Nate has been asking for a couple for years now. I'm not saying a vet role player would put us over the edge or anything, but would that make it easier for the other guys to learn if at least two of the guys on the court have more experience you know? Does development accentuate with more vets around? Or is it just a question of complimentary presences with a more consistent mediocre return guy balancing out a couple of very up and down players. I think that having a vet or two in rotation players would help a lot just in calming the guys down, having one less young guy chomping at the bit, and making our defensive rotations and offensive patience much better. This team has incredible flashes where it all comes together but is thrown off so easy and very inconsistent not in how well we play but in how we play. Often times the blazer forget entire components of the game and don't do the basics because they're rattled. This kind of makes things exciting because we compete very well at times but still have a ton of room to improve also and are still kind of "underdogs". Being at the Phoenix game was great but that win came because we outworked, outwilled, and got lucky on some shots. If we're not on our game, we simply don't know how to get the easy buckets and execute (they did and stayed in it as a result), and if our defense breaks...it really breaks. With this in mind, at what point do you bring in some vets to help w/o sacrificing too much of your youth core. While I would strongly be in favor of bringing in Nash to help with easy buckets (for something like Blake/Bayless/Frye) that's not what I'm talking about here. I mean just vet role players who could steady our guys? The guys I'm thinking of who could fit well would be Kurt Thomas and Desmond Mason. Both are high quality character guys, guys who don't look for their own shots, and smart defenders, and neither are used to big minutes. We could definetely use a strong backup 4 to help steady the team when Sergio and Rudy are out there and keep us from getting too frazzled, and the 3 is still our most inconsistent position thus far. There were rumors that SA was interested in Frye as a compliment to Duncan before the season, would you pull the trigger on Frye for Thomas? He has this season and the next left on his contract and is a smart player who can nail the mid-range J plus has tons of playoff experience. Many think losing Thomas is really what did the suns in, as he allowed them to run AND play defense (with Marion on the best perimeter guy and him on the best interior guy much of games). Mason lives in Portland in the off-season and works out with a lot of our guys in the open gyms already, plus he's played for Nate before. He's not an offensive dynamo by any means, but he is consistently getting easy buckets, going hard at the rim, and playing great heady defense. He's also an emotional leader and tireless worker in the weight-room etc. I'm not sure what we could give OKC that would fit their team (as Outlaw kind of duplicates a weak version of Durant), plus I don't think I'd do that straight up (considering Mase's age and expiring contract)...but if we could grab Ibaka too (a very high potential prospect playing in ACB I'd be very interested. (KP was rumored to be after him already in the last draft). What about (off the top of my head) a three way with Outlaw and Collison going to Memphis (giving them some more shooting), Warrick and Darko going to OKC (some size heading their way and a big), and Mason and Ibaka coming to Portland? We'd sit at... Blake/Sergio/Bayless Roy/Rudy Webster/Mason/Batum Aldridge/Thomas/Diogu/Randolph Oden/Pryzbilla with prospects: Freeland, Ibaka, Koponen (all high potential guys) I kind of trust that team more than the one we have now. I guess the real question is would having some steady vets around the guys we end up keeping (we can't keep all of them) accelerate their development? Just the general knowledge around the team and lack of confused players on the court? It would definitely give Nate one less excuse.
We're 5th in the West, young and learning fast, with "veteran leadership" in Joel, Roy and Blake. Why muck it up with some newbie who everyone knows will be phased out in the future anyway? Sacrificing the future for the present, and something KP has wisely fought against so far.
the question is who is the "future"...it's certainly not all the young guys we have now. How do you develop the "future" best? Is it throwing all young guys out there (excluding Pryz and Blake who still don't have a ton of experience in big games at all) and seeing what sticks? Or is it with the infusion of some glue guys to direct them on the floor a little more and cover their lapses while they learn? I'm not talking "leadership", I'm talking on the court confusion and composure.
I don't buy the vet theory. If vets add anything, Nate should be able to add the same thing - he, after all, has lots of game experience and isn't so old. Vets out on the floor - well, I guess if you had one at every position - otherwise, the rookies are going to make the same mistakes. I just don't accept the calming influence hypothesis. barfo
When I talk about wanting a veteran player, I'm talking about a acquiring a guy that knows how to score and play smart defense. Roy is the clear leader on this squad, but he needs help from another consistent scorer.
