A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
Just one man’s opinion:
• Seems strange to me that the Trail Blazers would want to extend coach Nate McMillan’s contract right now, with two years remaining on it. Now, I realize there is no salary cap on coaches, and Paul Allen is wealthy enough to just pay someone off if he wants to fire that person, but still . . . a lot can happen in the next two years that could change the front office’s opinion of who should be running this team.
What if, for example, Brandon Roy or Greg Oden suddenly decides he doesn’t, for some reason, want to play for McMillan? I know, it sounds wacky, but these things happen in sports. If it does, you aren’t going to dump the player, you’re going to dump the coach.
What if the team simply underperforms? Expectations will be high, you know. If the Blazers don’t make the playoffs even once in the next two seasons, are you going to want McMillan back?
• Speaking of high expectations, the team is going to be in a common sports dilemma moving forward. The marketing side of the operation is going to want to pump up the potential of the Blazers all it can – hey, good times are ahead. At the same time, the basketball side is going to want to keep a lid on those high expectations.
My opinion? Hey, the Blazers were a .500 team last year without Greg Oden, Rudy Fernandez and Jerryd Bayless. If those guys are any good at all – and everyone seems to believe, at least, that Oden is going to be a superstar, it is not unrealistic to think Portland could win 48 to 50 games and be in the middle of a playoff hunt. Certainly another 41-41 season would be a big disappointment.
• What’s up with the Seattle Mariners? There are two prevalent rumors about their future: The first is that former majority owner Hiroshi Yamauchi, who has already sold his personal share in the team’s ownership to Nintendo of America but is still on the team’s board of directors, will be bowing out of any role with the Mariners.
That may or may not affect the other persistent rumor, which is that former Mets and Rangers manager Bobby Valentine already has been tabbed to be the Mariners’ manager next season. Valentine is managing in Japan, with the Chiba Lotte Marines.
Having Valentine around would certainly liven things up. That’s a pretty boring franchise they’ve got going right now
• Back to the Blazers. Sometimes we talk so much about the roster and get excited about new players and draftees. The young stars of the team – Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge and perhaps Fernandez – will continue to improve as they gather experience. One of the other young players is likely to turn out to be pretty talented, too.
But here’s the deal: It’s all about Oden. It always has been all about Oden. He’s the guy. He’s the No. 1 pick and the reason everyone is predicting great things for the franchise. If he’s the big-time player he appears to be and if he stays healthy, he’s going to take the Blazers to places they haven’t been for a long time.
All potential means is that you haven't done anything yet. This year's team has three significant additions, and if they don't make progress, someone has to take the fall. Fifty wins and a playoff spot is the cut line, fair or not. The Blazers created these expectations with flashes of competence and last season's banner newspaper ads, and now they have to live up to them. The GM wants to save his job, so the coach usually takes the immediate blame, and should, if a group with this much depth and talent doesn't succeed.
In Jim Bouton's second book he wrote a funny story about a soccer team in a remote part of the world. When the team went badly they fired the witch doctor. If the Blazers don't make the first round this year they will need to form a search committee for a new witch doctor.
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:32 AM
I agree that Oden is the engine that will drive the franchise to greatness, but I believe it will be Roy that steers the car.
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:37 AM
Good article Jaynes. This wasn't Nates 1st successful year though, I believe they (Blazer management) are already convinced that Nate is their long term man, even is the rest of the world still needs daily proof.
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:48 AM
This is a pretty garbage article Jaynes. I mean what are you really talking about that people don't already know?
"Nate is a good coach but we don't know if he's a great coach" - Duh. If every GM went after the sure fire coach they would all be getting assistants to coach there teams until Popovich decided to leave San Antonio. Not gonna happen.
"If the Blazers don't win more games than last year it will be a disappointment." - Okay. That is a SHOCKER!
"Seattle sucks." - Hmmm, really? What brought you to that conclusion?
"The rest of the Blazers are good, but its all about Oden." - No! Really? C'mon Jaynes! If you don't have anything to write about that will actually provoke...what is the word? AH! Thinking or maybe discussion than why don't you pull out one of your old editorials from the Oregonian. When people actually thought you were relevant.
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:38 AM
.......getting ripped on by a Terrell Owens fan! That's really gotta hurt.....what's that saying about making all the right enemies?
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM
TO is for Travis Outlaw. I should expect that from a person who doesn't know jack about the Blazers. No wonder you enjoy reading his columns. Your ignorance frightens me.
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 02:08 PM
Why not extend the contract? If the Blazers do well and Nate gets some interest from other teams, then we'll have him locked up for a few more years before he can jet. If things go bad for him and the Blazers cut him short before his contract expires, King Allen will buy out his contract with money he has hidden in his Mom's room.
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 02:40 PM
Toisthetruth -
Remember, you wanted the blazers to pick Adam Morrison.
It's probably a good idea to keep quiet about who is ignorant.
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 02:45 PM
A few mornings ago the Big "O" reported that Nate refused a contract extension. Why are you bringing up old news now?
Jimmy
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 08:34 PM
the whole point of giving an early extension is to make it clear to the young 'uns that they need to get along with nate, because he's going to be there, and he has the support of mgmt.
(email verified)
Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:13 AM
"Toisthetruth -
Remember, you wanted the blazers to pick Adam Morrison.
It's probably a good idea to keep quiet about who is ignorant."
HAHAHHAHA that made my day. He should be hiding under a rock after that comment.
(email verified)
Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 02:45 AM
Editorial response:
Editor's note: Dwight was about the only person in town saying the Blazers should NOT draft Adam Morrison. Read this Janyes column before the draft. This wasn't the first time, either, that he expressed serious concerns about Morrison being the best pick for the Blazers:
I realize Adam Morrison is the apple of just about everyone’s eye in Portland. I don’t mind being a naysayer, quite obviously, and it’s time someone threw a wet blanket on this raging fire of support.
To wit:
• While I think it’s admirable that Morrison is willing to show up and work out against anybody else in the draft, I think it’s dangerous to draw a lot of conclusions from those workouts.
Problem is, he’s still not working out against proven NBA players. If he plays well against Rudy Gay or Rodney Carney, that may mean he’s a better player than those guys. But face it, it’s not like you’re watching him play against Shawn Marion or any other small forward in the NBA. He may be working out against players who will never be starters in the league. Just don’t get too carried away with the results.
• At the NBA pre-draft camp, they weigh and measure all draft candidates. Morrison’s height without shoes was 6-6 1/2, which is very short for a small forward. Now I realize they don’t play games barefoot, but Morrison is not very athletic to begin with, and to find out he’s undersized, too, is a bit alarming.
And don’t talk about him trying to play shooting guard. He couldn’t possibly hope to guard those guys.
• Yes, I know he’s very smart and supercompetitive. So are you. But you can’t play in the NBA. It’s great to be competitive – but you better have the talent, too. That comes first. Is he as physically gifted as Michael Dunleavy, a guy who hasn’t exactly been an all-star? We know he’s not in the class of Carmelo Anthony and Tracy McGrady.
• There are people who say you shouldn’t criticize the man for crying at the end of Gonzaga’s NCAA tournament run. Hey, I’ve seen plenty of athletes cry after losing games and find it refreshing that they cared enough about the outcome to cry.
But Morrison was different. He was a blubbering mess on the court while his team still had a chance to win the game. In fact, the Bulldogs got off a last shot that should have been taken by Morrison, had he not been emotionally wasted.
• Morrison told the media Thursday in Portland that perhaps if he hadn’t been scoring 30 points a game last season, he would have played better defense.
OK, I will accept that. And I’ll assume that this season if you don’t score 30 points a game, you will then be a pretty good defensive player.
• By the way, I’m not so worried about his defense. If he can score, he’ll be a serviceable player. What worries me is that his lack of foot speed, leaping ability and quickness will make it difficult for him to get off a shot against NBA players with length and quickness.
• I’d also worry about his apparent inability to rebound.
• Perhaps the craziest notion of all about Morrison is that he’ll be a ticket seller. I don’t know where that comes from, but the fact is, very few NBA players put fannies in seats. LeBron, Kobe, D-Wade, Shaq – very few others. Morrison or not, the Blazers are going to have to start winning some games before the fans flock back into the Rose Garden.
I might add that what would really be disastrous is if they draft him, he sells thousands of season tickets and then proves not talented enough to play consistent minutes. That would even further alienate fans.
And it would be a coach’s nightmare.
dwightjaynes@portlandtribune.com
Well said... I too was surprised the Blazers were looking to extend him this early. IMO it would have been a bad move. This will be the first year where Nate will need to 'prove' something. The Blazers have lofty expectations in the locker room, front office and from the fan base for the 08-09 season. The Blazers now have the talent to accomplish something, but it will take some good coaching to get this many new players and this many young guys playing playoff basketball. Further, Nate has 2 years left on his rather large contract... it is odd that Pritchard even broached the issue. While it seems very apparent that most in the organization like what Nate brings to the team, I have read in many places that there are conflicting opinions among management on whether Nate is the coach the Blazers need in the future.
Anyway, situations like these allow fans to speculate more than necessary. This season will be a very entertaining one.
(email verified)
Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 07:04 AM
Just like Paul Allen kept a horrible coach around in Maurice Cheeks because he liked the guy, and he gave his Brother-in-Law the contract for running the Rose Garden blowing out the extremely competent Global Spectrum, and just like any other business run by Paul Allen that has tanked itself whenever he got too involved in the major decision-making processes, the desire to extend Nate McMillians contract has Paul Allen written all over that.
Kevin Pritchard has way too much basketball knowledge and sports management acument to paint himself into a corner by offering to extend Nate's contract with still two years left on it. I also firmly believe that Kevin Pritchard doesn't believe Nate McMillian is the guy who can win a Championship for them. He proved that last year in the handling of the Steve Blake/Jarrett Jack situation. (How come there were no suitors this off-season for Blake, but there were plenty for Jack? Answer: Because Jack is far and away the better player which McMillian refused to recognize because of his anal-rententiveness for wanting to control the situation on the court. That's not Championship basketball. Championship basketball forces the situation onto the opponent and you can see with Pritchard's draft picks that he understands that completely.) Bottom line is, thank God McMillian over-valued his worth and understood his admiration by Paul Brown and refused to extend his contract. I'm certain that Kevin Pritchard couldn't have been more relieved to hear that. P.S. If you haven't noticed, Kevin Pritchard gets what he wants, if he truly wanted to extend Nate's contract, it would have gotten done. It didn't get done.
(email verified)
Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 02:30 PM
Maybe the Blazers are recognizing that the Sonics treated Nate pretty bad and want him happy here.
(email verified)
Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Mike Benner-
-"Because Jack is far and away the better player which McMillian refused to recognize because of his anal-rententiveness for wanting to control the situation on the court" (your comments that Jack is "better" than Blake) *retentiveness correct spelling
If you watched any blazer basketball over the last couple of years I don't think you would be saying this. More TO's, less APG, and a lack of floor vision for a NBA 1 guard says everything about Jack. Did I mention the big CONSISTENCY factor? We'll see how he does coming off of the Pacer bench (with other 1 guard options).
-"P.S. If you haven't noticed, Kevin Pritchard gets what he wants..."
If Jack were the better of the two 1 guards and your statement above holds true, which I believe it does, then KP would have found a way to trade Blake. The fact is, Blake is back for the second time in a Blazer uniform and getting min. (unlike Dickau) because he can run the floor well (i.e. rising interest after Denver play), he will be perfect coming off the bench, KP hated seeing him go, and Jack could not get it done in the year Blake was absent.
The one point I do agree with is McMillian's "anal-rententiveness" (*retentiveness)...though that seems to be changing as he get's older, a great example of this was his less hands on approach in the winning streak we had winter of last season.
(email verified)
Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 01:11 PM
Nate hasn't had a winning season. The Fire Sales are over and the next two will determine if he deserves or wants an extension. Nuff said.
(email verified)
Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 04:34 PM
First, let me say that it was late when I was typing and thus the misspelling. On Nate's "letting go" before the winning streak, and thus, "the winning streak", that kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it. He needs to do more of that. I did notice that you ignored the facts that nobody wants Steve Blake, and numerous teams wanted Jack. We could not have gotten Bayless if we offered Indiana Blake. Their response would have been, "Are you kidding me?". On Jack's TO's. All of the leaders in the NBA in the Turnover Department are all the best players in the NBA. That's because they "make things happen". When you "make things happen", as Jarrett Jack does, you get to free throw line, get the other team in foul trouble, draw two, three, and four players towards you opening up easier shots for your teammates (wide open shots, which Blake is simply unable to create for his teammates), and you also create turnovers. That's the formula for winning basketball. You have to accept the turnovers along with the offensive opportunities that style of play creates. Steve Blake's style of play does not create any offesive opportunities. As a season ticket holder, I see every game from a very good view. Jarrett Jack stepped up his game to another level beginning with that 16 of 17 game win stretch. He was a real force for the Blazers. Did you know that Steve Blake averages less than 2 trips to the foul line for every 3 games that he plays. You have to intentionally try to not put pressure on the other team to accomplish that. That's the exact opposite of what you want from a point guard. That's why they got Jared Bayless. He shot 28 of 29 free throws against the Twin Towers of Stanford last season. He's a Jarrett Jack clone, but with more talent at both getting to the basket, and he will turn the ball over less. Don't get hung up on the turnover. It's not necessarily a bad stat. It means that the player is creating opportunities for other players. Bayless and Roy will lead the team in turnovers because of their ability to drive and create. Look forward to the decreased minutes that Steve Blake will receive. He will not be a TrailBlazer after this season. He's too passive.
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 08:12 PM
JD, I have to add a little laughter to this. I know you're talking about the "Jarrett Jack" moments, some silly pass that makes you shake your head. The worst part about Jack wasn't that, but the fact that he couldn't use his left hand on a layup. I've never seen that in my entire life of watching the NBA since 1970. A guard that can't do a layup with his left hand? He still got himself to the free throw line though, got opponents in foul trouble and created easier shots for his teammates, all things that Blake could not do. Blake, like Jack, could not finish a layup, but Jack could if he was going to his right. On Bayless one more time...he's 5 years younger than Jack and he'll become as strong as Jack is, who was the strongest Blazer last year pound for pound. He's very tough. Bayless is very tough, and Bayless also shoots the College three very well which will translate into shooting an NBA three very well when he gets into his third year. Don't expect him to shoot much more than 30% this year, but do expect Bayless to average 6 free-throw attempts per game (and 10 per game the next season), which is 5+ more than Blake. With Bayless and Fernandez taking away Guard minutes, and possibly Koponen, too, then Blake's minutes will have to go down to the teens this season. McMillan's just got to "let them play". Enjoy the season.
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 08:28 PM
The team that has the easier shots is going to win any game. There's no easier shot than the Free Throw. A team consisting of Bayless, Roy, and Koponen running the likes of Oden, Aldridge, Outlaw, Webster and Frye is going to get to the Free Throw line 35+ times every game. But, give Blake 22-25 of those minutes and those exact same players are going to only get to the line 20 time a game max (on average). Those 15+ fewer free throw attempts are going to generate 15 fewer wins on the season. That's how much of a liability Steve Blake is. Kevin Pritchard knows this whether Nate does or not, and the addition of Fernandez and Bayless (and possibly Koponen after the impressive Summer League he's having) will force Nate to play Blake less often. And that's a very good thing. Sorry, Blake. You're a nice guy, but I want the Blazers to win.
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Benner -
You need not try and tell me the ways, and stats of The Blaze Show. I've been here the entire way of the recent digression, and now to the new growth. I do also realize what Bayless is, as I watch summer league (watching him now), NCAA BBall, and obviously PAC-10 everything.
Talk about laughable, we all know Bayless is a huge upgrade from Jack, and that Blake’s min. will diminish. That’s a waste of key strokes on your part.
On Blake: You have to realize, you miss a large dynamic when you negate the fact that Jack does not fit with what Pritchard and Co. want to do with this team. Blake just fits better in the role we want to fill: veteran point guard, runs the point well, but defers 95% of the time, and has vision on the floor enough to not make the mistakes Jack will.
Benner I watched nearly every game last year, so with this said, I saw the obvious inconsistencies of Jack’s play; even Webster. Jack and Webster both got min. to play, develop further – and agreeing with you – did get better, but were both the most inconsistent developing young players we had. Blake is more accountable with possessions, and on a more consistent basis. Blake is not flashy or even very aggressive, Blake is not an All-Star, BUT he fits the blaze better than Jack would ever. And he also proved last year he will be a threat behind the line, making the loss of James Jones not as painful. Blake will move from the starting rotation to the bench with ease, and in doing so will fortify our future championship bench. He is that piece.
It is the time for Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Bayless and Co. to take it to the West; with Kopenen, Fernandez adding, and our now beefed up bench (Blake and Thrilla), our potential is huge. Leave the risk taking and primary shot selections to Roy, Dridge, and Oden, not a Jarret Jack. And fortunately or unfortunately for Jack this is the role that fits him best, a scoring one guard, and not one that will distribute well or intelligently on the NBA level. Blake can naturally run a NBA offense, with a good Apg/TO ratio and that is what we need from a caliber of player such as a Blake or a Jack.
Food for thought....eat up.
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:06 PM
You’re sadly missing the point Benner. Your point was why Jack is better than Blake. This is the idiotic point that I commented on.
You now are yakking to me about Roy and the new guards; I know about them, that's not new news. Though, if you are running a team and have two "frosh" NBA guards coming in, and Sergio is not living up to potential just yet, that just leaves you with Roy, so we NEED Blake. Jack just wasted space for new talent. PLEASE STICK TO THE TOPIC of your original anus remarks that Jack is better than Blake.
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Great forum on Jack this past April from Blazers Edge. Good words in there for Benner, like consistency, stability, turnovers, ceiling, etc.
More food Benner....eat up
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/4/23/459871/player-by-player-jarrett-j
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Great forum this last April form Blazers Edge.
Good words in there for Benner, such as consistency, stability, ceiling, etc.
More food Benner....eat up
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/4/23/459871/player-by-player-jarrett-j
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:21 PM
We've both seen the same games but disagree on the value placed on the benefit that each player gives to the team. Yours seems to be all about turnovers, the fewer the better. Mine is all about creating easier shots for your teammates and team and putting pressure on the opponent by taking getting them to commit fouls.
My question to you is, "How can Steve Blake be a positive contributor for the team when the only time he passes the ball to a teammate is when a defender is draped covering him closely? All of Blakes' assists come only when a fellow Blazer is able to make a "guarded" 16-foot jumper. So, the only way Blake can get an assist is if his teammate is "hot". Blake has zero effect towards improving the shot-selection of a teammate. That's completely the opposite of players like Roy, Jack, and Bayless, who all do the same thing to give their teammate's easier shots to take. When Jack drives the middle and draws 2 and 3 players towars him, his teammate doesn't have to be "hot" to score because he'll be taking a wide-open shot from 12-feet and in instead of contested 16-foot shot that Blake's teammates attempt.
You want your 2nd team provide a spark, and Blake will never be associated with the term "Sparky". He's the anti-spark. Fortunately, 2008-2009 is the last time we'll see him in a Trailblazers uniform.
Thanks for the back-and-forth on Blake/Jack. It's too bad there wasn't any interest in Blake in the off-season because he would have been gone, but without any inquiries, we're stuck with him for one more year.
(email verified)
Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM
You said that Blake fits what Pritchard wants in a Point Guard that leads the 2nd Unit. "On Blake: You have to realize, you miss a large dynamic when you negate the fact that Jack does not fit with what Pritchard and Co. want to do with this team. Blake just fits better in the role we want to fill: veteran point guard, runs the point well, but defers 95% of the time, and has vision on the floor enough to not make the mistakes Jack will."
I said before that Blake is not what Pritchard wants and that Pritchard would have preferred to keep Jack running the 2nd Unit. Unfortunately, there was no way to obtain Bayless without giving up Jack, so Jack was gone.
Here's a quote from yesterday with Pritchard describing exactly what he wants and likes in players that handle the ball a lot on the team: "What I like about him is the same thing with Jerryd (Bayless): They are not scared," Pritchard said after the summer league opener. "They play aggressive, I like that. (Koponen) feels like a gamer."
Steve Blake, on the other hand, does play scared. He plays scared defensively (he goes around picks rather than under them or through them), he doesn't attempt to rebound the ball because he's afraid of getting bumped or bruised, and he plays scared offensively, as he can't even get to the free throw line two times per 3-game stretch. He's the opposite of aggresiveness, and as Pritchard said, "He doesn't like that".
(email verified)
Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:12 PM
You have to understand Blake fills a role that is temporary, as you have pointed out, but this role while temporary is a very important one, and worn well by Blake. Blake gives our team the stability it will need at the one, and a chance for our young talent to mature and grow further. Jack is to much of a liability and could not bring the BALANCE we need. Period. So to YOUR QUESTION "My question to you is, "How can Steve Blake be a positive contributor for the team... "
Answer: You have already conceded to stats, but furthermore, and more importantly so, just doing the above; holding down the balance of young, mistake-prone guards coming in this year, who will be the aggressors and fearless risk takers by the nature of their game. Jack WOULD NOT create a balance to that role of the aggressor, as he has that style of game too, that is not balance, that is redundancy. I have used key words in our inexhaustible conversation to help you understand the true point. That in this finite period of time Blake is a great supporting cast member for OUR team, and fills a role that is needed AT THIS TIME.
So finally, the (lost) point isn't I side more with a certain style of play Benner, it is about filling a need, and a role. I'm sure a lot of GM's could tell you that one. You're wasting my time.
_______________________________________________________
Great forum this past April on Blazers Edge.
Good words for Benner like consistency, stability, ceiling, etc.
More food Benner……eat up....make sure to eat it all
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/4/23/459871/player-by-player-jarrett-j
(email verified)
Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Browse archive
Sports columns
The Portland Tribune
Sports feed
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Our Portland website design and marketing company created custom websites for these top providers of Portland pest control services, Portland cleaning services and Portland florists.
Search engine marketing, website templates, portland web design and website promotion by Webfu // 503.381.5553
New down and fleece north face jackets. The largest selection of North Face Jackets available online. Free shipping on orders over $40.00
See the latest styles of ski jackets and backpacks from The North Face.
Become a Naturopathic Doctor. Developing future leaders in health care. Named by The Princeton Review as one of the best med schools in the country. Bastyr University.
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: It's too soon to extend McMillan's contract
Hi! I know this is just another opinion but I really like Nate and hope he stays.There seems to be a click between him and the players.He's demanding and is a teacher which is good for such a young team.
"Z"
(email verified)
Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 01:31 AM