Yes it fucking is! FYI, Steve Blake is less than a year younger. Is he old? That was a historically bad season for him. I'm sure he sees that as shameful. It's still probably better than Steve Blake's best. Ooh, clever use of words (ex-lawyer). I notice you said guard prospect, not point guard prospect. I might even agree with your statement. But if you added "point" I certainly wouldn't. A pox on your house, sir!
Last year Billups looked old and tired in the playoffs, after his big new contract. In fact, he was already seen as too old when Dumars gave him the contract, and there were grumblings that it was just his reward for past services and the Pistons should just have let him go in free agency. Both are smart, articulate and have broad interests outside of basketball. Better now? Andre Miller sucked as a Clipper and they offloaded him quickly. What a bum! Being a Clipper sucks at your very soul. Your limbs become heavy and listless. All joy seeps out of your game. Free Baron! ...but still younger than any of the 3 FA PGs (Kidd, Bibby, Miller) OR Billups, and only 10 months older than Steve Blake. And remember, the plan is to draft the PG of the future at the same time, so Baron wouldn't have to last forever. That's a worry. But he's said he's committed to getting in good shape next year, and if he did, that would help a lot. Joel was injury-prone until he lost weight. Shaq was much better this year than last because of the weight he lost.
This is a great statement. My only difference here is that I think with Nate and his BS offensive system, andother player might be more effective here.
He's certainly not young. I don't think a player goes from young to old without an in-between state. Blake sucks. If we could swap in Baron Davis for Steve Blake right now, on the same contract and without giving up value? Heck, yes. I'd take the chance. But, alas, that would not be the deal. Even if the Clippers gave him away to us, he would be on the books for years at a very high salary. I'm not afraid of spending Paul Allen's money, but I think that the more extended contract length could cause the worst case from a year or two of explosive badness to years and years of franchise-poisoning badness. Definitely, it's unclear whether Bayless will ever evolve into a quality point guard. I have little doubt, though, that he's going to be a very effective guard, and I think that as long as he can DEFEND point guards, he'll fit in just fine with the Blazers. Ed O.
I agree. To be the best version of the team we are, we should have a PG who can create, set-up and distribute so that LaMarcus and Greg are important parts of the offense too. We shouldn't think only of a good match with Roy when thinking of guards.
I don't agree at all. I don't know why you think this. Billups had an awesome season 07-08 for the Pistons and the team won 59 games. He was their best player - BY FAR. In fact, he carried that team more than he ever had. In the playoffs, where they advanced to the Eastern Conference Finals, losing the the eventual champs, the Boston Celtics (drats that sucky Billups for not crushing such a crap team), Billups wasn't up to his regular season standards. His PER was "only" 21 instead of the 23.6 for the regular season. And yet - even though he wasn't as good as during that regular season - he still was the best playoff performer for his team. Maybe it was Billup's teammates who were "old and tired". Anybody who said that had no clue. His contract was fair. He wasn't too old. His game was still tight. Just because somebody says something doesn't mean it has truth to it. I would love to see a quote from somebody with a good reputation saying that Dumars was dumb for extending Billups.
Yold. We agree on something, at least. Actually, Blake doesn't suck at a lot of good things. He just sucks at penetrating and is either excessively cautious or just doesn't see the floor very well. What difference does the contract make? Are you thinking that the Blazers are going to be big players in the 2010 free agency? Who are they going to sign? No contract is untradeable. Except possibly Eddie Curry's. "Explosive"? "Poisoning"? Your "badness" sounds like diarrhea. What's the poison? I don't get it. Even that is unclear: Damn those stumpy arms!
Depends what "this" is. If "this" is Billups looking bad against the Celtics, then let me give you one clear example. Hey, I don't think you're wrong. I'm just saying that "wholesale changes were needed" (as Dumars said) and Billups had just signed a big contract while he was north of 30. Not against Boston. Now, it turns out he was injured, but he didn't use that as an excuse. I agree. Of course, hindsight is helpful, isn't it. Remember "Clyde the Slide"? That was before his trade to the Rockets. Well, duh. That was, in fact, my point.
I don't have a problem with POR acquiring an older PG....I don't think we know what type of player Bayless will be yet...and he deserves to get some minutes to develop IMO.... However...trading for a guy like Baron Davis, who IS creeping up in age and more importantly has a horrible contract and an increasing list of injuries is a bad idea IMO....POR could go after Andre Miller or Mike Bibby for example as a 2-4 year stopgap until Bayless (or another PG) is ready to supplant them...it makes the team better now and possibly better for the future and signing either player as a FA would cost POR far less than acquring Davis.... I agree that Davis' best playing days are behind him..... Unless there is a young PG in this draft that POR really likes or a young guy like Ramon Sessions...who could be available as a FA...then that is really POR only option....There just isn't any upper tier PG on the market...maybe I am wrong, I would be happy to be so, but I haven't heard of any teams with young rising PG or "star" qaulity PG looking to trade them.....
