You have to give up something to get something. I like Bayless' talent plenty, but I would absolutely give him up if he were the price for Sessions. I don't think Sessions' ceiling is significantly lower than Bayless', but his floor is MUCH higher, since he's already above average. I'd be very happy about Sessions as Portland's long-term starter with Blake as the steady backup.
Do you think Nate would start Sessions over Blake? Nate has a crazy mancrush on Blake that is virtually inexplicable. Why we didn't spend a tad more time developing one of our younger guys has always been a mystery to me. I suppose if Milwaukee demanded Bayless you would have to consider it. I just can't stand the idea of Nate playing Blake over Sessions and I think that is, sadly, a real possibility.
I don't think McMillan has a "mancrush" on Blake. I think he has a mancrush on steady, mistake-free play. I don't think Sessions makes a lot of mistakes and he's pretty consistent. I think McMillan would like Sessions just fine, but I can't speak for him. Ultimately, Pritchard has to assemble the best roster he can and, if he doesn't believe McMillan is committed to using that talent properly, it falls to Pritchard to replace him. But I don't see any irrationality in how McMillan has used Blake so far. Sergio is maddeningly inconsistent and Bayless wasn't ready for big minutes on a 50+ win team.
Doesn't it seem like you have to develop the PG of the future though? I mean when exactly were they going to attempt to develop one of them? Maybe in 2011/2012 when we are making a title run we should plug in a new young PG? McMillan maddens me with his unwillingness to develop younger players and punish them for mistakes. I would watch him bench Oden or Batum for the half or even the game and yet Travis could hoist up weak shot after weak shot. Blake could fumble away yet ANOTHER fast break opportunity and we would instead get a contested shot. These mistakes came in bunches (much like Jarrett Jack) and yet those two continued to play heavy minutes. I honestly feel that McMillan has overly harsh attitudes towards some players and a long leash attitude towards others. Yes, it may eventually fall to KP to replace him if Nate can't get it together. I know our record improved year in and year out but I don't want 20 consecutive years of playoff appearances, I'd rather have one year that we get the ring and then suck (ala' 77) then 20 years of playoff appearances. If we don't develop our young talent now, then when? It will be even harder to develop the talent this year if we are going for a DEEP playoff push let alone 2010/11.
It seemed to me that the organization was giving Rodriguez his final chance to show development last season. He played the lion's share of the backup point guard minutes. He failed to show any real progress and so has been shipped off. If no deals for point guards happen, I assume that Blake will go into the season as the starter and Bayless will be developed off the bench. It seems reasonable to me. Bayless was so scattershot last year that it would be inviting disaster to look at him as a possible starter this year. Blake isn't great, but he's also not terrible. He provides some stability as long as his role is just to bring the ball up the floor, hand off to Roy and spot up for open shots. It would be nice to have a point guard who can do more...neither Rodriguez nor Bayless were that point guard last year. Sessions would be, but I don't know how available he is.
Someone put together a pretty huge contract offer for Sessions in a different thread. It started out small but then got huge in the 3rd 4th and 5th years. We ought to go offer Sessions that if we aren't involved in a Boozer related trade (a likely scenario). I know Milwaukee cleared alot of cap space, but they also have a number of new PG's they've signed including Jennings who is looking pretty good right now. I stand by that if we offer enough to Sessions, and then a fair trade offer that Milwaukee would do a sign and trade with us.
Since the poll question asked "who do we target next" and not who should we target next I picked stand pat, because I think that out of the remaining choices listed in this poll, I suspect KP has little to no interest. My personal choice would be Sessions, but I strongly suspect Milwaukee is poised to match all reasonable offers (anything that averages 7 million dollars or less per season over the life of the contract -- and Sessions isn't worth more than that at this point of his career). I expect what you see is what you get until the trade deadline and even then I'm not exactly confident anything is going to happen.
we heard this same criticism (not from you necessarily) about Nate with JJack. Yet when management brought in a PG who was just a bit better (Blake), Jack quickly was shifted to backup. To me Nate seems to play his best players and currently Steve is his best point. STOMP
I'm getting to the point where I feel standing pat and waiting for something to break may be the best option. I think our biggest need is at PG and it doesn't seem anyone who is really outstanding at defense and either distribution or scoring is available. I had thought our best plan might have been to try to get someone in the draft capable of becoming that (Ty Lawson, Brandon Jennings or others). That would be a backup program in case we can't find the guy we want, by trade, within the next year. That didn't happen so that makes the situation more urgent but I think we have to be patient. I think it's probable the economy will not improve significantly in the next year and maybe somehow a Devin Harris, Deron Williams, or Chris Paul will become available. Or maybe one of the guys drafted this year will blossom quickly for a team that may have a couple choices at pg (Minnesota, Milwaukee) and we can make a trade. Maybe Webster will show he's got something and become an asset in a trade.
