with you.....but apparantly Nate doesn't agree with us....



> "We have been wrestling with whether to add a 15th player, and at what position," Nash said. "But Nate said he is comfortable that he can get backup 'four' (playing time) with what we have."


Oregonlive.com


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Washington also has Jarvis Hayes and Caron Butler. So they're not that bad off 1-3. 

As far as the Blazers pre-trading Clyde, them choking in the playoffs, but also wiping out the entire team - not bringing back Porter, not bringing back Kersey. Just letting these long time vets leave. Yeah I know they were basically done as players, but as a kid and seeing these moves didn't show me anything about team loyalty. I dunno, but at least the team IS moving in the right direction, though slowly.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Gilbert Arenas, Chucky Atkins, Antonio Daniels and Jarvis Hayes, plus Caron Butler actually played the 2 for LA last year...I think they are fine at the Guard positions.

Guards lost
Hughes, Dixon, Blake

Guards added
Daniels, Atkins, Butler

Their Fine IMO


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Since its obvious we plan on running an up tempo offense, I don't think a back up PF is all that necessary. Theo can back up both the PF and C, and if we are runnin' and gunnin', Ruben should be effective too.


----------



## dcfan (Jul 29, 2005)

Rumor here is that the Zards are not going to match Blake's offer, so I don't know what the Blazers are doing. Dixon and Blake work extremely well together on the basketball court, as they did at maryland and with the zards, so that tells me that the blazers have an idea to use the two of them. They are especially good in uptempo pressure d situations. Blake is a good set up man, but sometimes he gets criticized for not shooting enough. But, to comepensate for not shooting enough he will hoist them up. You guys are set with Juan. You got a steal with him. He can start or come off the bench. He is the type of player that does not really care, just as long as he gets minutes. I'm saying all this because I think that the blazers may not be happy with the other guards and forwards, and they feel that having these two together can make things happen. I don't know if it will work, but it might. Dixon and Blake are highly competitive and do not care about other player abilities, sizes, skills, or reputations. When they first met at Maryland, they got into a scuffle..but soon became good friends. What I'm saying is if you guys get Blake and since you already have Dixon, you got two dudes who just don't give a **** against anyone they play against. They also have decent skill as well. Blake is a solid back up point, (he is by no means a two guard) and he can sub in as a starter for a bit too. Dixon can start or be a spark off the bench. Also, I have read some older posts, you guys will get enough scoring don't wory about breaking 80 points. You guys will be in the mid 90's. Dixon can easily average between 15-23 pts, starting and 10-15 pts off the bench. So, the question is can he play on the ball D. Yes, and he defends bigger players well as well. He has a natural urge to go for the steal though, but he is usually successful. So, to sum up, I think you guys got both players. And the Zards are on their way back to mediocrity.

Peace.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Thanks for the input, dcfan. It's always nice to get some different perspectives.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I think this is actually a good signing. Like someone said, Jack probably isn't going to be totally ready at the beginning of the season, maybe not in game shape so maybe he will see some NBDL time to get back in shape. The depth chart at PG will most likely be going Telfair/Blake/Jack and Blake getting a good 15-20mpg. I'm starting to think that if Smith doesn't show a whole lot then he will be waived since he is only on a one year deal. Or if he deserves some PT, then I can see Monia going down to the NBDL.

C-Joel/Theo/Ha*
PF-Zach/Viktor
SF-Miles/Outlaw/Patterson
SG-Dixon/Smith/Webster/Monia*
PG-Telfair/Blake/Jack*

*=Possibly NBDL bound

I think it was actually better too sign Blake then to go after a backup PF. Now either Viktor and/or Patterson will be backing up the 4 so now, that clears out the glut at SF. Now the only logjam we have is at SG where we have two solutions, Waive Smith or send down Monia.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

HA is not going down to the NBDL there will be no one near his size to go agianst and improve his game, only in the nba will he be able to find what he needs.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

dcfan said:


> Rumor here is that the Zards are not going to match Blake's offer, so I don't know what the Blazers are doing. Dixon and Blake work extremely well together on the basketball court, as they did at maryland and with the zards, so that tells me that the blazers have an idea to use the two of them. They are especially good in uptempo pressure d situations. Blake is a good set up man, but sometimes he gets criticized for not shooting enough. But, to comepensate for not shooting enough he will hoist them up. You guys are set with Juan. You got a steal with him. He can start or come off the bench. He is the type of player that does not really care, just as long as he gets minutes. I'm saying all this because I think that the blazers may not be happy with the other guards and forwards, and they feel that having these two together can make things happen. I don't know if it will work, but it might. Dixon and Blake are highly competitive and do not care about other player abilities, sizes, skills, or reputations. When they first met at Maryland, they got into a scuffle..but soon became good friends. What I'm saying is if you guys get Blake and since you already have Dixon, you got two dudes who just don't give a **** against anyone they play against. They also have decent skill as well. Blake is a solid back up point, (he is by no means a two guard) and he can sub in as a starter for a bit too. Dixon can start or be a spark off the bench. Also, I have read some older posts, you guys will get enough scoring don't wory about breaking 80 points. You guys will be in the mid 90's. Dixon can easily average between 15-23 pts, starting and 10-15 pts off the bench. So, the question is can he play on the ball D. Yes, and he defends bigger players well as well. He has a natural urge to go for the steal though, but he is usually successful. So, to sum up, I think you guys got both players. And the Zards are on their way back to mediocrity.
> 
> Peace.


Our paper said today that the Wizards wouldn't match, so the rumor is the same over there? Have you heard any rumors on that end as to what the offer was?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I dont get why people are mad we signed a young, possibly improving PG with a nice 3 point shot over a old, declining, never-was PF with a bad 3 point shot but who shoots them anyways. 

Given the PF options avaliable, I think it makes more sence to sign Blake and use Patterson, Khryapa and Ratliff as the backup PF's.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I agree ThatBlazerGuy.

The backup PF spot is a weakness for Portland, but there arn't any better options then our 10th man. Plus the Blazers are going to suck so much the emphasis should be on developing the team instead of picking up an extra win or two.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

*Trail Blazers Sign Steve Blake*



> The Trail Blazers have signed restricted free agent Point Guard Steve Blake to an offer sheet.


http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/Trail_Blazers_Sign_Steve_Blake-151261-41.html


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

*Re: Trail Blazers Sign Steve Blake*

The Washington Wizards have until September 28 to match. This has a feeling of Trenton Hassell all over again. Why did the Blazers jump the gun and post this on their cover page! Please John Nash, don't bring in Steve Blake until after September 28! Don't do the press conference! Haven't you learned your lesson Nash!


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

dcfan said:


> Rumor here is that the Zards are not going to match Blake's offer...So, to sum up, I think you guys got both players. And the Zards are on their way back to mediocrity.Peace.


Any chance you'll be changing your moniker to 'dcblazersfan'? :smilewink There's still time to get in on the ground floor of this new building.

Thanks for posting. :cheers:


----------

