Like STOMP pointed out, I'm being critical of Blake's defense. He's been an excellent 3-point threat all season, that's great. But consider this. Porous PG defense is going to keep Oden on the bench a lot more with foul trouble during his first years of development. I'd much rather see a defensive-minded guard in the game cutting back on the number of drives into the lane and hopefully seeing Greg spend more time developing on the court.
good defense helps team chemistry and bad defense hurts it. A team chemistry PG isn't all about Defense or 3 point shooting or Assist to TO's, it's about all of those things and more. Who the hell is arguing for...."someone that is slightly better on defense and costs the team more?" I can speculate why Blake resigned with Portland too... I'm going to go with him taking the richest contract/best opportunity he was offered. He had a poor season in Milwaukee and Denver, and Portland lacked a clear starter at point. The contract he signed was not cheap considering supply and demand. he's been a decent starter for Portland, better then I'd hoped, but he's hardly someone they couldn't find an upgrade for STOMP
Blake was just plain awful for the Bucks - it just wasn't a good match. Like I stated earlier, some players just don't do well with certain teams. However, Blake played fantastic for Denver and did a pretty good job as a starter for them in the playoffs, where they lost to eventual champion Spurs. Blake left when Denver signed Atkins (which also happened when he was with the Wizards, ironically). Denver wanted to resign Blake, but IIRC Blake's agent was asking for the MLE and Denver was already over the luxury tax threshold. Denver was not going to pay him that much, which I agree was high for his level of play and experience; but, that's what agents do. I believe Blake and Prichard kept in contact during his 1 year stint in Milw/Den and we all know how Nate feels about him, so you can probably figure out the rest.
I agree with all this but the bolded word. 8.3 points in 33 minutes with his D is not fantastic. He was a poor fit beside Iverson as neither had a chance guarding a decent SG. Denver probably wanted him back as they did play better after they traded for him, but probably because of the lux tax and the limited upside of a Iverson - Blake backcourt, they wanted him on the cheap... at best they offered about what Portland did. If you were Steve, who would you rather start beside, a rookie of the year SG or a very undersized 2 that forces you to guard guys much bigger then you nightly? That he reportedly hadn't sold his PDX home probably made the decision that much easier. STOMP
I am in no hurry to "dump" Blake. As a designated shooter who plays relatively mistake free, he is well suited to coming off the bench. Against 2nd stringers, his defense will be less of a liability. That said, he is NOT suited to be the starting PG on a play-off team. While he is unselfish, he is neither creative nor adaptable. (with him on the floor, the Blazers will never be able to score easy baskets in transition) We need a vet PG to serve as a bridge until Bayless (or his replacement) is ready to start.
I think PG is the least set position on the roster, but that doesn't mean I just want to cut bait on the best guy the club currently has. The reason we've discussed potentially dumping Blake is to create enough cap room to add a better vet in Andre Miller. he's a bit risky at his age (he'll be 33 next year) and he's not the outside threat SB is by a long shot (ooh, I made a pun!), but dude has only missed 5 games in his 10 year NBA career and he is much more athletic and skilled as a distributer. I'm not set on him as the offseason target, but he's certainly intriguing STOMP
