Blake or Sergio?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Sergio or Blake?

  • Get rid of Blake (keep Sergio)

    Votes: 9 17.0%

  • Get rid of Sergio (keep Blake)

    Votes: 31 58.5%

  • Get rid of both and start from scratch!

    Votes: 13 24.5%
  • Total voters
    53
Rastapopoulos

Rastapopoulos

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
42,519
Likes
26,908
Points
113
Suppose, for whatever reason, we have to get rid of one of Blake or Sergio and keep the other. Which one would you get rid of?
 
Sergio is a poor fit, he wants out (or at least wants a change of role) and he's not exactly the most efficient or effective player (PER of 12). Blake has the skillset of a great backup for a good team, he had a great year (relative to his career), but he's not going to get it done as a starter moving forward. I'd be OK with putting him on the trade block if it meant bringing in a bonafide starter.

My vote is for trading them both, but of course it would depend on what was coming back (If you bring in an older player like Miller then I'd trade Blake, if you are bringing a younger player like Sessions or trading for Conley then I'd keep him ... meaning Bayless gets moved).
 
I say get rid of both, but only if we can get a veteran better than Blake in return (eg. Kirk Hinrich, Andre Miller). And try to develop Bayless more.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
I say get rid of both, but only if we can get a veteran better than Blake in return (eg. Kirk Hinrich, Andre Miller). And try to develop Bayless more.
Click to expand...



+1

Obviously you couldn't just dump both and hope and pray someone else works out. But I'm with this dude.
 
Keeping Blake is the better short-term answer, but he should have much more value around the league than sergio. If we're getting an average-to-good PG, then we can have Bayless or Sergio as the backup without too much regression.

Send Blake away.
 
Think about it: if you lose Sergio, nothing much changes. Maybe Blake plays even more minutes than at present. But if you get rid of Blake, his minutes go to Rudy, Sergio and Bayless. Wouldn't you rather see that? Is there really anyone who wouldn't?
 
It depends on why we have to get rid of one of them.

If it's to make room for Bayless then move Sergio. If it's because you brought in an established #1 PG then get rid of Blake
 
??? Why are you linking to iWatas's most embarrassing post of the past (explaining why we absolutely should not draft Chris Paul because we have Telfair)?
 
IDK, i was looking at it and decided it was an awesome post. Its talking about passing and how you can't learn it, and that if a PG has it then you should keep him and teach him how to do everything else rather than the other way around... that was his arguement for Telfair (and Sergio) > Chris Paul. Some of those same arguements are made now I suppose.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Think about it: if you lose Sergio, nothing much changes. Maybe Blake plays even more minutes than at present. But if you get rid of Blake, his minutes go to Rudy, Sergio and Bayless. Wouldn't you rather see that? Is there really anyone who wouldn't?
Click to expand...

Blake works exceptionally well with Roy - we won 65% of the time with Blake on the floor - 3rd on the team behind Roy and LMA - so honestly - if you do not get an upgrade at starting PG - Blake has to stay. If we lose Blake and have Rudy/Sergio and Bayless to replace him next year - we are effed big time - maybe not so in 2 years if Bayless makes the big jump we hope he makes - but Sergio is not starting PG in this league, especially not next to a ball dominant SG like Roy and Rudy is a 2, not a 1.
 
andalusian said:
Blake works exceptionally well with Roy - we won 65% of the time with Blake on the floor - 3rd on the team behind Roy and LMA - so honestly - if you do not get an upgrade at starting PG - Blake has to stay. If we lose Blake and have Rudy/Sergio and Bayless to replace him next year - we are effed big time - maybe not so in 2 years if Bayless makes the big jump we hope he makes - but Sergio is not starting PG in this league, especially not next to a ball dominant SG like Roy
Click to expand...

What was our record in games Blake was out? Not too bad, I bet.

And it's not a good thing that Roy is ball-dominant - at least until the last quarter of a tight game. Roy put up exceptional numbers against Houston, but we lost. Roy can certainly play a less ball-dominant role, and I think he should. He's not a great creator for others and he slows the game down (he will not move the ball fast up the court, but he will run fast as a trailer for some reason). Roy can work great as both ball-dominant and off-the-ball. He shouldn't be enabled to follow bad tendencies. Remember that Iverson was allowed to be ball-dominant until Larry Brown came along and moved him off the ball, and Philly took off. They tried making Jordan the PG under Doug Collins - and he put up HUGE stats (averaged a triple-double) - but it hurt the team, so they moved him off the ball again.

Rudy is a 2, not a 1.
Click to expand...

Then he's as good as gone. Will he be happy with the 10-12 mpg Roy isn't playing SG?

You can have good teams with two large, predominantly shooting guards. The Bulls with Harper, the Magic with Nick Anderson and Penny. I don't think it works great full time (unless Phil Jackson is the coach) but it's certainly doable, and certainly for the times of the game when we want Roy to be ball-dominant. Thus, Rudy gets SG all the minutes Roy is off the court and for the entire fourth quarter, when Roy is the PG.

Somebody on Blazer's Edge used the analogy of Linus (Nate) and his security blanket (Blake). We need to take it away so this team can grow up.
 
Last edited:
When Blake hurt his shoulder against Philly intil he came back full time against Memphis a month or so later the team went 10-5
 
andalusian said:
Blake works exceptionally well with Roy - we won 65% of the time with Blake on the floor - 3rd on the team behind Roy and LMA
Click to expand...

Has anyone told you that you might put a little bit too much emphasis on that stat?

In this case, given that Blake played so many of his minutes with both Roy and Aldridge, and those are our two best players, of COURSE he's going to be winning more than most guys, who are playing with just one (or none) of them.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
Has anyone told you that you might put a little bit too much emphasis on that stat?

In this case, given that Blake played so many of his minutes with both Roy and Aldridge, and those are our two best players, of COURSE he's going to be winning more than most guys, who are playing with just one (or none) of them.
Click to expand...

I would have agreed with you if there was anyone in the PG position that was anywhere near as good as him as far as win% - if we had someone running at 50% vs. his 65% - but we did not. We had Sergio at 38% and JB at 31%. When the difference is as big as it is... it is quite clear that we are woefully bad in this category - especially when you figure out that our other main backups (Rudy, Travis, Oden) had much higher win% - our backup PG position was our worst position on the team, by far. We would have been a much better team if we could run Blake 48 MPG.

There are tons of issues with Blake's game - and he would be an acceptable starter but really shine as a backup PG on a good team - but the fact that Blake is not who we really should not have as our starter does not change the fact that this year the other options were much much worse than him.

I will repeat my previous assessment - if we upgrade the starting PG (wither via a trade or the team is really sure JB made the jump this year) - we can let Blake go - but if we have to go through a year with Sergio/JB as they played last year - we are SOL.
 
Last edited:
Rastapopoulos said:
Then he's as good as gone. Will he be happy with the 10-12 mpg Roy isn't playing SG?
Click to expand...

The nice thing about Rudy is that he can play the 1 for short minutes next to Roy - and Roy can play the 3 in a 3 guard rotation next to him - so Rudy can coexist with Roy even if they are both mostly playing the 2 position. It still does not change the fact that if we need someone with a better handle than him to help Roy bring the ball up-court under pressure - so his minutes at the 1 are best kept limited.

This team has a clear hole in it's rotation - we have a (very good) backup PG playing our starter position and we have a raw as hell rookie and a running turn-over machine running our backup. Unfortunately, I am not sure this team can trust that Sergio and JB will make the magical leap next year to allow them to man the position if Blake is shipped. Blake is not the long term solution - but given what we have seen this year - he is crucial next year unless we have an upgrade.
 
andalusian said:
I would have agreed with you if there was anyone in the PG position that was anywhere near as good as him as far as win% - if we had someone running at 50% vs. his 65% - but we did not. We had Sergio at 38% and JB at 31%. When the difference is as big as it is... it is quite clear that we are woefully bad in this category - especially when you figure out that our other main backups (Rudy, Travis, Oden) had much higher win% - our backup PG position was our worst position on the team, by far. We would have been a much better team if we could run Blake 48 MPG.

There are tons of issues with Blake's game - and he would be an acceptable starter but really shine as a backup PG on a good team - but the fact that Blake is not who we really should not have as our starter does not change the fact that this year the other options were much much worse than him.

I will repeat my previous assessment - if we upgrade the starting PG (wither via a trade or the team is really sure JB made the jump this year) - we can let Blake go - but if we have to go through a year with Sergio/JB as they played last year - we are SOL.
Click to expand...



But when Sergio was starting and Bayless backing him up we won 10 out of 15 games. Isn't that like 66%? 66% of 82 games is 54 wins, which is how many we won this season. So during that 15 game stretch with Sergio and Bayless only the team played at the same clip they played the entire season. How would we have been shit outa luck?
 
Mediocre Man said:
But when Sergio was starting and Bayless backing him up we won 10 out of 15 games. Isn't that like 66%? 66% of 82 games is 54 wins, which is how many we won this season. So during that 15 game stretch with Sergio and Bayless only the team played at the same clip they played the entire season. How would we have been shit outa luck?
Click to expand...
IIRC, those were mostly wins against non-competitive teams, with the exception of New Orleans, whereby the Blazers won only because CP3 got hurt and had to leave the game.
 
The pros and cons of Sergio have been discussed ad nauseum around here, so there's little point rehashing what is an increasingly pointless litany. But in short here's the way I see it.

Ten reasons to ditch Sergio:
1. Wants out
2. Wants out
3. Wants out
4. Wants out
5. Wants out
6. Wants out
7. Wants out
8. Wants out
9. Wants out
10. Wants out
:dunno:
 
I think we need a new starting PG, perferably one with experience. If we get a veteran PG and keep Blake as a backup, Bayless stands no chance, even if Sergio is gone, therefore, Blake has to go. We could dump Sergio as well, but I'd like to see if we go back to Seven Seconds Or Roy for a full season and how Sergio goes in that offense, I think he could do well.
 
This is a no brainer IMO. Get rid of Sergio and keep Blake. Blake will be a very good back up PG and a veteran leader that we need. Even if Blake is our starter again next year, he is still solid in that role.
 
BeerBoy said:
Blake will be a very good back up PG
Click to expand...

I can't count (all right, won't) the number of times I've seen this said. And it's just false. Blake has never been a good backup. That's part of the reason we got rid of Jack. Blake is a bad starter or nothing. He just doesn't have the game for coming off the bench. There are a lot of players like that who, for some reason, play a lot better if they start. What do you want a backup for? A change of pace? Okay - you don't want Blake. A quick three or two? Maybe Blake can give you that, but so can Rudy with a lot more. Lockdown defense? Sorry, Blake tries hard, but "lockdown" is not an adjective that should be applied to his defense. He's just kind of "blah". You can only afford "blah" if you have it surrounded by starters and it helps the starters do more, perhaps by being a kind of veteran influence. But I maintain that Blake actually encourages bad tendencies in Brandon by deferring to him too much, and by failing to feed the post adequately.

If we're going to have a non-star starter PG who's not about scoring, I want an Eric Snow-under-Larry-Brown-in-Philly type. Pushed Iverson off the ball and told him firmly that he wasn't getting it EVERY TIME DOWN (Iverson called him, along with Aaron McKie, the best leader(s) he'd ever played with), AND played real lockdown defense. Blake ain't that.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
I can't count (all right, won't) the number of times I've seen this said. And it's just false. Blake has never been a good backup. That's part of the reason we got rid of Jack. Blake is a bad starter or nothing. He just doesn't have the game for coming off the bench. There are a lot of players like that who, for some reason, play a lot better if they start. What do you want a backup for? A change of pace? Okay - you don't want Blake. A quick three or two? Maybe Blake can give you that, but so can Rudy with a lot more. Lockdown defense? Sorry, Blake tries hard, but "lockdown" is not an adjective that should be applied to his defense. He's just kind of "blah". You can only afford "blah" if you have it surrounded by starters and it helps the starters do more, perhaps by being a kind of veteran influence. But I maintain that Blake actually encourages bad tendencies in Brandon by deferring to him too much, and by failing to feed the post adequately.

If we're going to have a non-star starter PG who's not about scoring, I want an Eric Snow-under-Larry-Brown-in-Philly type. Pushed Iverson off the ball and told him firmly that he wasn't getting it EVERY TIME DOWN (Iverson called him, along with Aaron McKie, the best leader(s) he'd ever played with), AND played real lockdown defense. Blake ain't that.
Click to expand...


I think Blake would be a good backup, but not a good backup PG. Blake is a Steve Kerr off the bench 3 pt specialist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top