The return of Blake...what does it mean?

but ...

 

I don't know, what do you think, was Raef worth every last cent of his contract?

Give me a break. That was one of the biggest waste of Paul Allens cash, ever.

 

Ahh look, they're out again!

The same people who said "I don't mind Blake,as long as he comes off the bench" are now calling him a total waste when he comes off the bench for a mere 7 minutes after suffering through weeks of pneumonia.

Fabulous.

 

How was it wasted? Andre Miller is a waste? What could come from a Miller-deal is a waste? Sounds like you had too high of expectations for RLEC. It's a business and it takes two to tango. Just because we have the asset doesn't mean we should use it if it doesn't make sense for both the present and the future.

 

I said I wouldn't mind Blake if he sat on the bench, STFU and never played a minute unless it was some sort of dire injury/foul situation.

 

he looked bad...perhaps the team should have waited another week or so before they threw him in there?

 

Nate has already admitted he could very well have trouble with playing time in very near future in this article http://www.columbian.com/weblogs/bl...s-mcmillan-said-questions-about-roles-and-mi/.

Having Blake and Rudy come back to the team will be a test of Nate's ability to distribute minutes and handle his players.

If the past is any indecation, he is going to have a real tough go of it.

 

Our roster is so out of whack right now. A ton of decent guards and nothing of real worth in our front line beyond Aldridge.

We really, really need to make a consolidation move soon for a 4/5. Even in the unlikely event Oden and Przybilla come back next year at 100%, we could still use a quality backup 4.

 

Steve Blake brings the intangibles - professionalism, high BB IQ, plays well with everyone (including Miller), works well with coaches, makes good passes and can throw the ball long-range, very good at finding other shooters, selfless player in a league of selfish players, excellent 3pt shooter, and will make sure the coach's wishes are carried out according to plan.

That said, I agree that either Miller or Blake has to go. Blake's presence alone is a "threat" to Miller. What we've seen is Miller / Webs playing 1st & 3rd qtrs, with Blake / Bayless playing 2nd, 4th, AND crunch time. For the most part, Blake & Bayless have done a decent job. However, this is clearly driving Miller bananas and he will not likely put up with it much longer. I'm going to presume that, assuming Roy wants the ball in crunch time, that Blake with be with him - and he should. After all, if Miller does NOT have the ball, what is the point of him being on the court? Blake makes more sense, since he can shoot IF Roy defers to him. And Blake has hit some timely 3s in the 4th.

Now, if the team is willing to do a major paradigm shift and let Miller (not Roy) have the ball in crunch time, then you don't need Blake. In order for this to happen, you have to trade Blake to "force" Roy to accept that he cannot run the show near the end. That would be a very difficult argument to win if Blake is available.

Either way, neither is the long-term PG and I do not believe we have actually seen who that is yet.

Definitely a tough call, but clearly Miller or Blake must go.

 

This miller cannot play w/o the ball stuff is overhyped bullshit. Sure he's better with the ball (because he's a PG), but he cuts off the ball and posts up 100X better than Blake and gets a lot of sneaker tips for offensive rebounds too.

 

Isn't posting up playing "with the ball?"

 

Yes, but does he rock a Traeger?